by Josep M. Mallarach
Els Encantats, Parc Nacional © Xavier Sabaté i Rotés
The evaluation of the protected area system of Catalonia, Spain (2002–03) was the first to assess the effectiveness of an entire system of protected areas within Spain, and one of the first in the European Union to be conducted by an external, independent scientific organization, based on the IUCN-WCPA Framework.
Catalonia is an Autonomous Community of Spain, a quasi federal state, where natural areas protection is the responsibility of regional governments. Challenges for natural heritage conservation in Catalonia are complex. With a population of seven million, plus 15 million tourists in summer, Catalonia is one of the most heavily industrialized regions of Europe. At the same time, it has a rich biodiversity, from alpine ecosystems up to 3000m high to the Mediterranean coasts, from steppe areas to wet deciduous forests and wetlands. This diversity is reflected in its over 3400 vascular flora taxa: twice as many species as most central or northern European countries.
The Catalan Ministry for the Environment and Housing is the main responsible agency for legislation, planning and management of protected areas. The Catalonia system includes 148 protected areas (terrestrial, marine and a combination of both) with a combined surface equivalent to 21 per cent of the Catalonia's land. These areas were created from 1955–1993 mostly through the Natural Areas Plan of 1992 and are organized around 10 different legal types of protection.
The evaluation of protected areas was conducted by the Catalan Institution for Natural History (Institució Catalana d'Història Natural, ICHN), the oldest and most influential scientific organization in Catalonia. The evaluation was external, participatory and independent, though it received the support and collaboration of the Ministry for the Environment and Housing, as well as economic support from Foundation Territori i Paisatge de Caixa Catalunya (a savings bank) and the Diputació de Girona (a local authority). In addition, several research centres from three Catalan universities collaborated in the evaluation, helping in the application of a limited number of indicators for the entire system.
The goals of the project were:
to introduce the practice of protected area evaluation to Spain following a sound, internationally accepted methodology;
to disseminate the findings of the evaluation to the public;
to help improve the condition of the protected area system in Catalonia.
The main objectives were to assess the condition of the entire system of protected areas in Catalonia, and to be a ‘Living Observatory’ of the Action Plan for the protected areas of Spain of 2000,64 thus becoming a significant reference for future evaluations of protected areas in other regions of Spain, as well as other European countries.
Thus, the evaluation was not intended to assess if the protected area system was sufficient to conserve biodiversity in the long run. Neither was it to assess whether the protected area system included a representative sample of landscapes, as recommended by the Landscape European Convention.65 Rather, its goal was to assess the planning and management effectiveness of the existing system.
Since it was the first protected area evaluation to be conducted in Spain, it took a long time to set up, develop and complete the process of assessment. The main steps in this process are summarised below:
In November 2000 the ICHN organized a workshop to adapt the WCPA Framework to the particular situation of Catalonia. Next, six reporters worked on the first draft of 87 indicators.
During 2001 the definition of the indicators was completed, and funding was secured to conduct a pilot plan. In February 2002, a seminar was held about the scope of the evaluation and the methodology to be used.
From March to May 2002 a pilot evaluation was conducted in seven protected areas, representing a sample of the system: from large mountain natural parks, to small steppe natural areas or marine strict nature preserves. The purpose was to test the methodology and refine and adjust the indicators.
In July 2002 the coordinators organized seven seminars in different parts of Catalonia to explain the methodology to the 130 evaluators, making sure that everybody had a sufficient understanding of it. Then began the actual data compilation for evaluation, which lasted six months.
Once the protected area evaluations were completed, the evaluators sent all the forms in electronic format to the managers, asking them to comment on the findings. Once this step was completed, both the evaluation and the managers' comments were sent to the secretariat of the ICHN, where all the forms were reviewed and checked for completion and coherence. When a problem was found, the responsible evaluator was required to solve it.
In January 2003, data analysis was carried out using a database created for the task. The next two months were spent elaborating the proposed analysis with the input of all the evaluators. Later, several workshops were conducted to discuss the analysis, until a consensus was reached to validate the interpretation. This was a delicate process, since several indicators are dependent on the management objectives of the area. For instance, an increase in environmental education programmes is considered positive within a natural park, but it is negative within a small strict preserve.
The active participation and support of the Ministry of the Environment and Housing proved to be very useful.
From September 2003 to the present the dissemination of the methodology and results of the evaluation project has been done at four levels: Catalonia, Spain, Europe and the international community.
Although all 148 protected areas were independently evaluated, the findings were reported at the system level, using different aggregation criteria. Some of the main findings are summarised below:
The protected area system in Catalonia is quite large (the second largest in Spain) and includes a considerable number of elements of high geological, botanical, wildlife, cultural and spiritual value, despite the fact that only ecological values were used to identify the protected area systems set up in 1992.
The 10 different legal types of protected areas are equivalent to level I–V of the IUCN management categories. Levels of protection are low, in general: 93.5 per cent of the protected area system is under category V type of regulations, which is not appropriate in many cases. Moreover, a large number of legal and economic instruments have not been put into force. The lack of planning, funding and problems of ecological connectivity are among the main deficiencies. The instruments that have been better applied in relation to their objectives, are: National Park, Special Plan, and Peripherical Protection Zone. Conversely, the use of legislation to implement Natural Sites of National Interest, Strict Nature Preserves and Wildlife Nature Preserves has caused more confusion.
Negative pressures of variable significance have impacted on almost 75 per cent of the protected area system area. Negative impacts include infrastructure development, peripheral urban sprawl, irrigation projects, wild fires, tourist pressure, extractive activities, poaching, etc. Impact combination and iteration creates significant threats for the integrity of a number of protected areas, specially small ones containing fragile elements. Fifty-one per cent of the protected areas have an area of less than 10km2.
The resources available to face these threats have not been sufficient in most cases. Only 36 protected areas have a management team and only 26 protected areas have management plans. The total budget for protected areas with active management is about 30 million euros, but 71 per cent of it is concentrated in six protected areas.
The effectiveness of the protected areas has been lower than is desirable, but higher than critics expected. Limiting factors include inadequate legislation, low degree of administrative coordination, lack of resources, low coherence between action plans and actions performed, low application of discipline measures, and a lack of performance evaluation for individual protected areas. That explains why 40 per cent of the protected areas have suffered from severe to high negative impacts since declaration, which has resulted, in some cases, in the loss of some values that justified its establishment.
On the whole, economic subsidies for the local population have been low, and collaboration agreements with private owners exceptional, despite the fact that a major part of the protected area system is under private ownership, and that 36 per cent of the protected areas have local residents inside its boundaries. The socio-economic impact of the protected areas has been positive in a number of cases, and neutral in the rest. Public use of protected areas is generally high and keeps increasing. The system receives more than 11 million visitors per year, a factor which is in itself becoming a major stress for some protected areas.
Conservation outcomes have been very variable. Although some protected areas have been positive, a large number have seen neutral conservation outcomes and in some cases there is evidence of negative results, meaning that protected area managers have not had the power or the means to stop or reduce significant negative pressures. However, despite the fact that the lack of resources is acknowledged as a serious hindrance for all parties, no direct relationship has been found between available outputs and outcomes. Rather the most significant relation appears to be between pressures and impacts and outcomes. This means that protected areas that have had more losses are those that had suffered more pressures and impacts, and the amount of resources that the managers have had at their disposal is not a significant factor.
In a country with almost no experience in evaluating the efficiency of public policies, to make public, in its entirety, the findings of a performance evaluation of a complex protected area system such as that of Catalonia has had a significant intrinsic and educational value. A summary of the results of the evaluation has already been published66 and will soon be published in its entirety.67
At the end of the official public presentation of the findings, the Minister for Environment and Housing of Catalonia congratulated the authors on a good job. He stated that his Department accepted the results of the evaluation in their entirety, wished to make them widely known and declared the will to undertake an action plan based on the findings of the evaluation. This may be possible, since among the main short-term objectives of the current Catalan government is a new legal framework for the protection of the natural heritage and biodiversity of Catalonia and the establishment of a new agency of nature conservation.
Furthermore, the evaluation is regarded as a significant tool to improve planning and management of the protected area system of Catalonia. This will require the development of a participatory Action Plan based on the guidelines of the Action Plan for the protected areas of Spain, which takes into consideration the results of the evaluation.68
Among the many valuable lessons learned during the process, one can point out the following:
The positive impact that a committed NGO can make on assessing the management of protected areas, even in countries which lack tradition in this matter.
The value of an iterative, participatory process to adapt the WCPA Framework to a particular situation. The pilot plan allowed substantial refinements, even at the end of the process when further simplifications were introduced.
The critical importance of the support of the key agencies, local governments and other private NGOs, without which the evaluation could not have been performed.
The complexity of coordinating over one hundred different evaluators with different backgrounds, experience levels and knowledge of protected areas.
The need to provide appropriate training and ensure effective coordination between the evaluators during the entire process.
The frequent difficulty of getting significant data from public local and regional authorities that are not used to being evaluated and have a variable level of distrust towards this process.
The positive reaction of most stakeholders: policy-makers, managers, planners and evaluators– who all acknowledged that they have learned a great deal from this evaluation.
For some types of protected areas (mainly Strict Nature Preserves, Wildlife Preserves and some Nature Parks) the problems identified are so serious that it is advisable to undertake evaluations at the individual protected area level, as soon as possible.
The potentially significant impact of the evaluation findings are in part due to the fact that there is currently a new government in Catalonia which is better disposed towards effectiveness evaluation and public participation in protected area management.
Holy mountain of Montserrat © Josep Maria Mallarach
64Múgica and Gómez-Limón (2003).
65European Landscape Convention (2000).
66Mallarach, Vila and Vargas (2004).