COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM

OF CATALONIA - SPAIN, 2003

Josep M. MallarachInstitució Catalana d’Història Natural

WPC, Workshop Stream 511 September 2003

Catalonia: One of the European regions suffering from more environmental pressures and impacts

6 million people + 15 million tourists /yearMediterranean: biodiversity hotspotSpain: the most biodiverse European countryCatalonia: 6 natural regions (3100 m-sea)+ 3400 vascular plants+ 130 habitats of European significance

PA Planning & ManagementCatalan Ministry of the Environment: 85%

• Local Governments: 15 %

• Private NGOs: 3%

• Most PA are privately owned

0102030405060

<10 ha 11-100 ha 101-1.000ha

1.001-10.000 ha

> 10.001 ha

Size distribution in ha

Protected Area System of Catalonia

• 148 PA (676.014 ha = 21%)

• 262 PA units, 10 legal categories

• 365 PA sub-units

0

150,000

300,000

450,000

600,000

750,000

Ia II III IV V

IUCN categories distribution

ha

1992

The Institució Catalana d’Història Natural (1898) is the oldest independent scientific organization devoted to the study and dissemination of natural heritage values and threats in Catalonia.

• Who conducted the evaluation?

• What evaluation method has been applied?

IUCN WCPA framework (2000) Evaluation focus: Outputs & Outcomes, Context, Legislation, Planning, Inputs, & Processes of PA were evaluated as well.

First evaluation of a PA system using WCPA framework in the Mediterranean basin.

Living observatory of Action Plan for PA of Spain (2002)

• How was the evaluation process developed?

November 2000

July 2003

1 Define methodology

2 Institutional suport

3 Pilot plan

4 Evaluation

Next steps: 2003-04

• Seminar to adapt WCPA guidelines: first proposal of indicators• Review of cientific committee + Management agencies

• Catalan Ministry of the Environment & Fundació Territori i Paisatge

• Selection and training of evaluators; evaluation of 7 representative PA; • Review by managers, final proposal of indicators (changes in 51%)

• Selection and training of ca. 140 evaluators• Collaboration with several scientific institutions for data acquisition• Field + managers data collection & acquisition • Comments by PA managers • Review of evaluation for consistency• Database creation + statistic analysis• Diagnose interpretation and reporting

• Dissemination of findings (Catalonia, Spain, Internationally)• Strategic participatory plan for entire PA system based on findings

1.1. Conservation value of geology1.2. Conservation value of flora and vegetation1.3. Conservation value of vertebrate fauna1.4. Conservation value of invertebrate fauna1.5. Conservation value of domestic traditional breeds1.6. Presence of habitats of European significance1.7. Spiritual, cultural or historical relevance1.8. Dimensions1.9. Shape1.10. Ecological reconstitution stage1.11. Fragmentation1.12. Ecological connectivity1.13. Fire risk1.14. Geological risk1.15. Urban pressures1.16. Infrastructure pressures1.17. Threats significance1.18. Population1.19. Sectoral work force1.20. Visitors1.21. Area with economic production

Context: 21

87 indicators

87 indicatorsContext: 21

2.1. IUCN equivalent category2.2. Adequacy of existing legal protection2.3. International designations2.4. Adequacy of design2.5. Coherence of the protected natural areas system2.6. Land ownership2.7. Natural resources management planning level2.8. Existence and adequacy of PA management plan2.9. Time span between declaration of PA and approval ofmanagement plan2.10. Conservation categories included on mgnt. plan2.11. Public dissemination of management plan

Planning & Legislation: 11

87 indicators

Context: 21

3.1. Staff by type of contract3.2. Staff by type of responsibility3.3. NGOs and corporations contributing to PA3.4. Facilities inside the PA3.5. Facilities outside (around) PA3.6. Fire prevention plan and management3.7. Use of new technologies3.8. PA environmentally friendly facilities3.9. Access with motor vehicles3.10. Budget of PA3.11. Adequacy of the available resources3.12. Funding sources

Planning & Legislation: 12 Inputs:12

87 indicators

Context: 21

4.1. Internal procedures4.2. Participation of volunteers in PA4.3. Public participation on the board of PA4.4. Public participation elaboration of mgt. plan4.5. Annual reporting of PA management4.6. Level of economic autonomy4.7. PA legislation enforcement

Planning & Legislation: 12 Inputs:12Processes: 7

87 indicators

Context: 21

5.1. Number of visitors making use of PA facilities5.2. Physical identification of boundaries and accesses5.3. Information panels5.4. Sing posted paths and trails5.5. Staff devoted to PA public use5.6. Mandatory consultation reports5.7. Technical and economic support to local population5.8. Scientific publications5.9. Popular publications5.10. Research related to PA management5.11. Educational activities5.12. Execution of activities included in mgt. programs

Planning & Legislation: 12 Inputs:12Processes: 7 Outputs: 12

87 indicators

Context: 21

6.1. Changes in key geologic features or elements6.2. Changes in key species6.3. Changes in key habitats6.4. Local extinction of species6.5. Land use/land cover changes6.6. Negative impacts due to legal activities6.7. Changes of rivers ecological conditions6.8. Eutrophy of marine waters6.9. Changes on the quality of groundwater6.10. Impact of wildfires6.11. Shape and dimension changes6.12. Changes on the condition of historical and cultural heritage6.13. Changes on the number of visitors6.14. Changes on education and sensitivity6.15. Changes on the perception of quality of PA quality6.16. Monitoring and research6.17. Economic activity that has been induced by PA6.18. Number of jobs that have been created6.19. Changes on the (local population) average family earnings6.20. Changes on the local population types of jobs6.21. Changes in the number of farms6.22. Demographic changes in the local population

Planning & Legislation: 13 Inputs:12Processes: 7 Outputs: 12 Outcomes: 22

87 indicators

6.6 Impactes negatius deguts a activitats

Descripció

Es vol valorar el grau d’afecció dels valors naturals de l’ENP coma conseqüència dels impactes negatius deguts a activitats, tant sihan estat autoritzades per l’òrgan sectorial responsable com si estracta d’activitats il·legals.

Tipus Resultats.

Sistema de càlcul S’estableix una escala ordinal de cinc graus, que valora elsimpactes des de molt greus fins a nuls.

Font de les dades Òrgan gestor de l’ENP, administració sectorial, ONG i treball decamp.

Protocol de presade mesures

Es recolliran les dades corresponents a impactes negatius degutsactivitats autoritzades per l’òrgan sectorial responsable i activitatsno autoritzades.

Per a cadascuna de les categories anteriors es considerarà queels impactes han estat:- Molt greus, quan hagin afectat més del 20 % de la superfície

de l’ENP,- Greus, quan hagin afectat entre el 1 % i el 20 %,- Considerables, quan hagin afectat entre 0,01-1 %,- Lleus, quan hagin afectat menys de 0,01 %, o- Nuls, quan l’afectació hagi estat inferior a la unitat mínima

cartografiable.

Aquest càlcul es pot fer a partir de sistemes cartogràfics o, quanaquests manquin, per estimació.Per activitats autoritzades s’entén aquelles que han estatautoritzades per l’organisme sectorial responsable (turisme,agricultura, etc.). Per activitats il·legals s’entenen aquelles quehan estat executades sense la necessària autoritzacióadministrativa o mitjançant autoritzacions il·legals, com quans’hagin emès sense disposar de l’informe preceptiu de l’òrganresponsable de l’ENP, quan aquest és legalment requerit. S’enténper impactes negatius aquells que han provocat la destrucció o ladegradació significativa, d’elements geològics, comunitatsvegetals, hàbitats, paisatges o ecosistemes, tant si es tracta de laseva artificialització (infrastructures, urbanització, etc.) com de laseva destrucció física, de manera que no es preveu la seva totalde recuperació en un període inferior als deu anys.Aquesta valoració es farà d’ençà la seva declaració. En aquellscasos en que les dades obtingudes corresponguin a un períodeinferior als darrers cinc anys, es considerarà la categoria d’afecciósuperior a la realment obtinguda.

Tendènciadesitjada Que tendeixin a minvar fins ser nuls.

6.6 I mpactes negatius deguts a activitats

(Figura o unitat a la que s’aplica)I mpactes negatius degut a activitats autoritzades (vegeu 1.15,1.16 i 1.17):(es poden af egir tantes fi les com calgui)I mpacte: ___________________________________________________________________ Superf ície: _______ haI mpacte: ___________________________________________________________________ Superf ície: _______ haI mpacte: ___________________________________________________________________ Superf ície: _______ haI mpactes negatius degut a activitats no autoritzades (vegeu1.15, 1.16 i 1.17):(es poden af egir tantes fi les com calgui)I mpacte: ___________________________________________________________________ Superf ície: _______ haI mpacte: ___________________________________________________________________ Superf ície: _______ haI mpacte: ___________________________________________________________________ Superf ície: _______ haSuperf ície total afectada pels impactes: ________ ha

Dades

Superf ície de la categoria o unitat (dades a 1.8): _ ________ ha

Valoració Grau d’afectació: molt greu, greu, considerable, baix o nul

Critical

Severe

Medium

Low

Absent

LD/NA

Indicator 6.6 Negative impactes due to ( legal + illegal) activities

Evaluation findings

• Only 26 (18%) PA have management plans

• Only 36 PA are actively managed (some PA do not need it)

• Half PA have no adequate design

• 74% PA is under serious pressures and threats

• 27% PA experienced local flora or fauna species extinction• Almost half of the PA have population living inside • Almost all PA increased visitors (+12 million visits-year)• Everybody agree that PA are underfunded• Positive changes of attitude of local population in 43% PA• No direct relationship on inputs + outputs and outcomes • 74% PA had positive impact in local economies• 18% PA report activities, none does performance evaluation

Elaborated by legal figures, IUCN categories, agencies,management types, combination of pressures & threats,...

WCPA framework for MEE is very useful, flexible and adaptable.

Pilot plan is needed for adjusting methodology to local conditions.

A participatory approach has advantages but it is more time consuming.

High number of evaluators requires extra co-ordination and review efforts.

Managers, planners and evaluators of PA got a better understanding of problem causes and potential remedies.

A large proportion of the evaluation was done on a voluntary basis.

Public availability & dissemination of MEE findings is important.

A PA system evaluation is crucial for strategic planning at the system level.

Lack of evaluation tradition in public administration creates difficulties.

Some lessons learned

Full report soon available at: http://www.iecat /ichncontacts: ichn@iecat.net mallarach@natura.ictnet.es