The author is Director of the Urban Nature Reserves Project of Aves Argentinas, the Argentine affiliate of BirdLife International.

Citation: This paper may be cited as: [Author.] 2005. [Article title.] In Ted Trzyna, ed., The Urban Imperative. California Institute of Public Affairs, Sacramento, California.

1.  INTRODUCTION

The accelerated process of unplanned population growth and urbanization is a common denominator in many parts of the world. The process of transformation of rural areas into urban districts normally creates great pressure on natural resources, especially in those regions where the land is of high agricultural value. 

Argentina fits this model very well. It is predominantly an urban country, with 88 percent of its population already concentrated in cities, and highly selective spatial distribution: 71 percent of its urban population is concentrated in and around the pampas eco-region, and of these nearly 80 percent live in cities of more than 20,000 inhabitants in these vast undulating grasslands (Morello and Rodríguez 2001), which is also where agriculture and cattle-rearing are centered.

The country’s population is concentrated in the city of Buenos Aires and its metropolitan region (MRBA). With a population of over 12 million, the MRBA represents 38 percent of the country’s population (INDEC 1991; GCBA 2000), and is divided into 40 local jurisdictions. The infrastructure follows the lines of public transport (ribbon development, mainly as a result of the roads and railways built at the beginning of the last century). The MRBA has suffered from an accelerated process of urban growth in a scattered and uneven pattern in order to contain an ever-increasing population, and this has become worse over the last several decades. Urban growth has not only caused fragmentation of natural habitats, but has also created a crisis due to insufficient green spaces for relaxation and recreation. Estimates indicate that in this urban conglomeration there is, on average, only three square meters of green space per inhabitant, and only two square meters when restricted to the city of Buenos Aires (Prudkin and De Pietri 1995).

The principal environmental problems of the city of Buenos Aires and its metropolitan region are due, directly or indirectly, to bad land-use planning: flooding, contamination of water courses, coastal degradation, noise, air contamination, and inadequate waste management (MCBA et al. 1999). All but the last of these problems could be mitigated by increasing the extent of protected natural areas. Thus, with proper planning and management, urban reserves can contribute to improving the quality of the urban environment and the health of the population in the MRBA, and offer people the opportunity to recover their natural and cultural heritage.

The aim of the urban nature reserves project of Aves Argentinas/Asociación Ornitológica del Plata (AOP), the Argentine partner of BirdLife International (AA/AOL), is to carry out a general survey of the principal natural areas of the city of Buenos Aires and its metropolitan area in order to:

• Identify urban nature reserves (UNRs) that exist in the MRBA;

• Promote the value of UNRs;

• Establish their biological importance; and

• Estimate their value as perceived by society.

2. THE URBAN NATURE RESERVES OF BUENOS AIRES

The areas considered in the survey were selected according to the following criteria:

• Found within the urban grid, or no further than 10 km (or within 30 minutes’ traveling distance) (MCBA et al. 1999) from a city or group of settlements with a combined population of at least 50,000 inhabitants;

• Of small or medium size (covering from 5 to 5,000 ha);

• Native habitats (essentially similar to the original habitats of the region) must be present in at least 40 percent of the land;

• Objectives of the area must be aimed at the conservation of native ecosystems, and generating opportunities for environmental education, research, and/or recreation within nature;

• One or more of the following uses must be permitted in the area:

o  Public access for recreation and/or tourism;

o  Environmental education and interpretation;

o  Formal education at any level;

o  Scientific research related to the reserve’s

    ecosystems;

o  Management of ecosystems or species aimed at their

    conservation.

The areas were identified with the aid of key informants and by analysis of satellite images. Field information was then gathered by rapid ecological surveys of the areas, interviews with the managers and technicians in charge of the reserves, and literature reviews.

3. THE VALUE OF LOCAL PROTECTED AREAS

Among the most relevant results was the identification of 11 areas that were already functioning as urban nature reserves. These show great variety in size (between 6 and 3000 ha), but there is a tendency for them to be small in size (around 34 ha). Most of them are found in the outskirts of the city of Buenos Aires, on low marginal land which is often subject to flooding. The local inhabitants in these areas have a high degree of unmet basic needs, even domestic water.

The state of conservation of these habitats depends on their distance from the city (degree of urbanization), current or historic land use, and habitat type.

In spite of the limited size of these areas, their contribution to local biodiversity conservation should not be underestimated. In seven areas, significant remnants of original habitat, or similar habitats, were found. Native habitats were considered to be vegetation communities with the same structure as the original habitats, but not necessarily the same specific composition.

In these areas, 300 bird species have been recorded, which represent 86 percent of the avian species richness of the region. Nine of the reserves have recorded animal species considered to be of special value (typical, or of restricted distribution in characteristic habitats in the region). Threatened animal species were found in four reserves.

In spite of their biological value, the UNRs of the metropolitan region are little noticed. This can be measured using different parameters, among which the number of visitors received by a reserve is one of the most accurate when trying to measure social recognition.

A total of 700,000 people visit the reserves annually, of which 100,000 are schoolchildren. Considering that there are 12 million inhabitants in the MRBA, and that these areas are related to important urban centers with numerous educational institutions, this number seems very low: At this rate it would take ten years for the whole population to visit a reserve. If we take into account that 85 percent of the visits are to the Costanera Sur, the best-known urban nature reserve, the tendency is much more notable. Some of the areas are not visited at all, or receive an average of less than eight people per day.

One cause (and also consequence) of this is that in only 30 percent of the reserves do the neighbors as a whole recognize the biological, educational, and recreational importance of the areas. In general, social recognition comes from local groups with specific interests (naturalists, tourist guides, outdoor and sports lovers, etc.). In most cases, participation of local institutions in issues related to the reserves has been sporadic or discontinuous.

The low level of community participation in the UNRs in general (by neighbors, public authorities, educational institutions, and local non-conservation organizations) leads us to believe that this type of protected area is to be found under the classical conservation paradigm (Phillips 2002). In this model, protected areas are managed by experts with low or nil participation in decision-making by the local community, and with a perspective that excludes the surrounding area. These urban nature reserves are managed from their gates inward and have become “islands” of conservation, with little probability of being able to maintain their biological or cultural features. 

4.  A NEW PARADIGM OF CONSERVATION: THE OTAMENDI NATURE RESERVE

Therefore, the challenge is to open the way for greater participation from society in the conservation of urban nature reserves. Their closeness to centers of economic and political power make these reserves strategic areas for gaining support for biodiversity conservation in general. UNRs should serve as models of what each region or country can do for conservation.

The Otamendi Nature Reserve, which has the largest expanse of natural habitats in the north of the metropolitan region of Buenos Aires, is an ideal area to experiment with mechanisms for putting this idea into practice. Aves Argentinas acts as a coordinator among different stakeholders in the area to promote conservation in this reserve.

Otamendi covers 3000 ha of freshwater lagoons, marshes and woodland. A great variety of habitats sustain important groups of native species, especially birds and small mammals. Bird species recorded total 282 (Babarskas et al. 2003), which represent approximately 85 percent of the total number of species recorded for the region. Among these are eight species currently facing conservation problems in Argentina and on a global scale (Fraga 1997; BirdLife 2000). For that reason, it is listed as an Important Bird Area. Some species, such as the straight-billed reedhaunter (Limnoctites rectirostris), are protected only at this site in Argentina (Chebez, et al. 1998).

This reserve also has populations of interesting mammals such as the carpincho or capibara (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris) and the river otter (Lontra longicaudis), and is frequently visited by marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus) that are the most southerly population of this threatened species.

Otamendi also has archaeological and paleontological remains of great value; these cultural resources have not yet been exploited either for tourism or education.    

In spite of the biological and cultural importance of this reserve, neither the local authorities, nor the local community in general, are involved in its conservation. The number of visitors is still small (around 10,000 annually) and local institutions and neighbors are only occasionally involved. As a result, the local authorities are not motivated to give attention to protecting the site or control harmful development around it.

Project strategy

The Otamendi Nature Reserve, considered one of the two most important UNRs in the MRBA, was selected to demonstrate participatory mechanisms that would get the largest number of stakeholders involved in conserving the site.

A logical sequence of actions was drawn up in order to obtain effective involvement of different sectors:

1. Identification of relevant stakeholders and their interests in the area;

2. Composition of a general message aimed at all the stakeholders identified;

3. Presentation of the idea to the management organization, which is the Administración de Parques Nacionales (APN) (National Parks Administration);

4. Planning of objectives and activities in conjunction with APN;

5. Meetings with the other stakeholders that included:

a. Presentation of the “aim” of the reserve;

b. Activities for reaching this goal in the short term;

c. A request for collaboration;

6. Carry out the agreed activities;

7. Evaluation.

The first sounding out of the stakeholders allowed us to find 10 important groups with direct links to the reserve, including national, provincial, and local authorities; scientists and technicians; two local NGOs; three enterprises; and a cooperative. Each of them had different perceptions of the protected area and different expectations.

A message was then composed that was easy to understand and corresponded to the expectations of the greatest number of groups involved:

The Otamendi Nature Reserve is an area of great biological and cultural value which could and should be considered for use by the local schools, for the direct enjoyment of the community, and to develop tourism which would help to improve the economic development of the area. If we all work together to reach this goal, the Otamendi Nature Reserve could become a model area, which would attract a large number of visitors, create work opportunities, make the inhabitants proud of their neighborhood, and demonstrate the commitment of the authorities to the recovery of natural and cultural heritage.

The specific objectives (defined in cooperation with APN) were:

• To increase the biological and social information available about the site;

• To develop specific activities for the local community;

• To inform the national, provincial, and municipal authorities about the value of the site.

First results

Since the project began in 2003, a large number of activities have been carried out, all with participation of community groups or institutions. These have included:

• Publishing a book on the vertebrates of the reserve, based on more than a decade of research by scientists, technicians, and amateur naturalists; 

• Publishing a map of habitats in the reserve, based on satellite images and field surveys;

• Conducting social surveys designed to identify leaders in neighboring communities and determine their expectations concerning the reserve.

Activities directly aimed at the local community have included:

• Holding a workshop on public use aimed at achieving consensus about ways to make greater and better use of the reserve (this will contribute to management plans);

• Forming a support group for the reserve composed of neighbors, students from local universities, and people from local NGOs; members help as volunteers with activities and management;

• Organizing a workshop for teachers on relating the reserve to the school curriculum;

• Offering a course on bird observation for neighbors, guides, and volunteers.

The Otamendi process has involved different sectors of society working together. There have been at least 30 key people, including reserve volunteers and staff, members of seven local NGOs that work on educational and social participation, as well as conservation, issues; and representatives of national, provincial, and municipal authorities and the local school network. All of the activities mentioned have been patronized, financed, or organized in conjunction with different levels of government.

CONCLUSIONS

Not every urban nature reserve identified contributes significantly to biodiversity conservation, but all of them offer a unique opportunity for city inhabitants to recreate and learn about their natural and cultural heritage.

At Otamendi, important progress has been made:

• We have the support of eight of the ten stakeholders identified, including all the governmental authorities;

• There has been a substantial increase in weekend visitors;

• The national authorities have agreed informally to raise the status of the Otamendi Nature Reserve to a National Park.

Our main conclusion about methodology is that increasing the level of stakeholders’ participation has resulted in minimizing conflict and achieving broad consensus. We are convinced that this is largely due to our adopting a clear, easy-to-understand message that breaks with the traditional perception that people must be excluded from protected areas.

REFERENCES

AA/AOP (Aves Argentinas/Asociación Ornitológica del Plata). “Aves Argentinas.” AA/AOP, http://www.avesargentinas.org.ar.

Babarskas, M., E. Haene, and J. Pereira. 2003. Aves de la Reserva Natural Otamendi. In Haene, E., and   J. Pereira.  Fauna de Otamendi. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservación 3, Aves Argentinas/AOP,Buenos Aires.

BirdLife International. 2000.  Threatened birds of the world. Lynx Editions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain, and Cambridge, UK.

Chebez, J. C., N. R. Rey, M. Babarskas, and A. G. Di Giacomo. 1998. Las aves de los parques nacionales de la Argentina. Monografía LOLA 12, Buenos Aires.

Fraga, R. 1997. La categorización de las aves Argentinas. In: Libro Rojo de Mamíferos y Aves Amenazadas de la Argentina. Fundación para la Conservación de las Especies y el Medio Ambiente, and Administración de Parques Nacionales, Buenos Aires.

GCBA (Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires). 2000. Anuario Estadístico de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Dirección General de Estadística y Censos, Secretaría de Hacienda y Finanzas, Buenos Aires.

INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos). 1991. Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda. 19 partidos del Gran Buenos Aires por “localidad.” Serie H N 2. Ministerio de Economía y Obras y Servicios Públicos, Buenos Aires.

MCBA (Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires), et al. 1999. Informe de Diagnóstico Ambiental. Plan Urbano Ambiental. MCBA, Buenos Aires.

Morello, J., and A. Rodríguez. 2001. Relaciones campo-ciudad: Parasitismo o mutualismo ¿estamos a tiempo de planificar? Primeras Jornadas Nacionales sobre Reservas Naturales Urbanas, Libro de Resúmenes. Buenos Aires.

Phillips A. 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas – Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. IUCN, Cambridge, UK, and Gland, Switzerland.

Prudkin, N., and D. E. De Pietri, 1995. Rol ecológico de los espacios verdes en los asentamientos urbanos. XVII Reunión Argentina de Ecología, Libro de Resúmenes, 240-241.

This paper copyright © 2004 International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Reproduction of this paper for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this paper for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder.

Web site hosted by InterEnvironment Institute, an IUCN member since 1980

www.InterEnvironment.org

Home page of this section of the Web site  /  Web site home page 

Copyright & caveats  /  Contact us

SEARCH InterEnvironment.org

The copyright notice applies to the entire contents of this Web site.