期刊文献+

外来移民:自然资源综合保护与开发中一颗潜在的定时炸弹

Immigration: A Potential Time Bomb under the Integration of Conservation and Development
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 综合保护与开发项目(ICDP)实施的目的是促进自然资源环境的保护,防止当地人民受到伤害,但在实施中很少注意项目的长期影响,比如由其引发的外来移民现象。在喀麦隆北部实施的Logone洪泛区的恢复重建工作,是Waza-Logone综合保护与开发项目中的一项核心工作。此项工作的开展,已造成当地永久性居住渔民人数猛增了34%,且临时性渔民人数也大幅增长。虽然家畜的数量增加了2倍,但洪泛区一种重要的野生动物——水羚的数量并未增加,其竞争力也在减弱。由于人类的大肆侵犯,附近的Klamaloue国家公园的野生动物已基本消失,这种现象已影响到Waza国家公园的野生生态,使其未来前景是现出一片暗淡。来自中非共和国、加拉帕戈斯群岛、尼日利亚和津巴布韦的例子也表明,在向公众开放的系统中,当地居民生活水平的提高(开发的加快)会加剧外来人口的涌入,危及保护区(或自然环境保护区)所必需的稳定。大多数综合保护与开发项目都没有进行人口统计和监测,从而掩盖了项目可能引发的外来移民风险。为了应对这种风险,根据Waza公园当地各利害关系群体的分类以及这些群体类别各自应当拥有的权利,制定出了一项相关政策,此项政策的实施,已使一个村庄自愿迁出了该公园。除了制定政策外,还有人提出了建议,该建议认为,综合保护与开发项目应当与区域土地利用规划结合起来实施,并且应当禁止可能加剧移民涌入的开发活动。 Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) aim to stimulate conservation without the previous negative experiences for local people, but pay little attention to their long-term impact such as immigration. The rehabilitation of the Logone floodplain in North Cameroon, the core activity of the Waza-Logone ICDP, has led to a 34% increase of sedentary fishermen and a multiple number of temporary fishermen. Whereas livestock pressure tripled, kob antelopes, a key floodplain species, have not increased, reducing their competitiveness. The virtual disappearance of wildlife in nearby Kalamaloué National Park (NP), due to advanced human encroachment forms, is therefore a bleak perspective for Waza NP. Examples from the Central African Republic (CAR), Galapagos, Nigeria and Zimbabwe also showed that in open-access systems, improvement in living standards (development) may stimulate immigration, jeopardizing the stability necessary in protected areas (conservation). Most ICDPs lack demographic monitoring, masking its possible immigration risk. To counter the immigration risk in Waza, a policy was formulated based on local stakeholder categorization and subsequent privileges, resulting in the voluntarily displacement of a village out of Waza NP. It is further recommended that ICDPs should be involved in regional land-use planning and discourage development activities that stimulate immigration.
出处 《AMBIO-人类环境杂志》 2003年第1期58-64,共7页
  • 相关文献

参考文献51

  • 1Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Price, R.E. aad da Fonseca, G.A.B. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversitv. Science 291, 125-128.
  • 2Anderson, D. and Grove, R. (eds). 1989. Conservation in Africa. People, Policies and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • 31IED 1994. Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management.1IED. London. UK.
  • 4Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. 1999. Communities, wildlife and the "New Conservation" in Africa. J. Int. Develop. 11,277-285.
  • 5Jeantenaud, S. 1999. People-oriented conservation: progress to date. In: Partnerships for Protection. Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (eds). Earthscan, London. UK. pp. 126-134.
  • 6Adams, W.M. and Hulme, D. 2001. If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx35, 193 200.
  • 7Brown, M. and Wyckoff-Baird, B. 1992. Projets Integrés de Conservation de la Nature et de Développement. World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute. WWF publications, Baltimore, USA. (In French).
  • 8Wells, M., Brandon, K. and Hannah, L. 1992.People and Parks. Linking Protected Area Management witk Local Communities. World Bank/WWF/USAID, Washington D.C., USA.
  • 9Spinage, C. 1998. Social change and conservation. Oryx 32, 265-276.
  • 10Brandon, K. 1997. Policy and practical considerations in land-use strategies for biodiversity conservation. In: Last Stand. Kramer, R., Schaik, C. van and Johnson, J. (eds). Oxford University Press, New York, USA. PP. 90--114.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部