|
|
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 |
 |
5,5 |
- |
|
70 |
| Orchards (olive trees, etc.) |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Bee-keeping |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Pasture lands |
|
95 |
- |
|
70-80 |
| Planted forest-tree crops (e.g., cork, timber, pulp,...) |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Managed semi-natural forest or coppice |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Aromatic plants |
|
50 |
- |
|
|
| Edible mushrooms |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Urban: residential, tourist facilities, etc. |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Stipa Tenacissima |
|
16 |
- |
|
70 |
|
| *Please indicate the reference date (e.g., at the time of project implementation; 25, 50, etc. years before project implementation; etc.): |
| 1949 |
|
| 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: |
1949 |
| Projection for the future Ref.Date: |
|
| Type of livestock |
Before the project |
At present |
Projection for the future);echo " ";?> |
| Sheeps |
200 |
0 |
0 |
|
| b) Comments on past, present and projections for future census and exploitation systems in the restoration area: |
| Before the state bought Periago plot sheeps and goats grazed on it. The owner noticed that goats damaged the forest and he decided not to allow goats in the area. Since then only sheep have grazed in the area.. 5 years ago Regional Forest Service decided not to introduce any kind of livestock because they considered the area very fragile |
|
| 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? |
| No |
| Non-timber products collected |
Economic importance |
| --- |
--- |
|
| 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: |
|
| c) Number (approximate) of people employed in the restored area ? /year: |
| Occasional |
10 |
| Permanent |
|
|
| 6. Homeland |
| a) Are people living in the restored area? |
| No |
| 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): |
Increase |
| Range of change: |
Low |
|
| 7. Recreational and educational value |
| a) Uniquiness of particular sites within the restored area? |
| No |
| Description: |
|
| b) Do people use the restored area for recreation? |
| No |
| c) Average number of visitors/year (approximate value): |
| |
| d) Presence of tourist or educational facilities (visitor centre, guide trails,...): |
| No |
| If yes, please list number and types: |
| |
| 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, ...) |
| No |
| 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? |
| No |
| Description: |
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
