|
|
III.5. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT |
VI.2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT |
| 1. What types of exploitation were and are most frequent in the area: |
| Types of exploitation |
Before the project |
% of project area |
Actual |
% of project area |
Date of abandonment |
| Field agriculture |
 |
5 |
- |
|
1880 |
| Orchards (olive trees, etc.) |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Bee-keeping |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Pasture lands |
|
20 |
- |
|
|
| Planted forest-tree crops (e.g., cork, timber, pulp,...) |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Managed semi-natural forest or coppice |
|
70 |
|
95 |
|
| Aromatic plants |
|
10 |
|
5 |
|
| Edible mushrooms |
|
5 |
|
5 |
|
| Urban: residential, tourist facilities, etc. |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
| *Please indicate the reference date (e.g., at the time of project implementation; 25, 50, etc. years before project implementation; etc.): |
| |
|
| 2. Does significant grazing take place in the project area? |
| No |
| a) Indicate species and livestock population (data on past, present and projections for future, if available) |
| Before the project Ref.Date: |
|
| Projection for the future Ref.Date: |
|
| Type of livestock |
Before the project |
At present |
Projection for the future);echo " ";?> |
| Sheeps |
|
0 |
0 |
| Goats |
|
0 |
0 |
|
| b) Comments on past, present and projections for future census and exploitation systems in the restoration area: |
| Population before project is unknown, but is was excesive, because grazing was one of the main deforestation agents |
|
| 3. Are timber and other wood products exploited: |
| No |
| a) Type of timber and other wood products (species): |
| |
| b) Volume produced/year: |
| |
| c) Is timber and other wood products felled for use for local people? |
| No |
| Description: |
|
|
| 4. Are non-timber forest products collected? |
| Yes |
| Non-timber products collected |
Economic importance |
| Aromatic plants |
low |
| Edible mushrooms |
low |
|
| c) Does hunting take place? |
Yes |
|
| 5. Employment |
| a) Did project implementation works generate jobs for the local population? |
| Yes |
| b) Does the restored area provide jobs at present? |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Occasional |
|
|
Permanent |
| Description: |
Maintenance service; Information service; Technical service |
| c) Number (approximate) of people employed in the restored area ? /year: |
| Occasional |
|
| Permanent |
15 |
|
| 6. Homeland |
| a) Are people living in the restored area? |
| Yes |
| b) If yes, indicate type of lifestyle: |
|
- |
Indigenous |
|
- |
Settled |
|
|
Part-time/Second home |
|
c) Human population dynamics in the project area in the last 20 years: |
| Type (increase/decrease): |
Decrease |
| Range of change: |
Low |
|
| 7. Recreational and educational value |
| a) Uniquiness of particular sites within the restored area? |
| Yes |
| Description: |
Forest in a semiarid environment |
| b) Do people use the restored area for recreation? |
| Yes |
| c) Average number of visitors/year (approximate value): |
| 200.000 |
| d) Presence of tourist or educational facilities (visitor centre, guide trails,...): |
| No |
| If yes, please list number and types: |
| Visitor centre "RIcardo Codorniú |
| e) Types of activity (walking, hunting,...) |
| |
| f) Is the area used in scientific work? |
| No |
| Description: |
|
|
| 8. Cultural value |
| a) Does the project area have particular significance to local inhabitants? |
| No |
| b) Are there important cultural or religious sites present in the project area?: (World Heritage sites, sacred groves, trees, burial sites, buildings, ..) |
| No |
| c) If yes, list sites, types, designations and indicate if they have official protection: |
| |
|
d) Presence of culturally important lanscapes: (land management, grazing system, ...) |
| Yes |
| Description: |
|
|
e) Are there references in folklore, literature, etc. to the project area? |
|
- |
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Unknown |
|
f) After the project implementation, were there any negative impacts to cultural sites/landscapes? |
| Yes |
| Description: |
Snow caves in the higher zones of the Park |
|
g) Have the cultural sites/landscapes been protected in the framework of the project? |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Partly |
|
|
9. Local participation |
| a) In relation to the project, the local population has a position
of? |
|
- |
Participation |
|
- |
Indifference |
|
- |
Opposition |
|
- |
Boycott |
| b) Are local people involved in decisions about the project area? |
| No |
| c) What is the nature of participation? |
| |
| d) Has a questionnaire been prepared concerning local people's perception of the project (participatory approach)? |
|
- |
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Unknown |
|
| Was it intended to make the population: |
| - more sensitive to risks (wildfires, floods, erosion, etc.)? |
|
- |
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Unknown |
| - more aware of the advantages of ecological restoration? |
|
|
Yes |
|
- |
No |
|
- |
Unknown |
|
- |
Other: |
|
|
|
