1

Bansi Shah Sophomore College 2007 Bill Durham October 15, 2007

Circle the Problem: A Case Study of the Manu Biosphere Reserve

I. Introduction

In a nondescript oxbow lake formed by a meander of the Tambopata River lives a family

of giant river otters. According to restrictions placed by a local ecotourism lodge visitors can

only explore a small portion of the lake. The restrictions form a one-way glass wall preventing

humans from intruding. To some extent it allows otters, and other fauna of the area, to determine

the degree of human intrusion in the lake. The idea of one-way walls – or fishbowls – has caught

the attention of policymakers, researchers or conservationists who wish to preserve some of the

world’s jeopardized ecosystems.

One particular “fishbowl” initiative – biosphere reserves – has been created, packaged

and advertised by the United Nation’s Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) as an innovative

laboratory for conservation and development. Instances of and support for biosphere reserves

grew over the latter half of the 20th century. This paper examines the structure of the reserves and

their importance today. It will analyze the merits of a biosphere reserve’s security system and

provide recommendations for improving the initiative based off of a case study of the Manu

Biosphere Reserve located in Peru. It will argue that the current security system provides

inadequate protection to the core area of a biosphere reserve. The best means of creating an

adequate defense system will require creating an independent funding source to finance paid

security guards that protect the core area of a biosphere reserve.

II. Biosphere Reserves 101

2

Biosphere reserves came from discussions during the United Nation’s Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) “Biosphere Conference” in 1968. It strives to

combine three functions: (1) conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic

variation; (2) foster ecologically friendly human and economic development; and (3)

international logistical support for conservation and sustainable development (The Seville

Strategy, 1). The biosphere concept adopts a unique zoning system to

accomplish its threefold purpose. According to MAB’s Statutory

Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, a

leading document that outlines the concept of biosphere

reserves, land allocation to a “core area” serves the first

function of biospheres. The act of devoting land of “sufficient

size…to long-term protection according to the conservation

objectives” attempts to accomplish this first goal (Statutory

Framework, 17). A “buffer zone” and “transition area” serve the second

function through promoting economic stimulators that also help the environment. An

international network of information exchange among biosphere reserves, facilitated by MAB,

accomplishes the third function.

II. Rise of the Biosphere

Before proceeding to examine the particular workings of security systems within

biosphere reserves, their importance in the larger scheme of environmental conservation must be

noted. The concept of “protected areas”, or setting aside areas of land in order that it preserves its

intrinsic properties, is not a novel or inconsequential concept. Since the establishment of

Yellowstone National Park in 1872, protected areas have grown to cover 12% of the Earth’s

Transition Area

Buffer Zone

Core Area

3

landmass (Chape, Harrison, Spalding, and Lysenko, 2). Biosphere reserves are classified as

protected areas and certainly factor into recent growth trends in the area of protected areas. Since

1975, when MAB first conceived the idea of a biosphere reserve, trends indicate that both

instances of

protected areas

and the size of

those protected

areas have

increased.

Biosphere

reserves are

often created

as an afterthought to a national park. As a result, “a number of biosphere reserves encompass

areas protected by other systems” (Seville Strategy 2). The original national park assumes the

role of the core area while buffer zones and transition zones organically grow around the core as

land ownership constraints permit. Therefore, as displayed in the graph above, the fact that the

cumulative area sites has increased at a greater rate than the cumulative number of sites since

1975 shows that biosphere reserves are weighting heavily into recently established protected

areas. The creation of a biosphere reserve typically involves increasing the land area of an

already protected area and not necessarily creating a new park. The graph and these trends

display two significant trends: (1) biosphere reserves are gaining popularity; and (2) biosphere

reserves require landmasses larger than conventional national parks.

III. Security and Biospheres

Chape, Harrison, Spalding, Lysenko, pg. 450

4

The second of the two trends presented by the graph in particular concerns this paper.

Biosphere reserves are often large, sprawling areas of land. In fact, MAB conceived biospheres

to be just that. The program specifies that core areas “should embrace large areas” in order that

they preserve ecosystems fully. Species of an ecosystem exhibit an incredible dependency on one

another. Therefore “any strategy to conserve biodiversity must maintain the web of interactions

that regulates and perpetuates the ecological system” (Terborgh, 15). Even the preservation of

solely single species creates an argument for large reserves. The “populations of top predators

frequently collapse in areas that are too small” and therefore their preservation make the case for

“mega-reserves” (Laurance 646). The emphasis on allocating a large landmass provides for the

conservation of whole ecosystems rather than particular species. It allows nature to maintain its

own balances.

The vast size of biosphere reserves brings an

administrative and security nightmare. The picture on the

right depicts a broken gate in the Tambopata region of

Peru. A termite nest, circled in red, has weakened the left

edge of the gate. It provides no functional value. The

picture depicts the difficulty of building a physical

security system to protect areas devoted to conservation.

The area must be large enough to maintain the web of

interactions. However, building and maintaining physical

boundaries that will not significantly damage the

ecosystem and still functionally protect the land is difficult. Biosphere reserves responded to this

problem by creating its unique zoning system of buffer and transition zones. The concept of

5

nested buffer zones that allow increased human interference with increased distance from the

core area formally comes from MAB discussions. The intent being that the zones “should ideally

protect resources while being culturally acceptable and economically viable” (Heinin, Mehta,

47). While biosphere reserves fully advocate the idea of buffer zones, there are few studies that

really test the effectiveness of buffer zones. Most studies that have been conducted focus on the

socioeconomic effects rather than the implicit security functions that buffer zones provide

(Heinin, Mehta, 48). The situation in the Manu Biosphere Reserve in Peru provides and excellent

framework for understanding if biosphere reserves are truly realizing the protection proclaimed

by their advocates.

IV. Ecosystems of Manu Biosphere Reserve

Scientists rate Manu National Park, the land that accounts for the core area of the Manu

Biosphere Reserve, as one of the few remaining gems in the rapidly deforesting Amazon. Its

remote location makes it difficult for even poachers and loggers to penetrate. The area supports a

diverse array of fauna, flora and in particular rare top predators such as the harpy eagle and

jaguar (Gentry 49). The varied altitudes of the park allow for a number of ecosystems and thus

the astounding diversity of the park. The buffer zone currently only protects the eastern edges of

the park. However, plans are in place to gradually increase the area (Yallico, Freitas 14).

When Manu National Park was first established the Peruvian government hired army

corps, bought boats and vehicles, and trained a staff in the protection of the core area of the

biosphere reserve. In the early days of the park the guards effectively shielded the park against

poachers, gold miners, loggers and other people who contributed to the degradation of the area.

As political priorities, and subsequently funding for the park, changed the situation of the core

area significantly degraded. Only recently, when the government has provided the park with

6

financial assistance is it doing better (Terborgh 33). Physical and active security systems

provided a strong support system for protecting the core area of the park. The buffer zones,

which provided natural land barriers to protect the core area, did not provide as much or effective

protection and physical, man-powered security systems did.

While this paper still advocates the use of a human force as a security system a

disadvantage must be noted. One of the dominant ecosystems of Manu National Park, the

tropical montane forests, is particularly

vulnerable to climate change. Global

temperature increases significantly affect

cloud forest due to a dramatic decrease in

clouds at lower altitudes and cloud forest

epiphytes are particularly sensitive to

such changes in humidity (Bubb, May, Miles, Sayer 18). Therefore, no matter how much money,

energy and time Manu devotes to physically protecting its core area, the effects of global climate

change will inevitably adversely affect the ecosystems of the park.

V. People of Manu Biosphere Reserve

While the activities of the core and buffer zones are required to be non-extractive, the

transition zones of biosphere reserves allow native populations to live and utilize the resources.

The allowance implicitly argues that those native populations will not conduct activities

significantly destructive to the reserve. It also places the faith in these people to remain outside

of the core area – which is meant to exist only as a laboratory for low impact observation and

research. In the absence of security guards there is no way to monitor the activities of these

native tribes. Four ethno-groups live in the biosphere, of which one is uncontacted. All of the

http://ww

w.inkas.com

/

7

contacted groups have gradually shifted

from more nomadic to sedentary lifestyles.

Research by Joesph Henrich indicates that

“traditional patters of subsistence and

resource use are evolving into a highly

unsustainable mixture of commodity

production” for the Machigunga, a group

living in the biosphere reserve (Henrich

322). In the face of increasing availability

to western commodity markets in the past

two decades the group has lost many of its

nomadic resource management practices and instead intensively farm the land. Henrich’s

conclusion comes from observing their primary money making practices. He found an almost

linear association between the number of cows owned by a community and the number of

hectares that community cleared for their grazing. The maximum, owned by the Nuevo Mundo

Machiguenga community, totaled to 40 cows and 30 hectares of cleared land (Henrich 337).

Only personnel on guard can monitor the resource use of such ethno groups to ensure the core

area is not disturbed.

VI. Recommendations

Before making any final recommendations one additional issue must be discussed. The

intent of this paper is not to open a discourse regarding the ethical soundness of restraining the

resource use of ethno-groups. It is not even to engage in a discussion regarding the effectiveness

of national parks or non-extractive protected areas. Rather it is to examine, based on the case of

http://ww

w.certinternational.org/m

ission/peru_machiguen

ga.htm

8

the Manu Biosphere Reserve, if the reserve is truly realizing the claims of security to the core

zone provided by the buffer zone. Clearly, based on ability of both internal and external human

groups to extract resources, the buffer zone simply does not provide adequate protection to the

core area. Certainly in the case of the Manu Biosphere Reserve, the well-being of the park stood

at the whim of political powers miles away in Peru’s capitol.

Therefore, the park must establish financial independence and use the money to support

the upkeep of the park – in particular to fund a guard force. Legally land rights of a biosphere

reserve reside in the hands of the local or regional government. However, to prevent the park

from feeling the effect of a budget squeeze financial independence is crucial.

The logistical support aspect of biosphere reserves provides an incredible resource to

leverage. Biosphere reserves can use the network of resources to learn about, discuss, and

improve their financial management skills.

9

Statuatory Framework for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Paris: UNESCO, 1995. 6 Sept. 2007 <www.unesco.org/mab/doc/statframe.pdf>. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves. World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Paris: UNESCO, 1995. 6 Sept. 2007 <www.unesco.org/mab/doc/Strategy.pdf>. Terborgh, John. Requiem for Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island P, 1999. Laurence, William F. "When Bigger is Better: the Need for Amazonian Mega-Reserves." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (2005): 645-648. 7 Sept. 2007 <www.stri.org/english/research/bibliography/results.php?keyword=Tupper>. Heinen, Joel T., and Jai N. Mehta. "Emerging Issues in Legal and Procedural Aspects of Buffer Zone Management." Journal of Environment and Development 9 (2000): 45-67. 10 Oct. 2007 <http://www.sagepublications.com>. Gentry, Alwyn, ed. Four Neotropical Rainforests. New Haven: Yale UP, 1993. Bubb, Phillip, Ian May, Lera Miles, and Jeff Sayer. Cloud Forest Agenda. UNESCO. Cambridge: UNEP, 2004. 12-37. 10 Oct. 2007 <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/UNEP_WCMC_bio_series/20.htm>. Feritas, Gustavo Suarze De, and Luis Yallico. Manu Biosphere Reserve. UNESCO. Paris: MAB, 1996. 7 Sept. 2007 <unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001139/113933eo.pdf>. Henrich, Joseph. "Market Incorporation, Agricultural Change, and Sustainability Among the Machiguenga Indians of the Peruvian Amazon." Human Ecology 25 (1997): 319-352. S. Chape, J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenkno, “Measuring the extend and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targers” UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Center, 2005. 7 Sept. 2007.