The social impacts of protected areas


A proposal for a web-based learning resource


Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau [1] and Dr. Dan Brockington[2]

IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, Sustainable Livelihood Working Group

Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas (TILCEPA)


DRAFT(April 2004)

First global workshop (World Conservation Congress 20.11.2004; Bangkok)

See Programme

  See Outcomes of WCC


The benefits and administrative costs of conservation are well documented in academic literature and popular media. The advantages of biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, clean air, ecotourism and the preservation of natural and cultural heritage for posterity are widely acknowledged. However potentially adverse social consequences of the creation protected areas are less well known. Protected Areas frequently require the eviction and exclusion of local groups, but do not always compensate for, or properly assess, the costs involved. Since Protected Areas cover more than 10 % of the earth’s land surface, and since more are mooted adequately to protect a representative sample of the world’s ecosystems, assessing the impacts of current costs and establishing a framework for evaluating future costs is an essential task.

This proposal outlines a two stage research project which would meet these needs. The first stage consists of an initial global assessment and sets up frameworks by which the diverse economic, social and cultural consequences of protected areas may be evaluated in their different contexts. Results will disseminated on the web. The second stage will refine and apply these frameworks more thoroughly within particular parts of the world. At the same time it will seek to test and correct the information generated by using web-based interactive tools to canvass diverse opinions on the data displayed.


Introduction: the need for a social impacts assessment

The impact of protected areas on local society and economy has variable but growing recognition. The international conservation community voiced in the Durban Accord the concern “that many costs of protected areas are born locally – particular by poor communities – while the benefits accrue globally” (WPC 2003: 2). The Congress made the commitment, “that protected area management strives to reduce, and in no way exacerbates, poverty” (WPC 2003: 4). [3]

Yet since their inception, protected areas have necessitated the removal of people. Some more recent parks have involved careful compensation arrangements for people moved to make way for conservation. These are not the norm. Evictions frequently occasion expense, hardship and impoverishment. Assessments of biodiversity conservation in the context of poverty alleviation suggest that protected areas did not reduce poverty, but on the contrary increase the poverty of the rural populations (Brockington 2002, Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2003). Compensation for the impoverishment caused by protected areas requires knowledge of know who has been affected and how greatly their lives have changed. Appreciation of the multiple benefits of conservation will be incomplete without a good understanding of the costs involved.

Today there is an ever increasing pressure properly to understand the social dimension of conservation for four reasons:

1.       There is a widespread recognition that protected areas which cause harm or inconvenience to local groups will be threatened by these groups non-cooperation or outright resistance. State authorities and conservation organisations are striving to find ways in which protected areas can provide real benefits to local groups but are handicapped by want of measurement and understanding of the costs involved. This makes it hard to tell whether the benefits offered do provide adequate compensation for the inconvenience conservation can cause. Similarly engagement between conservation authorities and local communities is often handicapped by inadequate grasp of the history of interaction and conflict between the two. This has to be recognised as part of any process of rapprochement. Dealing with conflict between local people and protected areas will require careful and detailed data collection.

2.       Conservation can and should be a powerful tool for wealth creation and poverty reduction. The potential for conservation agendas to empower and enrich local groups is recognised in many quarters. Yet the full impact of these schemes requires a good understanding of their impact on local peoples’ livelihoods and of the opportunity costs incurred by setting aside land for conservation. The local politics and distribution of the positive and negative consequences within communities must also be understood if the contribution of these schemes to the common good can be realised.

3.       The abuses that some groups have suffered as a result of conservation policy have given human rights and cultural survival organisations considerable cause for concern. At the same time it is clear that many of the data they cite and examples they list are contested. There is a profound need for reliable and high quality information to inform this debate.

4.       Despite the gains made for protected areas in recent years there are still biodiversity hotspots and areas of particular habitat which are not adequately protected. National governments and international conservation organisations are seeking to expand the area of conservation estate to meet these needs. To be undertaken properly this will have to involve good assessments of the costs that these moves are likely to incur, and the benefits that they will bring.

But despite these needs, which are strongly present in all parts of the world, the precise nature of the social impacts of protected areas is very rarely well understood. Detailed studies of specific protected areas are the exception, not the rule. More importantly we have no understanding of the social consequences of protected area establishment based on representative sample of protected areas. Current edited collections about the nature of these impacts are not comprehensive, and often only representative of researchers’ interests or expertise, not of protected areas as a whole.

Our understanding therefore suffers both from the lack of concrete data, and from the unsystematic approach adopted to its accumulation. There is very little understanding of how much we know, or any overview country by country, or region by region or for particular ecosystems. This makes it difficult to resolve disputes between those who are denying the existence of costs, or even benefits. This is a branch of research about which there are very few good data and much heated discussion.

This situation suggests four priorities. First there needs to be a careful assessment of the existing research into the local costs and benefits of protected areas. Second, on the basis of this survey, important gaps in our understanding of the consequences in particular regions, or about particular aspects of protected areas need to be identified and addressed. Third, appropriate methodologies for assessing impacts need to be tested.. Fourth, the assessment and new research needs to facilitate an on-going evaluation of the quality of this knowledge.

Our ultimate goal here is to produce a web-based resource that will provide users with access to carefully assessed socio-economic information about the social consequences of specific protected areas. Users keen to test the knowledge will also be able to review current debates about particular costs and benefits. This information will clearly indicate what type of protected areas these data are representative of within each country and how many are not included.

The work will develop in two stages. First an initial survey will produce a ‘first cut’ on the information already available on the basis of separate regional assessments. This will be collated in a meeting of all the researchers involved in the project. The tasks here are:

1.       To examine what data are available about specific protected areas within the different world regions used by the IUCN.

2.       To assess the means and extent to which the impact of displacement on livelihoods can be estimated. In particular here we are concerned with baselines – do they exist, what can be used without them?

3.       To assess the scope and assess of any schemes in place which create wealth for local groups living close to particular protected areas.

4.       To indicate the extent of ignorance – lack of data – about displacement and local wealth creation for protected areas in general within these regions

This element of the research will necessarily be based primarily on existing work and sources with some limited funds to generate new knowledge.

The second stage of the proposal will set about meeting the gaps identified in the first stage. We will seek to fill the gaps revealed by the survey through consultation with specific regional experts and new research programmes. The emphasis here will be on generating new high quality information that is based on careful participatory research, surveys, historical records and interviews. We will also seek to review and update existing information using similar criteria. The data available on the website will be regularly reviewed and updated as new findings become apparent, and comments invited from the sites users. This will not function simply as a web-based discussion board. Unedited comments will not be posted, rather the web site will function in a manner analogous to an academic journal. Periodically a standing committee of experts (editorial board) will consider new material for inclusion on the site which has been previously anonymously peer-reviewed.



This survey is concerned primarily with the currently undocumented advantages and disadvantages rural groups derive from protected areas. Its primary concern will therefore be to examine the impact of protected areas on small-scale local users where detailed social impact assessments have not been carried out. This will be most applicable in poorer parts of the world where there are predominantly rural populations whose livelihoods are more likely to be strongly affected by the establishment of protected areas, and where governments are weaker or poorer and so public enquiries into such impacts may be correspondingly less thorough. It does not, however, exclude richer parts of the world where those affected by protected areas are relatively poor compared to the rest of the country and are often politically marginal.

There are some social impacts, and some protected areas, which will fall beyond its remit. For example, where careful public enquires are required before the designation of protected area status is agreed, no new research or assessments are proposed here. Instead the web-site will simply summarise the main findings and state where these existing assessments can be obtained from.

Further, this survey will not include the costs of protected areas to large-scale high impact uses such as mining, road building, large-scale agriculture or construction. This is partly because these uses do not tend be driven by local groups (although there are cases where they are locally owned and run), and partly because the survey is concerned with undocumented costs, and these large-scale uses often have powerful and vocal advocates adept at highlighting the opportunity costs of refusing development.

This position may change as the research develops. As our understanding of impacts and benefits improves it may necessary to incorporate more complicated and larger scale issues into consideration. The utility of this framework will therefore be reviewed at the end of the first stage of the research.


Methodology for assessing consequences

There are two main sets of social impacts with which this survey is concerned. First there are the consequences of displacement from protected areas and subsequent exclusion from them which is likely to have diverse negative impacts. Secondly there are a series of potential local advantages which the establishment of protected areas may bring. Methodologies which integrate both aspects are not well developed and will need to be established and tested by this research.

The first step in this enquiry will be to ask whether or not people have been moved from the areas under investigation.  We will ask of each area studied whether evictions took place or not to establish the Reserve. If they did take place we will consider how complete and effective the moves have been – for some protected areas may be proclaimed clear of people when in fact they are not. If not we will ask whether evictions are pending.

Where evictions have taken place our assessments of costs will follow the logic of the Operational Policies (OP) 4.12 of the World Bank, which is regarded as the best set of formal norms available (Chatty & Colchester 2002), the assessment will cover the “direct economic and social impacts caused by:

(a) the involuntary taking of land resulting in

(i)      relocation or loss of shelter;

(ii)      lost of assets or access to assets; or

(iii)     loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or

(b) the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. Involuntary restriction of access covers restrictions on the use of resources imposed on people living outside the park or protected area, or on those who continue living inside the park or protected area during and after project implementation. In cases where new parks and protected areas are created as part of the project, persons who lose shelter, land, or other assets are covered under para. 3(a). Persons who lose shelter in existing parks and protected areas are also covered under para. 3(a).” (World Bank 2002, 2).

During the early and mid-90s Michael Cernea developed a conceptual model of the risks of impoverishment embedded in the development-induced displacement and resettlement of populations. This model of Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) was first used on a large scale, and with significant findings, in a World Bank analytical study of some 200 of its financed development projects that entailed involuntary displacement (Cernea & Guggenheim 1996; Cernea 1997, 2000). The origin of the IRR model is both empirical and theoretical. Empirically, the model is distilled from the accumulation of research findings by sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, political scientists, environmentalists and others during the last three decades in many countries. Theoretically, it builds upon state-of-the-art work in both resettlement research and poverty-related research.

The IRR models structures the pre-post comparison of the affected peoples’ livelihoods following a set of 8 major impoverishment risks:

1.             Landlessness (expropriation of land assets and loss of access to land)

2.             Joblessness (even when the resettlement creates some temporary jobs)

3.             Homelessness (loss physical houses, family homes and cultural space)

4.             Marginalisation (social, psychological and economic downward mobility)

5.             Food insecurity (malnourishment, etc.)

6.      Increased morbidity and mortality

7.      Loss of access to common property (forests, water, wasteland, cultural sites)

8.            Social disarticulation  (disempowerment, disruption to social institutions)

The IRR model has been tested and applied in numerous large studies, including in the World Commission of Dam’s report (WCD 2001), in an all-India monograph (Mahapatra, 1999) and many other books and studies on population displacement, in numerous resettlement studies in the irrigation and mining sector (Downing, 2002), etc. and is used now operationally by major development agencies (ADB, the World Bank) and in resettlement planning. In national parks, a first systematic study of indigenous population displacement under the lens of the IRR model was carried out in 12 protected areas and national parks in 6 Central African countries by Kai Schmidt-Soltau (2003) and underlined the analytical strength of the IRR model. Beside of its analytical advantages, our utilization of the IRR model guaranties the compatibility of our findings with the mainstream policies for involuntary resettlement, since the OP 4.12. of the World Bank, which is considered by all major stakeholders as best practice,  is based on the IRR model.

A significant problem for any assessment of the social impacts of existing parks derives from the fact that in most developing countries no baseline data on the economic and social utilization of the land exists. This uncertainty on the pre-park situation will be tackled by a full array of data collection methods and strategies:

·               Detailed literature reviews of published and unpublished data to find for example old census data (which could be extrapolated), old maps (documenting at least the number and spatial position of settlements), data on similar areas, regional market data (to examine lost trade following eviction), bio-monitoring and forest inventories (to calculate the lost stumpage value), correspondence of relevant governmental departments (to reconstruct the process of displacement from trip reports etc.), etc.

·               Where funds allow detailed interviews with displaced populations (utilizing the snowball sampling method) to establish population lists, land use maps (to identify affected populations and the extent of their land losses), detailed descriptions on the non-monetary social costs (especially risks 4-8 in the IRR model), and assessments of livelihood change based on oral history, local records (or herd or farm sizes for example), and comparison with similar livelihoods in places which have not experienced displacement. This method has been successfully tested in many countries in the context of land restitution.

·               While detailed assessments of the economic value of land exist for most parts of the world and have established and tested sets of quantitative methods, their fluctuations are high. In some areas an assessment of market values of similar lands will be used to assess the social costs experienced by the rural populations. In other areas land is not a market good, so that the costs have to be established via a theoretical assessment of the benefit the area under research would offer, if used for the most economic utilization (lost stumpage value). These cost-assessments will be supported by an evaluation of the costs necessary for acquiring land for that group on which they could practice their livelihoods with similar freedom. It might be true that especially mobile and/or indigenous populations would in a no-park-situation not have the chance to capitalize the land, utilized by them, but even if it is common that the rights of local people are ignored, it does not justify that their losses are not assessed and/or compensated.

·               Assessments of the economic value of land exist for most parts of the world and have established and tested sets of quantitative methods. In many cases it will be necessary to include the market value of lost land as part of the social costs experienced by the rural populations. In other areas land is not a market good, or people did not rely upon, or benefit from the ownership or sale of their land. Here it is not appropriate to include the value of lost land as part of the costs it is however necessary to consider the cost of providing alternative lands where these livelihoods could be enjoyed with equivalent security and benefits.


Assessments of benefits will examine the ways in which local groups may profit from the presence of the protected area.

1.       Jobs and livelihoods.

2.       Security and empowerment

3.       Health

4.       Other values

The key questions to ask with respect to jobs and livelihoods are what new income earning opportunities are afforded by the presence of a protected area, and what elements of people’s livelihoods are sustained and supported by the presence of a protected area? The growth of tourism globally and the need to exploit a country’s comparative advantage with more attractive scenery and wildlife are often one of the main justifications behind the creation of new protected areas. Equally the scale and availability of new income earning opportunities is frequently feared to be insignificant compared to the costs. It is nonetheless important to consider these potential benefits, to consider how many people in what sectors of the economy, are benefiting from the protected area, and whether the evictees share in them. We should expect also that if there have been these benefits then they will have a positive impact on health.

With respect to security and empowerment we have to examine how reliable they are. Do they just provide seasonal labour, and how reliable are the tourists’ numbers? How do they vary according to the vicissitudes of currency prices and global economic performance? Similarly if local groups have access rights to use part of the protected area how secure are these rights? What powers do governments have to deny or restrict these rights?

The final category of benefits is necessary because it has to be recognised that some protected areas provide benefits which are not easily expressed in economic terms. There may be significant local buy-in to the values which endorse the setting aside of natural areas. However unlikely this is it is important to look for it in order that a proper assessment of locally felt costs and benefits be achieved.


A sampling frame for a global assessment

There are over 100,000 protected areas worldwide. If one assumes that an assessment of a single protected area will take on average 30 working days and will cost around US$ 15,000.- (see budget below) a total sample will not be possible due to financial constrains. Even an assessment of the 42,614 protected areas with a surface area of 10 km2 or more - which would cost US$ 630 Million without overheads - is unrealistic. This study will therefore only be able to assess a sample of the protected areas of the world.

We will be selecting protected areas to study from the UN 2003 database of protected areas produced for list by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). This is produced for the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas and was recently substantially updated for the World Parks Congress, which meets once a decade. It lists, by country, all protected areas in the world, with their size, location, year of establishment and IUCN categorisation (which ranges from 1, strict wilderness, to 6, multiple use).

We will structure our sampling in two ways. First the study will set out to examine only the most strongly guarded protected areas, those that fit into category I and II of the IUCN management categories. There are just over 10,000 of these covering nearly 32% of the protected land area. There are three caveats to this procedure. One is that the categorisation of protected areas however has only been unevenly completed across the world. Up to 50% of protected areas in some parts of the world are uncategorized. A second is that some lower categories of protected area still require the eviction and exclusion of people. For example Game Reserves in East Africa in which local residence is not allowed are categorised as IUCN category 4. Finally some theoretically strictly protected areas are not in fact well protected in practice. The first stage of the research will amend the type of protected areas that need to be included by virtue of the people they exclude.

Second, the sample will be structured regionally. The study will cluster the world into regions and sub-regions, the latter following the IUCN groupings, before taking the sample. In total there are 5 regions with 14 sub-regions:     

Region 1: Australisia and Oceania

2 Sub-regions: Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.

Region 2: Americas

4 Sub-regions: North America, Central America, South America and Brazil, Caribbean.

Region 3: Africa and Middle East

3 Sub-regions: East and Southern Africa, North Africa and Middle East, West and Central Africa.

Region 4: Eurasia

2 Sub-regions: Europe, North Eurasia

Region 5: Asia

3 Sub-regions: South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia.

The table below (see end of document) shows number and size of category 1 and II protected areas, and the proportion of land they occupy. To achieve a reliable baseline we will aim to analyse a 2% sample. If the numbers of category 1 and II are indicative of the total number of reserves which exclude rural groups, then this will require investigation of 196 protected areas. This total  will be split evenly across the globe with 14 protected areas taken from each sub-region. This, as Table 1 indicates, will mean that regions with more protected areas will be under-represented relative to those with less protection. Notably North America will be underrepresented and South and East Asia will be over-represented. There are good reasons for this however. This is not just a study of protected areas – but also their social context, particularly in poorer parts of the world. It will therefore be important adequately to sample the poorer and more populous parts of the planet. Furthermore the nature of the social consequences of conservation may well vary region by region according to the modes of government found there. The consequences of conservation policy are generally mitigated or not by the role different governments play. It will be important to give space for the diversity that is likely here by evenly distributing the protected areas to be sampled across the regions.

Within each sub-region some adjustment will be necssary. Some sub-regions contain so few countries that each has a substantially greater chance of being included in the survey than countries from regions with many (Australia and New Zealand contain 2 countries, North America 3, Europe nearly 40). In these instances we will treat the separate states of federal countries as separate countries for the purpose of the sample. The IUCN list provides data separately for each state in these countries. Second, each country be weighted according to its size, and the sample of protected areas within the countries structured according to their size and number in order that our work be representative of a significant proportion of the terrestrial globe and its protected areas.


The research process

The assessment will have two stages. In the first we will approach groups of experts on particular regions and countries to invite them to review current information available about specific protected areas. A list of experts proposed for each region is given below. This information will be summarised, where possible, according to the criteria suggested above, such that a reasonably concise rendition of the social consequences of the protected areas is produced. The methodology described above will be used as far as possible at this stage, and where not possible as a model for assessing the extent of ignorance and defining what needs to be known. The 14 protected areas to be sampled from each sub-region will be identified at this stage.

All the expert teams will be invited to discuss and compare the findings from the different regions in a final joint reporting meeting. This meeting will review problems with the comparative framework and methodologies used for this assessment in order to make appropriate adjustments for the second stage of the research. In particular teams may wish to suggest amendments to the proposed criteria of using category 1 and 2 protected areas only. It may be necessary to include other categories, or exclude particularly inadequately protected reserves. The findings of this stage of the research will be available on the web site with the sources for all the data presented indicated.

The second stage of the survey will hone, refine and add to the knowledge of the first survey in two ways. Primarily the regional boards will direct, and where necessary seek funding for, further research into the 14 protected areas identified for further study during the first stage of the research. This could use a combination of post-doctoral researchers or consultancies according to their needs.

We should expect that the information used in the initial survey will be reputably contested and counter-veiling views will be deliberately and clearly requested on the web site. It will also be debated in other sites, for example book reviews, academic articles and in ‘grey’ literature, which the web site will need either to include or provide access to. Submissions and debates will be reviewed periodically by regional experts will act in a manner analogous to editorial boards of academic journals. Where necessary they will send out submitted material for anonymous peer review and meet regularly to decide what material is sufficiently rigorously collected to merit inclusion. The boards may also commission responses to debates generated. The intent here is not to offer one view about the consequences of any particular protected area. Rather the goal is to facilitate informed debate and to enable those who are keen to investigate the sources and problems with the data displayed to do so.


Web site design

Information about the costs and benefits of each protected area will be summarised in a brief table. Links to pages with more details about disputed information will be available within each table. Access to the information on each protected area will be through various means. A clickable world map into which users can ‘zoom’ will allow regional focus. In addition protected areas can be listed alphabetically, by country, and by category. Outlines of the legislation which makes provision for protected areas in each country will also be provided.



Phase 1: Preparation phase

During this phase, the organisational framework of the survey will be established, the methodology will be elaborated, discussed on an international workshop and published on the web, the protected areas for the case studies and the case study researchers will be identified and regional research coordinators elected. The output will be one detailed literature review per region elaborated by the sub-regional research coordinators (see list below). This review will outline the extent to which the establishment of protected areas have entailed evictions or exclusions, and the extent to which the costs of these are already known. It will then recommend case study sites and case study researchers. On the basis of these literature reviews and the draft methodology, an international workshop under the supervision of the leading scientist in the area of resettlement, conservation and social impact will finalise the methodology to be used in each of the case studies and agree on case study protected areas and researchers.

Budget: Phase One

1.             Infrastructure

a.             Establishment of the web-page                                                                         $ 20,000

b.             Maintenance, running costs, advertising (for 2 years)                                               $   6,000

c.             Communication, Material etc.                                                                          $ 17,000


2.             Human resources

a.             Methodology, structure, general setting (2 people x 10 days x $ 300)    $   6,000

b.             Sub-regional studies (14 people x 10 days x $300)                                     $ 42,000

c.             Coordination of working group, writing up of global

                assessment (2 people x 20 days x $ 300)                                                        $ 12,000               


3.             Workshop

a.             International workshop to discuss and finalise the methodology

and research strategy (14 sub-region research coordinators &

2 overall coordinators and 4 senior supervisors = 20 people)

 Transport on average $ 1000,- p.p. & 5 days per diem $ 200 p.p;

conference facilities $ 1000,-  materials etc. $ 1000)                                  $ 42,000


Total                                                                                                                                       $ 145,000

Phase 2: The case studies

This budget is based on five years work in the five regions and the 14 sub-regions. Regional information will be updated yearly by a regional board of editors. Further research will be carried out in the 196 protected areas identified in phase 1. This work will be set up and supervised by the regional boards with help from the two coordinators.

The specific research on the 196 protected areas identified in the first stage will be tackled through a combination of specific consultancies and post-doctoral researchers. Budgets for both are given below. There are advantages to both methods. Consultancies are cheaper in the first instance. Hiring post-doctoral researchers buys more experts’ time for the project. The decision as to which is most appropriate will vary from region to region and will be the decision of each regional board. The exact budget required for further research in each region will therefore be determined after the first stage of the research is complete. We offer an estimate below.


Budget: Phase Two

1.             Infrastructure                                                                                                                      2005-2010

a.             Maintenance of web page. Web technician  $43,000 pa cost to

employer (NB ideally this would be a well qualified researcher who also had

web expertise. Part of the job here would be to network with conservation and

research institutions to ensure the web site is used and engaged with )                 $   215,000

b.             Material, communication etc.(20,000 p.a.)                                                                   $   100,000

c.             Transport ($ 5000,- for research coordinators, 2000 for regional coordinators

                and 1000 for sub-regional coordinators p.a.)                                                              $   170,000


2.             Human resources

a.             Research coordinators (2 people x 30 days x $300 for 5 years)                                               $     90,000


3.             Development and monitoring

a.             Regional meetings of editorial boards to discuss changes to the data base and

 propose priorities for follow up (The annual regional meetings consists of the

 regional coordinator, the sub-regional coordinators and the case study researches

and one of the research coordinators)(in total ~15 people x 2 days per diem $ 200,-

                $ 500 p.p. transport results and $ 1500 for conference facilities etc.)                     $  375,000

b.             A mid term meeting (in years 3) of all research coordinators with the senior

supervisors (costs see 3.a. of phase 1)                                                                            $     42,000

c.             A final workshop to discuss the final outcomes and round up the projects (a

                selection of researchers, 19  coordinators and 4 senior supervisors)                      $   84,000


Total excluding cases studies and post-doctoral research                                                           $ 1,076,000


Estimated maximum cost of case studies, based on 196 individual consultancies

required because there are no existing studies to draw upon:                                   $ 3,175,200


Yearly costs of post-doctoral researcher:

Cost to employer                                                  :$ 54,000

5 days work for regional chairs                          :$ 1,500

5 days work for sub-regional chair                    :$ 1,500


Costs of consultancy:

30 days research (breakdown below)               : $ 15,000

2 days work for regional chair                            : $ 600

2 days work for sub-regional chair                    : $ 600

Breakdown of consultancy costs.

Average cost per procted area during 12 case studies (Schmidt-Soltau 2003)

Number of days


per diem[5]

Research assistants[6]

per diem[7]




Literature Review









Identificantion of affected populations









Detailed household survey in 5 % of the affected household or at least 50 hh









Report writing









Presentation of report to affected population



























The Team

Senior Advisors: Michael M. Cernea,Gonzalo Oviedo,Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Taghi Favor, Adrian Phillips

Coordinators: Dan Brockington & Kai Schmidt-Soltau


Region 1: Australia and Oceania


Australia and New Zealand: Conservation & Economics Group (Hurstville; NSW Australia)


Region 2: Americas

North America: Jim Igoe

Central America:

South America: Tom Griffiths, Alejandro Argumedo



Region 3: Africa and Middle East

North Africa and Middle East: Dawn Chatty               

West and Central Africa: Kai Schmidt-Soltau, Phil Burnham

Eastern and Southern Africa: Christo Fabricius; William Beinart; Chris de Wet; Ed Barrow; Dan Brockington; Jim Igoe; Peter Rogers; Rod Neumann; James Murombedzi, Hector Magome


Region 4: Asia

Southeast Asia: Paul Jepson, Marcus Colchester

China: Shi Guoqing, Zhu Wenlong, Kai Schmidt-Soltau

East Asia: Ashish Kothari; Mahesh Rangarajan; Farhad Vania; Ghazala Shahabuddin; Arpan Sharma: Kishore Rithe


Region 5: Eurasia

Europe: Kevin Bishop

North Eurasia: Ken MacDonald


Tables showing the distribution and area of protected area by region.


IUCN Region

Count of Protected Areas

Size of Protected Areas (km2)


% Land

% Land in




Total (all cat)




Total (all cat)

Land Area


Category 1 or 2

Australia and New Zealand
















































Central America












South America and Brazil












North America
























North Eurasia




































Western and Central Africa












Eastern and Southern Africa












North Africa and Middle East
























East Asia












South Asia












Southeast Asia












Source: IUCN list of World Protected Areas.


Brockington, D. 2002, Fortress Conservation. The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania, Oxford: James Currey.

Cernea, M. M. 1997. The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations. World Development. (25) 10: 1569-1589

Cernea, M. M. 2000. Risk, safeguards and reconstruction: a model for population displacement and resettlement. In: Cernea, M. M. & McDowell, C. Risk and reconstruction: experiences of resettlers and refugees. Washington: Word Bank.

Cernea, M. M. and Guggenheim, S. 1996.  Resettlement and Development.  The Bankwide Review of Projects Involving  Involuntary Resettlement, World Bank: ESSD, Resettlement Series no. 32, Washington, DC.

Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2003. National parks and poverty risks: Is population resettlement the solution? Paper presented at the World Park Congress (Durban, September 2003). An abbreviated version was published as: The end of forced resettlements for conservation: Conservation must not impoverish people, Policy Matters 12: 42-51.

Chatty, D. & Colchester, M. 2002. Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples:  Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development. Oxford: Berghahn.

Downing, T. E. 2002.  Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement. IIED and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Mahapatra, L.K. 1999.  Resettlement, Impoverishment and Reconstruction in India: Development for the Deprived.  New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.

Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003, Conservation-related Resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and Social Risks, Development and Change 34: 525-551.

WCD 2001.  Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making. Earthscan.

World Bank 2002. Operational Policy 4.12: Involuntary Resettlement. Washington: World Bank.

WPC (World Park Congress) 2003. Recommendations (R 1-32) english/outputs/recommendations.htm



Kai Schmidt-Soltau is a sociologist and independent consultant with GTZ and the World Bank Group based in Central Africa since 1997. P.O. Box 7414; Yaoundé; Cameroun (Email: He has published on this subject: The local costs of rainforest conservation: Local responses towards integrated conservation and development projects. In: Journal of Contemporary African Studies (in print); Conservation-related resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and social risks. In: Development and Change 34(3): 525-551 (2003); Die soziokulturellen Risiken von naturschutzindizierten Zwangsumsiedlungen: Fallbeispiele aus Zentralafrika. In: Peripherie 18(4): 732-823; Displaced by conservation. In: Voices 4/2002: 9; Die Opfer der Nachhaltigkeit: Soziale und ökologische Folgen des Naturschutzes in Zentralafrika. In: Iz3w 264 (2002):7-11

He has presented papers on the subject at the X. world congress of rural sociology (IRSA) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil, 2000), the international symposium on resettlement and social development” in Nanjing (P.R. China, 2002), the international symposium on the multidimensionality of displacement risks in Africa in Kyoto (Japan, 2002), at the 8th Biannual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration in Chiang Mai (Thailand, 2003)

Together with Michael Cernea he has published: Biodiversity conservation and poverty risks: Is population resettlement the solution? Lit Verlag (Hamburg/London) in print; The end of forced resettlements for conservation: Conservation must not impoverish people. In: Policy Matters 12 (2003): 42-51. They have presented joint papers at the international CIFOR conference on “rural livelihoods, forests and biodiversity” in Bonn (Germany, 2003) and on the World Park Congress in Durban (South Africa 2003).


Dan Brockington is a lecturer at the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK. (Email: He has conducted a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of eviction policies in Tanzania and worked closely with village governments and local resource management institutions. Key publications include Fortress Conservation. The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. James Currey, Oxford (2002). ‘Myths of Sceptical Environmentalism.’ (2003) Environmental Science and Policy 6: 543-546; ‘Injustice and conservation – Is  “local support” necessary for sustainable protected areas?’ (2003) Policy Matters 12: 22-30; ‘Women’s Income and Livelihood Strategies of Dispossessed Pastoralists.’ (2001) Human Ecology 29: 307-338; ‘Degradation debates and data deficiencies. The case of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.’ (2001, with Kathy Homewood) Africa 71: 449-480; ‘The costs of conservation: monitoring economic change as a consequence of conservation policy at Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.’ (2004) In K.Homewood (ed) Rural resources and local livelihoods in Africa. James Currey, Oxford; ‘Wildlife, Pastoralists and Science. Debates concerning Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.’ (1996, with BrockingtonKathy Homewood) In M.Leach and R.Mearns (eds) The Lie of the Land. Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment. International African Institute, James Currey, Oxford; Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. 1999. Pastoral Land Tenure and Community Conservation: a case study from North-East Tanzania. Pastoral Land Tenure Series No 11. IIED, London.

[1]           Kai Schmidt-Soltau. c/o GTZ; P.O. Box 7414; Yaoundé; Cameroun (Email:

[2]           Dan Brockington School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK. (Email:


[3]           The COP 7 of the CBD has approved the following activity for its programme on protected areas: “Assess the economic and socio-cultural costs, benefits and impacts arising from the establishment and maintenance of protected areas, particularly for indigenous and local communities, and adjust policies to avoid and mitigate negative impacts, and where appropriate compensate costs and equitably share benefits in accordance with the national legislation.”


[4] $ 300.- p.p. p.d.

[5] $ 50.- p.p. p.d.

[6] $ 50.- p.p. p.d.

[7] $ 50.- p.p. p.d.