Résultats De La Première Évaluation De La Gestion Des Aires Protégées
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia Final report of the RAPPAM analysis Authors: Deni Porej and Željka Rajković Recommended citation format: Porej, D. & Rajković, Ž., 2009, Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia. A project implemented in collaboration between the Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture and the WWF Mediterranean Programme. When summarizing information from this report, please use the above form of citation. However, for the use of detailed results of the analysis, a written agreement should be obtained from both authors. Context Executive summary 5 1. Introduction and context 7 1.1. Biological diversity in Croatia 7 1.2. Nature protection system in Croatia 8 2. Application of the methodology 13 2.1. Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity 13 2.2. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology) 14 2.3. Application of the RAPPAM Methodology in Croatia 16 3. Results and analysis 17 3.1. Pressures and threats in protected areas 17 3.1.1. System‐wide threats 18 3.1.1.1. Threats and pressures in different types of protected areas 18 3.1.2. Threat ranking 21 3.1.2.1. Forest management 21 3.1.2.2. Hunting and fishing 22 3.1.2.3. Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights 22 3.1.2.4. Conversion of land use 23 3.1.2.5. Water management 24 3.1.2.6. Wastewater management 24 3.1.2.7. Tourism 25 3.1.2.8. Vegetation sucession 26 3.1.2.9. Fire management 26 3.1.2.10. Other pressures and threats 27 3.1.3. Trends 29 3.2. Protected management design and planning (Questions 6‐8) 30 3.2.1. Objectives (Question 6) 30 3.2.2. Legal security (Question 7) 31 3.2.3. Site planning and design (Question 8) 32 3.3. Protected area inputs (Questions 9‐12) 34 3.3.1. Staffing 34 3.3.2. Communication and information (Question 10) 36 3.3.3. Infrastructure (Question 11) 36 3.3.4. Financies (Question 12) 37 3.4. Management processes (Questions 13‐15) 38 3.4.1. Management planning (Question 13) 39 3.4.2. Management decision making (Question 14) 40 3.4.3. Research, evaluation and monitoring (Question 15) 41 3.5. Outputs (Question 16) 42 4. Recomendations 43 5. Acknowledgements 46 List of Tables Table 1. Protected Areas (Including Areas under Preventive Protection) 10 Table 2. National and Nature Parks in Croatia 11 Table 3. Assessment Elements in WWF's Rapid Assessment Questionnaire 14 Table 4. Summary of Recommendations Derived from the Application of the RAPPAM Methodology 45 List of Figures Figure 1. Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia 12 Figure 2. Assessment and the Management Cycle (adapted from Hockings et al. 2000) 14 Figure 3. System‐Wide Pressures and Threats 18 Figure 4. Threats in Terrestrial Protected Areas 19 Figure 5. Threats in Marine Protected Areas 19 Figure 6. Threats in Freshwater Protected Areas 20 Figure 7. Forest Management 21 Figure 8. Hunting and fishing 22 Figure 9. Unsettled Disputes Regarding Land Tenure and Use Rights 23 Figure 10. Conversion of Land Use 23 Figure 11. Water management 24 Figure 12. Wastewater management 24 Figure 13. Tourism and Recreation 25 Figure 14. Vegetation Succession 26 Figure 15. Fire Management 26 Figure 16. Comparing Pressures and Threats System‐Wide 29 Figure 17. Protected Area Design and Planning (Aggregate) 30 Figure 18. Protected Area Design and Planning – Objectives 30 Figure 19. Protected Area Design and Planning – Legal Security 31 Figure 20. Protected Area Design and Planning – Site Planning and Design 32 Figure 21. Protected Area Inputs (Aggregate) 34 Figure 22. Protected Area Inputs – Staffing 34 Figure 23. Protected Area Inputs – Communication and Information 36 Figure 24. Protected Area Inputs – Infrastructure 36 Figure 25. Protected Area Inputs – Finances 37 Figure 26. Management Processes (Aggregate) 38 Figure 27. Management Processes – Management Planning 39 Figure 28. Management Processes – Management Decision Making 40 Figure 29. Management Processes – Research, evaluation and monitoring 41 Figure 30. Outputs 42 ANNEXES ANNEX 1. RAPPAM Questionnaire 47 ANNEX 2. RAPPAM Workshop agenda 54 ANNEX 3. List of contact details of workshop participants 56 ANNEX 4. Acronyms used 57 Porej, D. & Rajković, Ž., 2009, Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology Page 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, at the seventh meeting of the systems and trans‐boundary protected area Conference of the Parties to the Convention levels by 2010. on Biological Diversity, 188 members (including Croatia) agreed on the Programme In October 2008, the management of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) as one effectiveness of protected areas in Croatia of the most ambitious nature protection was assessed by using the RAPPAM strategies ever. The overall purpose of the Methodology. The project was carried out in Programme of Work on Protected Areas is to collaboration between the Ministry of support the establishment and maintenance Culture’s Nature Protection Directorate, the by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for State Institute for Nature Protection and marine areas of comprehensive, effectively WWF’s Mediterranean Office, involving managed, and ecologically representative participation of all 9 National Parks and 10 national and regional systems of protected Nature Parks. The analysis and results of the areas. application of the RAPPAM Methodology reflect the assessment made by national and As one of their commitments, the Parties to nature park managers and/or administrators. the Convention are required to adopt and implement frameworks for monitoring, The major findings of research made on the evaluation and reporting protected areas basis of the aforementioned analysis are the management at sites, national and regional following. Pressures and threats Key pressures/threats in terrestrial protected areas include unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights, the conversion of land use and uncontrolled vegetation succession. Key pressures/threats in marine protected areas include fire management issues, unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights and uncontrolled vegetation succession. Key pressures/threats in freshwater protected areas include water management issues, invasive species and wastewater management issues. It is worth noting that freshwater protected area managers expect these pressures to increase in the future. Marine and freshwater protected areas are exposed to a number of pressures and threats that are of a much higher degree than those in terrestrial protected areas. In particular, none of the terrestrial pressures/threats reaches the scores determined for fire management and unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights (marine protected areas) and for water management and invasive species (freshwater protected areas). The workshop participants believe that the issues of forest management, hunting and fishing, land‐use conversion and land‐mine contamination will lose some of their weight in the future. However, as for other threats – especially the five “big” ones, including invasive species, unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights, water management, vegetation succession and fire management – the participants do not foresee any significant decrease in their degree. This is a serious indication that these issues deserve special attention in the near future. Porej, D. & Rajković, Ž., 2009, Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology Page 6 Objectives, legal security and protected area site design At the level of Croatia's protected areas system as a whole, we may say that legal security and clearly defined objectives concerning biodiversity protection constitute the strengths of the management system. Disputes regarding land use and a lack of law enforcement resources are two areas highlighted by workshop participants as involving somewhat heavier challenges. Protected area inputs At the level of Croatia’s protected areas system as a whole, we may say that communication, information and infrastructure inputs are fully or mostly sufficient to perform critical management activities in most of the protected areas (major exceptions pertain to certain marine protected areas). The workshop participants have highlighted staffing levels, staff training and development as well as conditions for high‐quality staff employment and retention as areas involving somewhat heavier challenges. In their opinion, funding in the past five years has been mostly adequate to conduct critical management activities in most of the parks. However, no less than one third of the parks believe that funding for the next five years will mostly be not adequate to conduct critical management activities. A positive finding of the analysis is that most of the parks believe that the long‐term financial outlook for the protected areas is mostly stable (subject to a diversification of funding sources). Protected area management processes At a system‐wide level, the participants have given a generally positive assessment of management planning and decision‐making processes as well as research and monitoring efforts in the protected areas. The marine protected areas are only just developing their management plans and have greater needs for enhancing their knowledge of the status of marine systems and species. Research on key ecological issues is fully or mostly consistent with the needs of the protected areas. Some problems may occur in the co‐ordination of priority research efforts at the national level, communication between researchers and the protected areas in certain parks (work supervision, research feedback) and, in some cases, due to a lack of external researchers required to conduct key research projects.