NPAPSP Protected Areas Analysis Consortium:

1
NPAPSP Protected Areas AnalysisConsortium
Lead consultant Jan Meerman
2
NPAPSP Protected Area Analysis

• There exist a total of 94 protected areas in
  Belize (including archaeological reserves and
  accepted private reserves).
• Several of these reserves, particularly in the
  Marine realm have gazetted management zonation.
  When these zones are taking into account the
  number of management units increases to 115.
• Many of these protected areas are really areas
  for the management of extractive resources
  (Forest Reserves and Marine Reserves)

Acres Hectares
Land 5,467,840 2,212,760
Territorial Sea 4,609,230 1,865,300
Exclusive Economic Zone 3,968,190 1,605,880
Total National Territory 14,045,260 5,683,940
3
NPAPSP Protected Area Analysis

• The amount of the national territory under some
  form of conservation management is 26 .

Acres Hectares
Land 5,467,840 2,212,760
Territorial Sea 4,609,230 1,865,300
Exclusive Economic Zone 3,968,190 1,605,880
Total National Territory 14,045,260 5,683,940
4
NPAPSP Protected Area Analysis

• For the terrestrial part the area under
  conservation is 36 . Within the terrestrial
  protected areas, the extractive reserves form the
  largest component.

The marine realm, compared with the terrestrial
realm is largely un-protected. Only 14 is
protected and the largest part of that again as
extractive reserves.
5
NPAPSP Protected Area Analysis

• To make a first analysis of this existing system
  of protected areas, a Site scoring system
  including key Protected Areas Systems
  characteristics was developed (see separate pfd
  file). Incorporated characteristics include those
  of ecological, cultural, social, resource
  conservation, and economic value including
  environmental services
• The various consortium members conducted the
  scoring exercise for the 94 protected areas
  identified here. The prioritization of the
  Protected Areas system in this way provides a
  credible way to prioritize resource allocation,
  both human and financial.

• The site scoring system provided three different
  types of output
• Scoring based on biophysical criteria
• Scoring based on management and land use criteria
• Scoring based on the combination of biophysical,
  management and land use criteria

6
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisSite Scoring System

• Top 10 protected areas according to a ranking
  system incorporating Biophysical as well as
  Management and Land use criteria gives the
  following results
• Aguacaliente Wildlife Sanctuary,
• Bacalar Chico Marine Reserve,
• Community Baboon Sanctuary,
• Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary,
• Glovers Reef Marine Reserve,
• Halfmoon Caye Natural Monument,
• Hol Chan Marine Reserve,
• Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area,
• Shipstern Nature Reserve and
• Runaway Creek Private Reserve.
• Note that there are 4 Private Protected Areas in
  this top category!

7
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisGap Analysis
A Gap Analysis tries to identify gaps in an
existing system. In a protected areas gap
analysis, this would translate to the question
which conservation features (species,
ecosystems, features or other) are not met within
the existing protected areas system. An
ecosystem is the complex of living organisms,
their physical environment, and all their
interrelationships in a particular unit of space.
Since vegetation patterns are at the base of the
biological environment. Vegetation patterns have
been chosen as proxy for ecosystems. And since
actual distribution patterns and data for
specific species are scarce and generally
incomplete, ecosystems were been taken as a proxy
for biodiversity patterns.
8
Setting of conservation targets

• Underlying thought is that a minimum area is
  required for each habitat/ecosystem. The IUCN
  recommends a minimum of 10 under protection for
  each habitat. Theoretically, this would enable
  the survival of 70 of the extant species. The
  ecoregional planning initiative used a minimum of
  30 which would allow the survival of gt 80 of
  the species

9
Setting of conservation targets
10
Setting of conservation targets

• The 10 - 30 targets are too arbitrary. There
  are certain ecosystems that would require more
  protection than just 10-30. For example, a very
  rare ecosystem occurring only on 5 locations with
  a combined cover of 2000 acres is not served with
  10 or even 30 protection. For such ecosystems,
  the target should be much higher, even 100.
  Also, there are ecosystems that provide vital
  environmental services these too need a higher
  target. Some ecosystems are not suitable for any
  type of development and by default are best
  preserved. Consequently they can be identified as
  conservation targets. Other important functions
  could also lead to a higher target setting.
  Throughout a minimum target setting of 20 and a
  maximum setting of 95 was maintained.

11
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisGap Analysis
Criteria

• Slope Areas with steep slopes are unsuitable for
  development and have high erosion risks.
• Rarity Ecosystems with coverage of lt 5,000 acres
  were considered rare.
• Environmental Services In some cases these are
  particularly pronounced. Example Coastal fringe
  mangroves and Riverine mangroves (erosion
  control, nurseries).
• Timber Some forest types are more important for
  timber production than others.
• Fisheries Ecosystems particularly important for
  fisheries are covered here.
• Endemic species Belize is not particularly rich
  in endemic species. However there seem to be 2
  ecosystems that harbor the bulk of the endemic
  species (Steep Karts hills and Savannas)
• Last of the wild Large contiguous areas of more
  or less intact habitat.
• Low agricultural value Areas with very low
  agricultural value are less suitable for
  agricultural development.
• Wetlands Wetlands are considered important
  locations for biodiversity and water control.

12
(No Transcript)
13
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisGap Analysis
Location of currently under-represented ecosystems
14
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisMARXAN planning
tool

• While the site scoring system evaluates the
  existing protected areas system, there is the
  need for an analysis of management priorities.
• Priorities can be based on a multitude of
  targets.
• With the large variety of conservation targets
  there is a need to use a Conservation Planning
  Optimization Tool.

• 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.

15
Marxan analysis Human footprint
Before continuing with the Marxan analysis
itself, an analysis needed to be made of a human
needs or human footprint. Conservation planning
needs to look at the human footprint on the
landscape. Essentially, the question needs to be
asked which are the areas where human needs come
first. Example Human footprint by Hugo Ramos
(WCS)
16
Calculation of footprint

• Communities
• Lists all the communities in Belize and assigns 5
  km buffers around them. In the case of villages
  nearly entirely dependant on agriculture, a 7km
  buffer was assigned. (Sources CSO Meerman
  Clabaugh, 2004 Biodiversity and Environmental
  Research Data System (BERDS)). Buffer size based
  on some empirical evidence on the readiness of
  people to establish economic activities near
  their place of settlement. Maximum hexagon value
  1000.

17
Calculation of footprint

• Poverty assessment
• Provides a ranking per district based on the
  assumption that poor communities are more
  dependant on natural resources than more affluent
  communities. (source CSO). In the case of
  Belize, the Toledo district has a markedly higher
  poverty index than any of the other districts.
  Maximum hexagon value 1000.

18
Calculation of footprint

• Main Roads
• All the main roads (paved or otherwise) were
  assigned 5km buffers (source Meerman Clabaugh,
  2004 Biodiversity and Environmental Research
  Data System (BERDS)). This again based on the
  readiness of people to establish economic
  activities near main roads. This 5 km buffer
  probably too wide in narrow valleys, such as
  locally along the Hummingbird highway. Maximum
  hexagon value 1000.

19
Calculation of footprint

• Other Roads
• All other roads were assigned 2 km buffers
  (source Meerman Clabaugh, 2004 Biodiversity
  and Environmental Research Data System (BERDS)).
  Buffer size arbitrary but in relation to the
  buffer size of the main roads. Maximum hexagon
  value 1000.

20
Calculation of footprint

• Tracks
• Smaller tracks and trails were assigned 500m
  buffers (forest trails left out especially in
  areas where these trails serve management
  purposes) (source Meerman Clabaugh, 2004
  Biodiversity and Environmental Research Data
  System (BERDS)). Buffer size arbitrary but in
  relation to the buffer size of the main roads.
  Maximum hexagon value 1000.

21
Calculation of footprint

• Agriculture
• Existing Agriculture and aquaculture in all its
  forms based on the 2005 ecosystems map (Meerman,
  2005). Maximum hexagon value 1000.

22
Calculation of footprint

• Good soil
• Identified as polygons larger than 1000 acres
  with agricultural land value class 1 and 2 based
  on King et al 1992. Not all this good soil is
  currently occupied but this layer is important
  since it indicates the potential for upcoming
  pressure. Maximum hexagon value 1000.

23
Calculation of footprint

• Fire Risk
• Based on the assumption that wildfires present a
  risk for biodiversity conservation. Takes into
  account only high risk classes 10 -18 highest
  risk. (source Meerman Clabaugh, 2004
  Biodiversity and Environmental Research Data
  System (BERDS)). Fire risk is a threat but some
  ecosystems in Belize are the result of centuries
  of human induced fires and as such fire is a
  difficult factor in calculating the human
  footprint. The value of fire risk is therefore
  smaller than for the other footprints (Maximum
  hexagon value 100)

24
Calculation of footprint

• Coastal developments
• Various Coastal Developments (based on 19 Oct
  2004 Marine Risk Assessment Workshop). Maximum
  hexagon value 1000.

25
Calculation of footprint

• Boating lanes
• Skiff and boating lanes. Adapted from State of
  the Coastal Zone Report 1995. Map 4. Maximum
  hexagon value 1000.

26
Calculation of footprint

• Incursions
• For the terrestrial realm based on the 2004
  ecosystems map (Meerman, 2005) for agricultural
  incursions from the Guatemalan sided and assigned
  a 4 km buffer. Other incursions such as hunting
  and xate harvesting were not mapped since they
  also occur away from the border at the hands of
  Belizeans and are difficult to quantify. Also
  includes actual penetration of Guatemalan and
  Honduran fishermen on the marine side based on 19
  Oct 2004 Marine Risk Assessment Workshop. Maximum
  hexagon value 1000.

27
Calculation of footprint

• Trawling
• Shrimp trawling (based on 19 Oct 2004 Marine Risk
  Assessment Workshop). Maximum hexagon value 1000.

28
Calculation of footprint

• Siltation
• Agricultural runoff in south (based on 19 Oct
  2004 Marine Risk Assessment Workshop). Maximum
  hexagon value 1000.

29
Calculation of footprint

• Coral resilience
• Resilience of Coral Reef to coral bleaching.
  Based on data provided by the consortium (level 2
  3 resilience). This data is not really a cost
  but for practical purposes it has been introduced
  as a negative cost. In this way more resilient
  reefs have more chance of being selected in the
  analysis. Hexagon value always negative with a
  maximum of -1000.

30
Human Footprint
31
MARXAN planning tool

• 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.
• In the case of this analysis a total of 153
  targets were defined.
• Specific goals were set for each of these
• In the case of ecosystems, these are the same as
  used in the gap analysis
• These goals were heavily influenced by their
  environmental services
• Also biodiversity data incorporated.

32
Biodiversity Data
Problem with existing biodiversity data is that
we do not have sufficient spatially specific data
to include them in a spatial analysis such as
Marxan The Example of Jaguar data here clearly
shows how the distribution does not really
reflect the actual distribution as we all know
it. Including such data would skew the analysis
toward the selection of sites of which we have
spatial data. Meanwhile, other areas (which may
be more important) will be left out
33
Biodiversity Data
Similar example of Ocelated Turkey data equally
shows how the distribution does not really
reflect the actual distribution as we all know
it. While incorporation of such data in the
Marxan analysis was not possible, this does not
imply they should be discounted
34
Biodiversity Data
A good example of very important Biodiversity
data that can not be discounted is the measured
difference in the populations of Jaguars Three
research sites gave different population
densities for this species. Ultimately data such
as these need to be included during final PA
planning. Unfortunately, there is very little
data of this quality.
35
Biodiversity data incorporated

• Mostly seabird colonies (which have discrete
  spatial attributes), Marine target species and
  some endemic species (marked with E).
• In general, only biodiversity data were included
  of which sufficient geo-referenced data were
  available.

Birds Agami Boat-billed Heron Bridled Tern Brown
Noddy Brown Pelican Double-cr Cormorant Great
Blue Heron Great Egret Green Heron Keel-billed
Motmot Laughing Gull Least Tern Little Blue
Heron Frigatebird Red-footed Booby Redish
Egret Roseate Spoonbill Roseate Tern Sandwich
Tern Snowy Egret Sooty Tern Tricolored
Heron White Ibis American Woodstork Yellow-cr
Night Heron Jabiru Scarlet Macaw Waders/ducks
important wetlands
Mammals Manatee Reptiles Loggerhead
Turtle Hawksbill Green Turtle Crocodylus
acutus Phyllodactylus insularis
(E) Amphibians Rana juliani (E) Fish Spawning
sites (Lutjanidae, Serranidae) Invertebrates Epig
omphus maya (E) Erpetogomphus leptophis
(E) Citheracanthus meermani (E) Conch nursery
sites Flora Ceratozamia robusta Zamia
variegata Zamia sp nov1 (E) Zamia sp nov2
(E) Aristolochia belizensis (E) Passiflora
urbaniana (E) Passiflora lancetillensis
36
Setting of other conservation targets

• other features were taken into consideration

401 Biological Corridor (primary)
402 Biological Corridor (secondary)
403 Biological Corridor (cross-boundary)
410 Caves
411 Geological features (Waterfalls, Sinkholes, Natural Arch etc.
412 Historical features (Maya sites, colonial sites)
415 Low land value based on King et al.
420 Suggested for protection under the SDA scheme
421 Identified for protection by ESTAP
37
Results
Marxan Analysis Results Locked option
38
Results
Marxan Analysis Results Seeded option
39
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• There is no single way of looking at a protected
  areas system for Belize.
• Multiple considerations are to be taken into
  account
• Multiple ways exist to do that
• All of them need to be incorporated in a final
  implementation phase
• This analysis is a tool to be used in the final
  implementation phase

40
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• While Belize considers itself as having an
  extensive Protected Areas System, the reality is
  that most of that is for the management of
  resource use and extraction. With the current
  needs and expectations of the nation of Belize,
  such a classification of Management rather than
  Conservation per se, is probably a more
  realistic one. A revised Protected Areas System
  should focus on a management of its territory
  based on its attributes.
• Using the results of the current analysis, it
  will be possible to re-designate areas for
  improved management. This management can be for
  Extractive uses, areas important for economic
  species, Tourism, Watershed, Soil, Historical
  Sites, Special Features etc. etc.

41
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• Re-designing the Protected Areas System should
  lead to a merging of current protected areas
  reducing the current number of 115 management
  units. In many cases they could be lumped.
  Examples are marine reserves where Spawning
  Aggregations overlap with other marine reserve
  categories, or the Maya Mountain Block which
  should be made into one Protected Area with
  different management zonations based on actual
  attributes rather than on ancient boundaries.
• The current 115 management units are managed by
  three departments with a totally different
  outlook but also with considerably overlap and
  gray areas. This inefficiency would best be
  resolved by creating one single agency
  responsible for all areas of natural resource
  management.

42
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• The analysis shows many gaps outside currently
  existing protected areas. It will not be possible
  or even desirable to transfer all these lands
  into some protected area category. Many of the
  identified gaps have current uses and most of
  them will be on private land. Creating management
  regimes, in conjunction with private landowners
  where needed, may in many cases be sufficient.
  The Belize Association of Private Protected Areas
  could potentially fill an important role in
  relieving GOB of some of the conservation
  burden.
• Currently some of the top protected areas are
  Privately Managed Reserves. This illustrates the
  important role of Private Protected Areas
  Management. This role can be expanded in order to
  fill the gaps identified during this analysis.

43
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• There appears to exist a need for community
  managed conservation areas (Community Baboon
  Sanctuary, Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary,
  Mayflower National Park, Rio Blanco National Park
  etc.). The main desire of these communities is to
  have an area of their own which they can
  exploit for tourism and recreation or even
  resource extraction. Principal concern seems to
  be that many communities feel the need to save
  certain areas from the ravages of development. In
  essence, many of the existing or prospective
  private protected areas come forth out the same
  perceived need. Aguacate Lagoon near Spanish
  Lookout is a good example in this aspect. Many of
  these current and future initiatives may not be
  within areas currently identified priority areas.
  Nevertheless, such initiatives still need
  encouragement and support, but some new
  management category may need to be created to
  accommodate such initiatives.

44
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• Biological Corridors can be identified in the
  MARXAN analysis. Many are also very weak as shown
  in the analysis. Largely these potential
  biological corridors traverse private land.
  Incentives for landowners to maintain these
  corridors are needed. Again, the Belize
  Association of Private Protected Areas could
  potentially assist GOB in this important
  endeavor.
• Some areas that were identified as a true or
  relative priority warrant investigation. Most
  likely, exact data for such area are lacking.
  Simple Rapid Ecological Assessments could
  determine the real importance of such areas. When
  combined with a social assessment, a best
  management regime could be identified as well in
  case the area did warrant some form of
  conservation management.

45
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• The deep water ecosystems of Belize have never
  received any attention, consequently, little is
  known about them and the software could not map
  real areas of high importance. More data is
  clearly needed here. Otherwise there is
  considerable freedom here to position needed
  management areas.

46
NPAPSP Protected Area AnalysisConclusions

• 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.
• Monitoring of biodiversity is still in its
  infancy, yet it will be important for the future
  management of conservation management areas.
  Sometimes monitoring is complex but sometimes it
  can be very simple. The apparent absence of
  monitoring data for bird nesting colonies was
  noted. Yet, this would be a relatively easy task.
  There exist good monitoring mechanisms for the
  marine realm but there is a need for a
  centralized monitoring database in the
  terrestrial realm.

47
NPAPSP Protected Area Analysis

• Next Steps

• These data are to be used as a planning tools in
  the implementation phase.
• Implementation of a rationalized Protected Areas
  System

Download reports http//biological-diversity.inf
o/NPAPSP.htm
48
NPAPSP Protected Areas Analys
End
Lead consultant Jan Meerman