ACTION PLAN
FOR PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS OF THE SPANISH STATE

Spanish section of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
(EUROPARC-Spain)

Natural protected areas as a shared project

The decision to declare a piece of territory as a natural protected area is sure to affect the interests, material or otherwise, of a more or less large group of people, a group which may to a great degree be responsible for the current state of that territory. As such, the declaration presents a formidable challenge, since the conservation of natural and cultural patrimony should be compatible with the protection and improvement of the quality of life of the individuals related to the area.

It is evident that a challenge of this degree requires a great social commitment, impossible to undertake without making it known to the people. In a democratic society, a protected area can only be conceived as a shared project. This conception has progressively become more accepted in recent decades, to the extent that today international documents dealing with management coincide in attributing an important role to local populations and users in the project development. And it is in this respect that participation acquires its complete significance, i.e., the intervention of individuals and organizations in the planning and management of the area.

The creation of a protected area assumes the acceptance of commitments, restrictions and obligations, perhaps of a significant nature for a community. In line with the most basic of democratic ethics, these commitments must be established through the intervention of the parties interested. In this sense, participation would be a right and not a gift or concession to those affected.

General questions on environmental participation

Environmental participation has been defined as a process that directly implicates individuals in the knowledge, evaluation, prevention and correction of environmental problems (De Castro, 1998). More generically, participation is the process through which individuals make decisions on the institutions, programmes and environments that affect them.

There is no single form of participating. Various authors have proposed different participation classifications, responding to greater or lesser levels or degrees (Box 1).

Box 1 Levels of participation in environmental matters (Elcome and Baines 1999). Inform: Groups and individuals receive information on proposed actions, but cannot change them. The purpose of the information is to persuade others that the point of view of the moving party is correct. Consult: Local communities and other sectors interested receive information on a project or plan, and their points of view are studied. Normally these are taken into consideration when the project or plan is established. Joint Decision: The sectors interested or affected by a topic are invited to study it, discuss it, and finally participate in the decision making process. Normally those initiating this process define the limits of the degree of influence to be played by the interested parties on the final decision. Joint Action: In addition to sharing the decision making process, development of the decisions taken are a shared responsibility. Support Community Interests: The communities assume responsibility for the decision making process and its development. The role of the experts is to provide support to the community in the form of information and advice, to assure that all decisions made are well-founded

On the other hand, participation has accredited a series of potentials and advantages which must be considered (Box 2).

Box 2. Potentials and Advantages of Participation (Pol, 1993; Heras, 1997). Participation contributes to a more effective resolution of problems. Participative processes encourage social integration, reinforcing and structuring communities. Participation develops a sense of ownership and identification of the individual with his or her environment. Participation provides opportunities for learning, exercising environmental responsibility and detecting problems or obtaining information on the values to be protected or conserved. Participation allows the interests of the people to be taken into account, correcting technocratic tendencies. Participation may prevent conflicts

An experience with participation, defined as the process through which a community or collective recognizes a problem relating to the environment and reacts to it, is unique and unrepeatable. However there are a series of instruments which may be of use in the organized development of participation, allowing the different parts of the process to be covered: information, sharing ideas, seeking solutions, making decisions, intervening in the problem (Box 3).

Box 3. Public Participation Instruments in the Planning and Management of Natural Protected Areas Opinion studies Competitions for ideas Consultations with specific sectors Permanent reception of consultations and suggestions Working groups Collegiate bodies of public participation Periods for information and allegations Seminars Open thematic debates Referendum Volunteer initiatives Collaboration agreements for management

Disagreements and conflicts frequently arise during the participative processes. The existence of different points of view and interests make this inevitable. It is therefore important that mechanisms and methods be available to approach and direct these conflicts in an appropriate way (Box 4).

Box 4. Conflict Resolution Methods (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1997). Negotiation: The parties debate their differences, either with or without the assistance of an external agent, and attempt to reach an agreement. The external agent aids the parties in clarifying and resolving their differences. Mediation: The parties agree that an independent and neutral third party shall control and direct the process of clarifying positions, identifying interests and developing solutions acceptable to all. As in negotiation, this procedure is voluntary. Arbitration: The parties are required to present their case to an independent third party with the legal authority to impose a solution. The agreements are legally enforceable

The results achieved in the negotiation and mediation processes to a large degree depend on the method employed. In a broad sense, we can state that there are two styles of negotiation (Elcome and Baines, 1999): distributive negotiation and integrative negotiation (Box 5).

Box 5. Principal differences between distributive and integrative negotiation (Elcome and Baines 1999).
Distributive Negotiation	Integrative Negotiation
Attempts to obtain "a piece of the pie"	Attempts to "design the pie".
Based on closed positions	Based on a desirable future interest
Negotiation is tense	Negotiation is more relaxed
Underlying motives and feelings are hidden	Motives, feelings and beliefs are shared
Threats are frequently used	Threats are minimized
There is no common analysis of the problem	There is a common analysis of the problem
There is no concern about the consequences to other parties	There is concern about the consequences to other parties
No positive relationships are developed between the parties	Positive relationships are developed between the parties
Stereotypes are maintained	Stereotypes are broken as the parties learn to put themselves in the others' position

Diagnosis

Generally speaking the planning and management of Spain's protected areas lack participation, although it must be noted that these areas represent a wide variety of situations. In some cases, a set of different participation methods are being opened as part of the development of ambitious programmes, while in others opportunities for public participation are practically non-existent. The implantation of the Natura 2000 network constitutes a formidable challenge in the area of participation.

Legal Framework for Participation in Natural Protected Areas

Participation in the Planning Phase

Relative to the elaboration of the PORN, Article 6 of Law 4/89 regarding the Conservation of Natural Areas and Wild Plants and Animals indicates that "The elaboration of plans shall necessarily require meetings with the interested parties, public information and consultation regarding the social and institutional interests affected and the associations subsequent to achievement of the principles of Article 2 of this Law".

Contrary to what occurs with the PORN, law 4/89 makes no indication whatsoever of the procedures for public participation in the elaboration of the PRUG. However, these indications are generally presented in the laws enacted by autonomous communities. Law 41/97, modified on 4/89 for each national park sets a mandatory period for informing the public as well as receiving report from the Board.

Participation in Management

Participation in the management of protected areas can take two different forms:

• Collegiate bodies of public participation: Law 4/89 in its article 20 states that boards of directors or councils must first be constituted in order to collaborate in the management of natural protected areas. The Law indicates that a board must be constituted for each national park, leaving in the hands of the autonomous communities the option to grow, or not, for the rest of the protected areas. Laws passed by the communities have unanimously provided for these bodies, although not necessarily for all types of protected areas defined. In some cases they have also created collegiate bodies specifically for organizing participation in determined complexes or networks of natural protected areas. On the other hand, it must be noted that collegiate bodies of public participation created on a regional basis to promote participation in environmental matters (environmental advisory councils) are also normally assigned areas relating to the protected areas.
  
  
• Shared or delegated management formulas: Legislation developed by some autonomous communities introduces the possibility of delegating the management of protected areas, either in whole or in part, to other institutions (municipalities and other entities of public law), or in agreement with entities linked to environmental conservation.

Participation in Practice

Participation in the Declaration

The participation of the citizenry has been of crucial importance in the declaration of numerous protected areas. Some well-known cases report that the declaration was due in large measure to intense vindication campaigns developed by neighbourhood organizations, conservationists, scientific institutions, etc. On the other hand, many other areas have been constituted without the intervention of the participative process. Although some of these areas were declared many years ago when there were few procedures for participation, others have been created recently.
In the case of protected areas with procedures developed to allow participation in constituting the area, this participation has had many forms: interviews with owners, associations, surveys, seminars. All have included interviews with representatives of the municipalities affected, and the majority have included a period for public information.

Participation in the Planning

Protected areas with PRUG have almost always had some process of public participation in their constitution. The most common forms of this participation has been consultation with various sectors affected, consultations with a collegiate body of participation and submission of the project for a period of public information. However during the planning phase of these areas instruments such as surveys or organizing seminars for reflection and debate are not common.

Participation in the Management

The instruments most commonly used in managing the areas continue being collegiate bodies of public participation, interviews between the interested parties with members of the management team and receipt of written communications containing proposals or suggestions. Voluntary environmental initiatives also may be considered frequent in the parks, while surveys and the organization of seminars or work groups are in the minority.

Analysis of the functioning of some forms of participation

Both in the planning as well as in the management phases, the number of forms of participation used is very reduced. On the other hand and depending on the use made of them, these instruments do not always function adequately. Some require technical and administrative knowledge not available to the majority. On the other hand, the information or offering of opportunities to participate reach only a part of the population possibly interested. In addition, in some cases the existence of reticence or rejection of the managers and technical teams has been detected.

There is a lack of technicians specialized in the use of social participation instruments. In addition, after the participative process, the projects or projected plans are not always carried out.
A lack of continuity between the processes of open participation has been detected in the constitution and planning phases, and in the phase following management of the protected area. Nevertheless, in cases where a high quality participative process has been developed, the results have been positive. On the other hand, mechanisms designed to evaluate the participative processes are insufficient.

Collegiate Bodies of Public Participation

The collegiate bodies form one of the participative instruments in the widest extension of protected areas. The basic characteristics are:

• Number: The majority of protected areas have created one sole collegiate body of public participation, although in some cases they have opted to establish two different bodies. In this case, the tendency is for one of the bodies to have a more institutional and executive character, with the other one more open.
  
  
• Denomination: Although the denominations originally proposed in Law 4/89 - Board and Directing Council- are the most extensive, others such as Co-operation Council, Protection Council or Consulting Commission can be cited. A different denomination does not necessarily signify a different way of functioning; neither does a common denomination assume that the same model is used in all cases.
  
  
• Composition: Following are the sectors basically presented in the collegiate bodies of public participation: public administrations (general administration of the State, autonomous and local administrations); productive and ownership sectors, organizations dedicated to the protection of nature and patrimony, sports organizations and others, universities and research centres, and individuals of great prestige invited to participate. It is obvious that not always are all the collectives involved in the protected area represented. Despite the deficiencies, an improvement in the functioning of these collegiate bodies has been noted.
  
  
• Advisory or executive? The collegiate bodies of public participation are essentially advisory in nature, although some management bodies follow their recommendations by rote.
  
  
• Closed or open? The number of members of a participative body is usually determined by the standard that rules it, although there are exceptions to this principle.
  
  
• Internal organization: In addition to working in plenary, various bodies have provided for the creation of permanent committees or directives, sectorial commissions, or working groups which will be more agile, work better, and find it easier to reach a consensus.
  
  
• Frequency of meetings: Generally speaking the frequency of meetings will be low, with one or two meetings per year. Nevertheless, for some protected areas this schedule may be more intensive, with up to ten meetings in one year.

Public Information Procedures

Public information procedures are the most extensive method for participation at the time of its organization when dealing with the planning of protected areas. Remember that a good part of the autonomous standards foresee the use of this mechanism within the procedure of preparing the PRUG. Sectors using this method most frequently are private parties, conservationist and cultural organizations, and local governments.

Nevertheless, the managing body frequently limits itself to sending the documentation to a small group of institutions, with no further efforts at broadcasting. As a result, the public information period passes unseen by many of the potentially interested parties, who only receive news of the same when the deadlines have expired. In addition, the criteria used in accepting or rejecting the allegations are not always of public domain, occasionally leaving the interested parties with the feeling that the decision was arbitrary. Nevertheless, the principal criticism of this instrument arises from its application at the end of the planning process, or participation a posteriori (Castroviejo, 1991). Participation only by delegations to the entities, associations, and governments is not sufficient.

Voluntary Initiatives

Although voluntary actions in protected areas have been under development for many years, only recently have programmes which are more or less systematic, direct and non-profit, carried out by the people been set in operation to organize collaboration. One early experience that constituted an important referendum in Spain was begun in 1991 in the Barcelona park of Collserola (Franquesa, Cervera and Espigulé, 1993).

Today one sees a notable development and extension of these programmes; various autonomous communities now have wide-reaching programmes that affect their respective networks of protected areas.

Volunteer initiatives in protected natural areas are being developed under different organizational forms (see also Box 6). The most common are:

• Stable network of park volunteers. Participants have the possibility of developing activities with a certain degree of continuity throughout the year.
  
  
• Work centred on concrete actions or projects. Participants circumscribe their activity to a specific project.

Institutions usually holding the responsibility for developing volunteer initiatives can be found in three different situations:

• Activities are directly organized from the park administration.
  
  
• Activities are organized by agreements or contract between the administration and one or various organizations.
  
  
• Activities are organized directly by one or various organizations.

Strategies regarding the use of time also mark significant differences between the types of volunteer initiatives, separated into the following types:

• Activities that continue throughout the year.
  
  
• Long stays.
  
  
• Work camps.
  
  
• Work days.

The fields in which the volunteers intervene in the natural protected areas are diverse, including such varied areas as information and interpretation for visitors to clean up and plant restoration campaigns.

Box 6. Key aspects which must be taken into account in organizing volunteer actions (Franquesa, Cervera and Espigulé, 1993). Determination of the framework in which work is carried out Delimiting responsibilities Establishing rights and duties Planning and organization Personalized attention Compensation through volunteer's personal satisfactio

Recommendations*

General Recommendations

1. Provide relevant information allowing participation.*
Specific information on the principal challenges is basic in order to participate with a minimum knowledge of the cause. Information will be given at different levels according to implication and expectations for participation of each collective.

2. Maintain good communication with the local population and users through stable forums for debate and participation.
An open communication provides the interested parties with a feeling of trust which affects the mood and humour of the participants.

3. Promote training and formation oriented to participation.*
Programmes designed to prepare the local population to participate and that generate environmental responsibility are useful in advancing towards a participation of greater quality, and in fomenting social organization.

4. Training personnel of the protected area in the subject of participation.
The effective use of participation techniques by personnel of the organism in charge of managing the protected area also requires adequate training.

5. Provide through the protected areas or the networks of areas the human and material means necessary to participate.

6. Integrate participation into the decision-making process, both in planning as well as in management phases.*
When designing the process which includes the making of decisions meaningful to the community, public participation and the way in which it can be integrated to the process should be taken into account. In this respect, some general recommendations would include involving all the interested parties from the initial stages of the process, reserving sufficient time for participation and flexibility in the planning.

7. Broaden and improve currently existing participation instruments.*
Principal instruments for public participation in the area of protected areas currently are consulting the sectors affected by the plans projects, public information periods, and consulting with collegiate bodies regarding social participation.

8. Improve negotiation and conflict resolution procedures.

The use of integrative negotiation styles may present a notable difference in the quality of the participative processes, and especially in the functioning of some participation instruments such as collegiate bodies of public participation.

Recommendations Regarding Specific Instruments

9. Improve the functioning of collegiate bodies of public participation, taking the following aspects into consideration:

• Bearing in mind the social weave, existing organizations and interest groups.
• Providing a budget adequate for the functioning of the collegiate bodies and assuring a regular meeting of the same.
• Making some basic commitments explicit for all parties, helping them to act with loyalty.
• Providing the containing body.
• Making a didactic effort.
• Making meetings dynamic.
• Assuring the connection of the participative body with all sectors interested in the management of the protected area.
• Delving deeper on concrete topics.
• Broadcasting information on the participative body.

10. Promote or make more dynamic the environmental volunteer initiative in the protected areas, taking the following into consideration:

• Identify responsibilities and activities that may be developed with the collaboration of volunteers. Frequently the opportunities to develop these activities arise from proposals from outside the management team.
• Establish a team to make activities more dynamic.
• The management team and workers of the protected area should have sufficient information about the volunteer work programme.
• In order to carry out the work assigned it, the volunteers need to be trained. This formation may be as basic or as thorough as needs require.

11. Consider the following aspects in developing a public information procedure:

• Verify that the document is easily understood, avoiding unnecessary technical terms and introducing explicative elements such as glossaries, graphs, etc.
• In longer documents, include summarizing chapters or documents.
• Verify that the documents are available to the public and easily located in accessible areas.
• Announce the beginning of the public information period using different media.
• Provide personalized technical attention during the public information period.
• Make an effort to disseminate the document submitted for information through public presentations and the communications media, animating the people to give their opinions.
• Make a report reflecting the allegations presented, an analysis performed by the team studying these, the criteria and reasoning employed in deciding for one or another possibility, and what has changed as a result of the participation process.
  

Priority Actions**

12. In each protected area, make an inventory of all those interested, meaning not only those who demonstrate activity favourable to the project, but also those who in some way are considered affected or concerned by the repercussions, even though they may take a critical or contrary position.
Prepare an inventory of local groups, individuals, institutions, organizations and initiatives interested or involved in managing the protected area, taking into consideration any indirectly interested parties (users of resources, companies that market products produced in the area, etc.) and identifying the defining characteristics of interested or affect. It is important that this inventory be constantly updated.

13. Implant different communications instruments in each protected area, and incorporate valid communicators to aid the communication between interested parties and managers of the area.
All protected areas should have appropriate channels of communications which remain permanently open and accessible, allowing easy communication between the population and those responsible for the management of the natural area.

14. Organize informational campaigns on a local scale over the management and participation instruments and institutions.

What are the functions of the different people and institutions that intervene in the management of the protected area? Is there a board or council? Who is on it? How can one contact the members? What are their attributes? In many cases this information is unknown by users of the area and the local population. An informative campaign should provide this basic knowledge. Later, stable routes of communication should be maintained, allowing this information to be kept up to date.

15. Create a forum to debate the information and participation in implanting the Natura 2000 network in Spain.**
Information relative to Natura 2000 network must be broadcast among the potentially interested sectors, as well as possible implications of the declaration of a SACs and arbitrating procedures that will assure an adequate public participation in the declaration and management of the SACs.

16. Organize a participation formation programme directed to all personnel of the protected areas.**

17. Include support for local conservation and sustainable development initiatives as a priority objective in the planning and management standards for each protected area.
Support for conservation initiatives of local communities is a good way to foment co-responsibility of the population in caring for the local patrimony, as it encourages the social fabric of the community motivated by conservation to organize itself and acquire practical experience. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid the manipulation of these mechanisms by local organizations to achieve submissive attitudes or the creation of client relationships.
The management team for the protected area can support initiatives that develop outside the borders of the protected territory, acting as a catalyst in providing dynamics for conservation and sustainable development processes.

18. Prepare a manual of participation indicators describing the evaluation of the participation in planning and management of protected areas.
Quality and degree of follow up of the participation procedures by the local population and visitors must be taken into account at the time the functioning of the protected area is evaluated. In this respect, it is recommend that participation indicators be incorporated into the indicator system used in follow up of the areas.

19. Prepare an analysis or diagnosis of the different participation and communication instruments being applied in the complex of protected areas in Spain.

Proposed living observatories

• Management and participation bodies in the Garrotxa Volcanic Area Natural Park.
  
  
• Public participation process in preparing the PORN and in reviewing the PRUG of the Carrascal de la Font Roja Natural Park.
  
  
• Voluntary initiatives of the Collserola Park, Barcelona.
  
  
• Action Programme for Infrastructure and Improving the Quality of Life in the Anaga Rural Park, Tenerife.
  
  
• Social dynamics for resolving conflicts which may arise in the elaboration of the PRUG of the Doñana National Park.

* An asterisk is placed against the recommendations listed at the end, in the heading dedicated to those considered most urgent in view of the current development status of the protected areas in the Spanish State as a whole.

** Two asterisks indicate priority actions included at the end, in the heading devoted to those actions with execution proposed during the period 2002 to 2005.