Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

• Although IUCN protected area management categories V–VI were adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, the fears of some skeptics have not been resolved.
• Although promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people may be linked, tradeoffs are inevitable.
• The expected win–win success stories for categories V–VI have not been abundant although evaluation methods are still unrefined.
• Categories V–VI will be more effective for biological diversity conservation if the buffer zones have land use restrictions and adequate governance.
• Local participation in buffer zone management is a wise strategy but enforcement by protected area authorities, and some coercion, may be essential to insure that land use practices are biologically optimal for the core area and its buffer zone.

The debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) protected area management categories V–VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V–VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.