|
|
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 |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Orchards (olive trees, etc.) |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Bee-keeping |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Pasture lands |
 |
100 |
|
100 |
1965 |
| Planted forest-tree crops (e.g., cork, timber, pulp,...) |
- |
|
|
30 |
The temporary conifer stand ha |
| Managed semi-natural forest or coppice |
|
until project implementation |
- |
|
|
| Aromatic plants |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Edible mushrooms |
- |
|
- |
|
|
| Urban: residential, tourist facilities, etc. |
- |
|
- |
|
|
|
| *Please indicate the reference date (e.g., at the time of project implementation; 25, 50, etc. years before project implementation; etc.): |
| at the time of project implementation |
|
| 2. Does significant grazing take place in the project area? |
| Yes |
| a) Indicate species and livestock population (data on past, present and projections for future, if available) |
| Before the project Ref.Date: |
1965 |
| Projection for the future Ref.Date: |
next years |
| Type of livestock |
Before the project |
At present |
Projection for the future);echo " ";?> |
| Cows |
Over 4 per ha |
less than 1/ha |
less than 1/ha |
|
| b) Comments on past, present and projections for future census and exploitation systems in the restoration area: |
| Grazing stopped at plantation time and was successively resumed but with much lower intensity.;
Census information are derived from rough date and are not fully accurate. Moreover density varies greatly. Therefore, proposed values represent rough estimates base on local experience, just to frame problem dimension. Grazing density caused seriuos problems in the past particularly because it was coupled with forest exploitation,but the restoration actions greatly reduced grazing for several years, time enough for the trees to grow above grazing heigth. Current exploitation by grazing does not show any evidence of serious unsustainability and is expected to continue this way for the next decade. |
|
| 3. Are timber and other wood products exploited: |
| Yes |
| a) Type of timber and other wood products (species): |
| Firewood is the traditional main product of these oak coppices, some logs have been produced exploit |
| b) Volume produced/year: |
| Oak productivity is relatively low, probably less |
| c) Is timber and other wood products felled for use for local people? |
| Yes |
| Description: |
firewood is distributed at administratively set fa |
|
| 4. Are non-timber forest products collected? |
| Yes |
| Non-timber products collected |
Economic importance |
| mushrooms |
just for personal use |
|
| c) Does hunting take place? |
No |
|
| 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: |
not more than before project implementation |
| c) Number (approximate) of people employed in the restored area ? /year: |
| Occasional |
|
| 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): |
decrease |
| 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? |
| Yes |
| c) Average number of visitors/year (approximate value): |
| 30 |
| 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,...) |
| Walking |
| f) Is the area used in scientific work? |
| Yes |
| Description: |
monitoring of restoration processes is foreseen in the future |
|
| 8. Cultural value |
| a) Does the project area have particular significance to local inhabitants? |
| Yes |
| 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: |
oak coppices represented important landscape for wood production and grazing |
|
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? |
| rather passive participation, conifer reforestation has been accepted and respected. Some opposition |
| 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: |
|
|
|
