Dear colleague,

it is sad to say, but buffer zones for protected areas are rare in my experience - they only seem to implemented in biosphere reserves (Unesco areas), relatively large areas. But they would be valuable also for smaller areas. However, in practice, conservation authorities have to give priority to core areas, while buying or leasing areas, etc.

I did some work on buffer zones in Sweden, see pdf's

Frank Götmark

[email protected]

Dear Babu,

in Turkey, regarding our coastal and marine protected areas, we have made some zonation and spatial plans. Unfortunately, almost all of these remain as recommendations. There has been no legal declaration of core and buffer zones, and related activity planning, which avoids people to realize buffering effects.

In the last few years, some no-take fisheries zones were declared in Turkey, which increased the catch quality around these zones (which can be considered as buffer zones). This was a way to realize the fishermen how a protected zone enhances ecological and economical sustainability.

In Spain we use buffer zones in some National Parks in two ways: ecological (the same idea than in Biosphere Reserves) and economic. In the last one we pay for some specific traditional activities, or them have specific rural development compatible with the conservation values.

I would recommend you to read this paper on that subject, to learn about some possible overlooked effects of buffer zones in some instances.

Article Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politic...

Hi Nacho. I am pleased to know from you. I agree many things of the article, but you have to look at not only the PAs. You have to study the situation in unprotected areas as well. What's the best conservation? And a question, does anyone a magic recipe to make a protected area and to deal with the needs from local communities living inside or around?

Hi, I'm glad to hear from you too, it's been a long time. Of course there's no magic recipe unfortunately. This article is just another bit of information which I thought could be of interest to anyone analyzing the subject; there are many other views that must be considerated. Again, there is no perfect solution, but the earlier local people are integrated from the beginning in planning for protected areas and conservation in general, the best results will be achieved in practice. What I found really interesting in this article (and the book I read it in: Producing nature and porverty in Africa. Edited by Vigdis Broch-Due and Richard A. Schroeder) is that knowing really fine details of the local social context is ineludible in order to achieve anything in conservation.

Thank you Frank,  Gokhan, Nacho and Jose for your suggestions! I enjoyed reading both the papers from Frank and Neumann. Neumann's paper is very relevant to Asia also.

I work in Nepal where buffer zones are defined legally around the national parks and wildlife reserves. There is also a novel approach of sharing park's 30-50% to buffer zone. This money is spent more for the community development (usually far from the forest) than for forest restoration and other actual buffering effects. Although there is buffer zone management guidelines, it is not implemented properly. 

I agree with Jose that there are no quick fixes but good planning, formulating appropriate policies and proper implementation may help. That's why I am interested to know the experience of both formulation and implementation of buffer zones or Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (ICDP).  

Realistically buffer zones are rear in majority of areas,this is attributed to poor land-use policies and lack of implementation of the said buffer zones. Where ecological buffer zones as  National parks and wildlife reserves have legally been defined and implemented, the challenge becomes conflict of resources  especially in the case of encroachment by people for Agriculture and at times settlement.

The best approach for a sustainable buffering is when there is a mutual collaboration between conservation authorities and the communities surrounding those protected areas. 

Yes. I absolutely agree on the Anne point of view. The challenge for managers is how to deal with the conflicts, because the conflict will exist either now or in the future.

Look at "Pilanesberg National Park" on googleearth as an example of urbanization in the immediate buffer area in response to benefit sharing from the park: ring-urbanization around a conservation area!

Are there any other examples?

Clearly this is the exact opposite of a buffer area!

Do the vast conservancy networks that Peter Lindsay has published on in Namibia and Zim offer alternative good examples to Tony's excellent no buffer zone example?

Buffer zones are important for  protected areas to ease transitions to altered landscapes beyond their borders but are particularly important for small and isolated PAs in fragmented ecosystems  and to ensure altitudinal and ecological connectivity in a changing climate.  The best buffer zone for a strictly protected area is often another less protected area, such as an IUCN category IV-VI area.  What does not work is just to legislate a simple boundary (such as 2 km around the exterior of a PA) and also just calling an area a buffer without any efforts to control land use and development, or restore degraded ecosystems.  The same techniques that work for buffer zones in general can also apply to corridors linking nearby PAs.

Tony, great example- I believe there are many examples of PAs in South Africa abutting agriculture and urban land uses, especially in the Western Cape (Table Mountain NP) for example.  And this is probably a global trend, and why mechanisms such as UNESCO Biospheres probably exist.  I think this is because buffers are not a legally, spatially identified land use, as mentioned previously; unless, in our case,  it houses important biodiversity and can be placed in provincial and municipal SDP&EMFs, Spatial Development Plans and Environmental Management Frameworks, preventing possible significant change.  I think the biggest issue with buffers, in the majority of landscapes, is that we have missed the chance to implement this gradient approach.  While core areas were tediously implemented, land use change in surrounds was equally or even more speedily converted.  Whats left is very patchy. There is a bright side, at least in SA, because of systematic cons plans and private partnerships, as well as government public works programmes- seeking to rehabilitate to management ecosystem services.. buffers will have a chance, as an economically viable land use. Hooray!!!

What I miss in the narrative so far is whether the PA is fenced (e.g. Addo, Etosha; both with lion and elephant) or unfenced (e.g. Majella: bear and wolf; Parc National des Volcan: gorillas). And whether the farming neighbors grow crops, keep livestock or both. Buffer zones may not be necessary in some, but desirable in other PAs depending on fencing, farming and the protected carnivores or herbivores.

Buffer zones do work where comprehensive, statutory regional land use zoning is in place. Only land uses compatible with conservation may be allowed in the PA-buffer, e.g. commercial forestry, but not residential use. Buffer zones are effectively declared and enforced, e.g. around airports; along rivers, for various purposes beyond biodiversity .

Matt, the conservancies in Namibia appear on a map as a buffer around and corridors between PAs. However, legally only game is protected in communal conservancies, not the land. As other private and public land uses expand, irrigated farming, small scale commercial farming, cattle posts and suburban residencies, conservancies as a wildlife habitat buffer are increasingly challenged by the lack of statutory, regional land use zoning prohibiting the new developments.

Good points Hein