Funding for MPAs

Conservation is not free. MPAs must be paid for. Some sources of funding are more reliable than others, some sources are easier to raise, and some can be used freely according to management priorities while others come with strings attached. Some funding mechanisms take a long time and a lot of effort to establish; they therefore do not provide a short-term return, but over the longer term they offer the possibility of steady, reliable financing to meet recurrent costs. In all cases costs must be justified and requests compare favourably against competing bids for funds.

 

A sound financial plan will both ensure effective management and secure sufficient financial resources, vital if protected areas are to continue to provide benefits and fulfil their role in biodiversity conservation. However, financial resources are often a constraining factor in the effective management of protected areas, falling well short of needs. Protected areas have to compete with pressing demands from other sectors, such as education, defence and health. In many cases the proportion of public funding being invested in protected areas is under constant pressure - following the recent economic crisis in South East Asia the Philippines Department of Environment's budget was cut in 1999 by 25%.

 

Traditionally, protected areas have been managed by government agencies and have thus tended to rely almost exclusively on government

funds. In some places, however, these arrangements are changing. New models are emerging, such as protected area parastatals in Africa, private protected areas in Southern Africa and elsewhere, NGO-managed protected areas in Latin America, and the growing band of volunteers assisting with protected areas management in Australia. Hopefully these new institutional arrangements will provide greater flexibility and be more innovative in securing financial resources from public and private sources.