Protected areas are not just popular but one of the practical tools for protecting forests. Nobody ever expected that protected areas alone could prevent deforestation. It is a false question to ask PAs are failing to stop deforestation since the poor system fails to prevent deforestation. The valid statement is, protected forest areas alone are failing to prevent deforestation. To avoid deforestation you need a system; find a non-comprehensive list of the system elements below:

- A proper legal system implemented and enforced. Wood from illegal sources is detected, and it is not marketable.

- Eliminated interest in deforestation. It means a good standard of living, an active social component (e.g. jobs, income, education), and educated public who recognize the social and environmental importance of forests.

- Sustainable forest management practices legally required and implemented (in all areas, non-protected included).

- Sufficient energy sources and land have to be available for people in all income classes.

- Communities have an interest in growing and sustainably using their forests.

- When protected areas identified, the vulnerability of the ecosystems and social aspects should be considered. Different levels of protection should be implemented (from the requirement of sustainable forest management via the no-harvest to no touch zones) to avoid unnecessarily, ineffective barriers. 

- Positive externalities should be recognized, and owners have to be compensated.

- Proper legal systems implemented in the wood importing countries.

PA is itself a strategy of forest management plan. My question was are PAs failing as an approach of forest protection in some Asian regions. Without considering the points you mentioned a PA cannot be established. But if the PAs already established without the points you mentioned then I think  the failure of the PAs are certain and I found my answer.

For the densely populated areas with people depending on forests, PA will not work. PA may work in the developed country but may not be good for the developing countries. I think I should study more to understand the term PA and PA alone and their implementation worldwide before going for further discussion. Any way thanks for your comments. 

Some cases on other continents for your consideration. Ownership of forestland and and various use rights are evidently variables to be considered. Also to consider is against what an area is legally 'protected'.  Logging, mining, roads, hunting, farming, settlement.,access..? In practice, the variation in the latter is rather wide. 

Article What Drives Conversion of Tropical Forest in Carrasco Provin...

Article Sharing natural resources: Mountain gorillas and people in t...

Article Efficacy of Chromolaena odorata control in a South African c...

Hein Van Gils , thank you very much.

Dear Asik, what does it mean for you that PA work? Do you expect a hammer to build a house? Analogy: if the house is not built, the hammer must be failed. So, the hammer is not useful, maybe it is harmful and against the construction project.

PAs are significant tools to support the protection of vulnerable ecosystems and mitigate deforestation. If deforestation continues after PAs established, nothing to do with PAs, other system elements should be implemented. 

The well identified PAs help for ecosystems in low population density and high population density areas, developed and developing areas as well. There is no correlation between GDP/capita or person/km2 and the usefulness of PAs.

PA concept is evolved when society itself not able to save its ecological resources sustainably and if not intervened by government  they would be washed out. But many states do just use PA a tool  without proper implementation mechanism and alternate solutions of the problems in the PAs. Certainly population pressure of human and livestock play major role in management of PAs. eg. The Asiatic Lion PA in India is Gir Forests in Gujarat which under intense pressure  with its expanding base of lions and so the prey base problem.  The local who depend upon forest given alternatives in on sustainable and non socioculturally suitable options like tourism/ ecotourism, non forest based activities which lead to failure of the system. In rainy season when PA totally closed for tourist local people economic activities ceases so they again go back to forest for more vigorously and harm more against their ethos.

I have a different experience from PAs of Western Ghat, Kerala, India. I believe the constitution of PAs in this vulnerable part of Western Ghat is very positive as it happened to be supported the ecosystems to improve further and elevated to climatic climax. For instance the Periyar Tiger Reserve at Thekkady, Kerala has been managed by Periyar Foundation which is a democratic body in which the stakeholders are involved for the management of the PA.. The tribes and other community members are taking part in the protection work. When we ensure livelihood security of the forest dwellers, Their sincere involvement will be there to manage and conserve the ecosystems. PTR is a typical example for how ecosystems can be improved by the sincere involvement of the community living around the forest.  Without ensuring the participation of the local community for management. PAs may lead to further degradation as we are not addressing the rights of the people on the utilization of the forest.

As noted, Periyar is a very nice example of what could be accomplished. 

You can examine the literature on REDD+ policies, which are supported by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the Bali Action Plan. This issue has also been addressed at various UN Conferences on Climate Change (COPs).  In some of those meetings, there is some interesting discussions about including local and indigenous peoples to enhance success of REDD+ plans. (See also the Warsaw Framework on REDD-Plus). There is also some relevant analysis of REDD+, and analysis related to deforestation related to effectiveness of "payments for environmental services" as these related to deforestation.

Recommended dear respected Dr.Kenneth M Towe, thank you so much for sharing this piece of information.

Regards, Emad

In good forestry management, there is always chaos in the plans when important stakeholders are ignored in the formulation of policies and decision making processes in connection with the natural resources in the environment. The concept of PA systems is laudable because they are strategic means of specially demarcated tracts of lands for conservation of the rich biological diversities in various regions of the world.

It is sad that such wonderful initiatives are trailing in my country Ghana due to the failure of project officers, conservationists and forestry managers and planners to hold talks with the local people living in the forest fringe communities whose entire livelihood depends on these resources. Their rights are just trampled upon as if they are less humans. No better arrangements of sustainable alternative sources of livelihood are provided them. Stumpage fees for the resources like timber fell in their farms are underpaid and in most cases not paid. These poor helpless rural folks are forced to engage in illegal operations, environmentally unhealthy activities such as harboring and protecting illegal chainsaw operators in their households due to the petty monies they offer them. The SRA arrangements are flouted by timber firms who operate in these forest regions at the full glare of the Forestry regulatory team and ministries. So, the gazetted area for PA systems is gradually encroached by local people who engage in agricultural activities exceeding the buffer zones of the PAs.

Worst, greedy nuts in the Forestry Commission take monies and allow unscrupulous and wicked mining firms to destroy nature's resources without any dread for the 'life' of nature and its resources. These great concerns need to be redressed as I have strongly argued in my paper that will soon be published. Otherwise,if the needs of the local people living in the forest fringe communities are left unattended, the wonderful arrangement of Protected Area Systems would only be a deadly poison instead of a redeemer for the rich taxa of biodiversity resources globally who weep all night because of the speedy killings of their members at an astronomic rate every second. Best regards

Dickson Adom

In society sometimes by human right activists questions raised who to bee looked first those aboriginals by proper resettlement and livelihood options or wild flora and fauna?? Because if limited resources are to shared within man and wildlife so human wildlife conflict bound to happen in PAs which against the core philosophy of PAs creations.

The tribal people who are living and depending on the forest ecosystem for their livelihood are not the real enemies of the forest. They know the value and importance of the forest and they are in-fact protecting the forests. Even if they are cutting the trees, it is for their survival and this activity is not definitely causing de-forestation. The greedy and economically sound people, not living inside the forest, are the ones who are destroying the forests for many economic reasons, including construction of resorts within the forest land to attract tourists. If the PAs are established, I think it is for protecting the forests from this type economically affluent intruders or the external forces. Unfortunately it has become easy for this type of influential intruders to misuse the forest ecosystem in the protected areas, as no body can easily approach and verify the happenings inside the protected forest areas. Thus, if anybody says that there is deforestation or destruction of forests within the PAs, it is not surprising because of this reason. Now a days there is many issues in connection with the forest area encroachment by the influential individuals. Unless the issue of protection of forests becomes a people's movement, it is difficult to protect the forests by only establishing PAs, as all legal actions will have some loop holes.

One reason for deforestation in protected areas is corruption on the part of the Forest Guards and other officials of the Forestry Department who collaborate with timber merchants to engage in illegal, high impact logging. This is a very big problem especially in my country, Nigeria. Another reason is the conversion of the natural forest in reserved areas by Cocoa farmers. The activities of cocoa farmers constitute a very big threat to 'protected areas' especially in the South-western part of Nigeria. Furthermore, the inadequacy of manpower to effectively safeguard the protected areas worsens this problem. 

The key objective of protected area establishment is to conserve biodiversity and landscape of Nepal. Protected area categories  comprise about  23% of the country's total area. Protected areas of Nepal are facilitating to increase both the extent and quality of forest,  

Many watershed developmental programmes and afforestation programmes are implemented within the so called protected forests. Many check dams, rainfall recharge pits, contour bunds, can be seen. These human activities definitely disturb the forest ecosystem and even become causes for decrease in forest cover or deforestation within the protected areas.

Dr. Kenneth, you have already given yourself the answer so beautifully as follows:

"All of these problems are created by our continued population growth. We are two billion more today than we were in 1987. Increasing pressure on our recreational forests? And on our needs for forest products?"

YES, whatever is the reason, ultimately it is directly or indirectly related to ever increasing population growth.

It is both, but the class of people are different. Poor people are cutting the forest for fodder and fire-wood purposes, but the rich people are grabbing / encroaching the forest areas for the purposes of converting them in to plantation crops or housing / residential properties.

Dr. Kenneth, different major drivers of deforestation have been identified for various tropical areas/countries. For instance, in Brazil cattle ranching and expansion of soybean farms, are the major drivers; in Indonesia and Malaysia, oil palm and timber plantations are the main reasons; while in Africa, expansion of areas under shifting agriculture to provide food for the burgeoning populations, is the main reason for deforestation. 

YES, you are perfectly right in your statement. Human beings are "THE ENEMY" of the nature and natural resources.

Yes, I agree with Kenneth's submission that human beings (of all classes) are mainly responsible for deforestation and environmental degradation.

Without Community participation, there is a chance of failure

The existing forests are due to so called enforcement imposed by Forest staff who are becoming victimised and martyred during the process. In absence of such legal enforcement Visualising the Forest Protection is unimaginable.

In stead of treading into unknown virgin areas wisdom is to improvise as we are dealing with FUTURE Generations.

Para a área protegida ser eficiente deve haver investimento, fiscalização e gestão. Dialogar e envolver a comunidade local é fundamental.

Se interessar, veja alguns artigos que desenvolvi (Alexsande de Oliveira Franco) na amazônia brasileira.