Land use planning and regulation in and around protected areas: a study of legal frameworks, best practices and capacity building needs in Mexico and Central America

Abstract

Intensifying land uses around protected areas (PAs) often threaten their ecological integrity and make PA administration more costly and difficult. In densely populated Mesoamerica, the expansion of agriculture, mining and logging, infrastructure projects, land speculation, and urban, residential and tourism development threaten many protected areas. Likewise, management decisions by PA agencies often have profound effects on nearby landowners, resource users and planning and development in adjacent jurisdictions. Thus, collaborative or cross-boundary land use planning and decision making has become important for diverse stakeholders within and around protected areas and their connective corridors. As governments decentralize, there may never again be such an opportune time to integrate new and more localized land use decision-making processes and improved techniques for land stewardship on adjacent lands with the needs of protected areas and national and international conservation strategies. To this end, we gathered national level data in six Mesoamerican countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) and for 16 individual protected areas in these countries. Using focus groups with participatory activities (mapping, pile sorts etc.), targeted interviews, site visits, expert observation and document review, we gathered data first on the national legal frameworks for governance and land use decision making and later analyzed the land use and decision processes actually being used around sixteen protected areas in these countries. We used cross-case analysis to describe and compare the best cross-boundary land use decision practices being used within and adjacent to PAs by governments, NGOs, and communities. We then describe the obstacles to expanding the use of best practices and innovative techniques, and suggest capacity building activities that may overcome them. Among the mechanisms being utilized in the study region to foster compatible land use and stewardship around PAs are creation of permanent local planning/environmental committees; a more decentralized development review process involving PA managers; preparation of municipal (city/county) master plans, zoning and subdivision regulations; legislation and performance criteria for buffer zones; improved oversight and decentralization of mandatory environmental assessments; intergovernmental agreements that pool resources for conservation planning; and creation of watchdog and advisory NGOs and government oversight mechanisms to monitor implementation of plans and regulations. Other innovative techniques used to buffer or connect PAs in the countries and PAs studied include conservation easements; environmental services payments to private landowners; use of development fees and project mitigation measures; purchase or transfer of development rights; creation of private and municipal protected areas; technical and financial assistance programs for stabilizing and diversifying land use in buffer zones; land tenure/resettlement programs, and incentives promoting the establishment of conservation corridors linking parks and preserves. We found considerable variation in the degree to which local authorities and PA managers are utilizing the expanded powers that new national laws have given them for integrated land conservation and planning. Some PA managers have realized the importance of this historical opportunity and have become more involved with local government while others have not. In general, case study participants provided evidence of increasing levels of citizen involvement, expressed confidence in the ability of local governments to do planning and development review using due process, and felt that PA managers would be incorporated into the process. They were less confident that a decentralized land use decision process would be respected and enforced. Local revenue streams for integrated land use planning, decision making and oversight are largely inadequate. Powerful special interests still often wield their influence to proceed with activities harmful to nearby PAs. We discuss the capacity building that will be needed for both PA managers and civil society (including wider use of improved land use techniques, new decision structures, technical training, use of due process, transparency, trust in the rule of law, accountability, adequate stakeholder involvement, and institutionalized cross-boundary collaboration procedures) if the long term ecological integrity of PAs is to be achieved.