|
|
VII. SUMMARY
|
VII.1. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOALS
|
| 1. Have the defined success criteria (if any) been attained? (see section III.4.6 and sections V &VI) |
|
 |
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
There were not defined success
criteria |
|
- |
Only for some restored units.Describe: |
|
|
- |
Only for some criteria. Describe: |
|
|
| 2. Have the structural goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.3 and V.1 & V.2) |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Only for some units.
Describe: |
Today we have quite good mixed stands of broadleaves and conifers. |
|
| 3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3) |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Description: |
Local people today are satisfied with wood production and tourist development. |
|
| 4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1) |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Description: |
|
|
| 5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2) |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Description: |
Increase of the agro- tourist activities in the area. |
|
6. According to survival and growth of planted/seeded species, the plantation/seeding success was:
(see V.1.4, V.1.5,
V.1.6.a-g) |
|
|
Very high |
|
- |
High |
|
- |
Medium |
|
- |
Low |
|
- |
Very low |
VII.2. STRUCTURAL QUALITY
|
1. How natural is the composition of the restored ecosystem(s)?
(see V.2.5, V.2.6 &
V.2.7) |
|
- |
Fully |
|
- |
Partly. Explain: |
|
|
|
Depend on the restored unit. Explain: |
It was easier in good sites |
|
2. How natural/mature is the structure and pattern of the restored ecosystem(s)?
(see V.2.1, V.2.2, V.2.3, V.2.4 &
V.2.12) |
|
- |
Fully |
|
|
Partly. Explain: |
|
|
- |
Depend on the restored unit. Explain: |
|
|
3. Presence of important biodiversity
(according to species richness, and the presence of indicator, rare, endemic,endangered, protected species; see V.2.9, V.2.10, V.2.11, V.2.12 &
V.2.13): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
Medium |
|
- |
No |
|
4. In the restored area, the project has:
(according to species richness, and the presence of indicator, rare, endemic,endangered, protected species;see
V.2.9) |
|
|
Increased biodiversity |
|
- |
Decreased biodiversity |
|
- |
Conserved biodiversity |
VII.3. FUNCTIONAL QUALITY
|
| 1. Ecosystem dynamics: |
| Does the restored ecosystem regenerate naturally? (see V.1.6.h,i,j & V.3.6): |
|
- |
Yes |
|
|
Not fully. Explain: |
The regeneration depends on site's quality. |
| Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly. Explain: |
After reforestation understorey vegetation came |
|
| 2. Overall functioning: |
| How are the soil characteristics? (see V.3.3, V.3.4 &
V.3.5): |
|
|
Stable |
|
- |
Slightly degraded |
|
- |
Seriously degraded |
| How is the potential for nutrient cycling? (see V.3.1, V.3.2 &
V.3.3): |
|
- |
High |
|
|
Medium |
|
- |
Low |
| How is the ecosystem productivity? (see V.1.6.g, i, V.3.10, VI.2.2, VI.2.3 &
VI.2.4): |
|
- |
High |
|
|
Medium |
|
- |
Low |
|
| 3. How is the overall ecosystem health? (see V.4) |
|
- |
Good (No relevant pests, diseases, invasive species, or dead/damaged plants by abiotic
factors.) |
|
|
Medium (Some individuals affected; low severity
level) |
|
- |
Poor (Relevant pests, diseases, invasive species, or dead/damaged plants by abiotic
factors.) |
| What are the pollution levels? |
|
- |
High |
|
- |
Medium |
|
|
Low |
|
| 4. The project significantly increases |
| Resistance (e.g., to grazing, pests, fire, drought, see II.6. and V.3.7 & V.3.8): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Resilience (e.g., to fire, pests, drought, etc., see II.6.2 and V.3.9 & V.4 ): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Erosion control (see II. 6.1 and IV.2.14, V.3.4, V.3.5 & VI.1.8
) |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
| Flood control (see II. 6.1 and VI.1.7): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
VII.4. LANDSCAPE QUALITY
|
| 1. The project significantly increases: |
| Forest surface (see VI.1.2): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Slightly |
| Connectivity among patches of formerly isolated populations (see VI.1.4.c,d & VI.1.5): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Slightly |
| Integration among forests and other habitats (see VI.1.2 & VI.1.5d,e): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Slightly |
| Habitat diversity (see VI.1.2): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Slightly |
| The protected surface (see VI.1.4): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Slightly |
|
| 2. Aesthetic value (see VI.1.5, VI.1.6,VI.2.7 & VI.2.8): |
|
- |
Very high |
|
|
High |
|
- |
Medium |
|
- |
Low |
VII.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
|
| 1. Cultural value (see VI.1.3, VI.2.7 & VI.2.8): |
| Does the project area have particular cultural significance to local inhabitants? |
| Yes |
| The project has... |
|
|
increased |
|
- |
decreased |
|
- |
preserved |
|
- |
created |
|
- |
damaged |
|
...the cultural value of the
site. |
| Degree of local participation (see VI.2.9): |
|
|
High |
|
- |
Medium |
|
- |
Low |
|
2. Has the project generated ecosystem goods for the local population?
(see VI.2.1, VI.2.2, VI. 2.3 & VI.2.4): |
| Yes |
| Amount of timber and non-timber goods provided : |
|
- |
Very high |
|
|
High |
|
- |
Medium |
|
- |
Low |
|
3. Has the project enhanced ecosystem services?
(see III.1.4 and V.3, VI.1.7 &
VI.1.8): |
| Yes |
| Description: |
The protection of soils has improved the ecology, diversity, aesthetics and culture. |
|
4. Does the project contribute to fix/support/increase rural population by increasing tourist and recreational value, by direct employment, or by providing homeland?
(See VI.2.5, VI.2.6, VI.2.7): |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Slightly |
|
