PAN Parks: WWF’s ecolabel for sustainable tourism in ...€¦  · Web viewTourism and recreation are one of the greatest contributors to land use pressure in Europe’s national

Font, X. & Brasser, A. (2002) PAN Parks: WWF’s sustainable tourism certification

programme in Europe’s national parks. In Williams, P., Griffin, T. & Harris, R. (Eds)

Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

PAN Parks: WWF’s sustainable tourism certification programme in

Europe’s national parks

Xavier Font, Centre for the Study of Small Tourism and Hospitality Firms, Leeds

Metropolitan University, United Kingdom.

André Brasser, World Wide Fund for Nature, Netherlands.

The context and nature of PAN Parks

Tourism is one of the largest sectors in Europe, and has the potential to become a key

element of the preservation of rural European landscapes and social structures, through the

regeneration of economically depleted areas with the economic input of tourism. Although

coastal and city tourism are still the highest in terms of visitors numbers, it is rural and

mountain tourism that is growing fast in the European context, and this is mostly around

protected areas. The IUCN (1994; in Blangy & Vautier, 2001) lists four reasons why the

nineties have offered increased opportunities for protected areas, all of which apply to

Europe:

Human populations are relatively stable and affluent;

1

There are declining pressures on land in many areas because of agricultural

surpluses and reduced military activity;

There is a high level of public support for conservation, and

There is a climate of international cooperation

Therefore the threat on protected areas in Europe has diminished in some aspects such as

resource extraction and agriculture, some of the greatest threats in other regions (WWF,

2000), yet increased in aspects such as land use pressures due to limited land availability.

Tourism and recreation are one of the greatest contributors to land use pressure in Europe’s

national parks (FNNPE, 1993), yet despite being a threat, it is also one of the key levers for

the preservation of Europe’s remaining wilderness areas (Font & Tribe, 2000).

There are between 10,000 and 20,000 protected areas in Europe; although the number is

high, these are generally small holdings that can create pockets of biodiversity, but in few

cases allow for free roaming of large mammals. Also the level of protection, multiple use

objectives, level of funding, and state intervention/ permissiveness varies. The European

Commission has developed Natura 2000 as their strategy for environmental conservation,

and has highlighted two tourism-related projects in Europe as the most relevant to the

implementation of this strategy (European Commission, 2000a, 2000b). The first one is the

European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas, headed by the Parcs Naturels

Régionaux de France under the auspices of the Europarc Federation, and supported by the

IUCN. The Charter developed by this project has been tested in ten European national

parks, and these have been acknowledged as well managed protected areas that prove

continuous improvement in making tourism and conservation compatible. The second one

2

is the focus of this chapter, the PAN Parks network of protected areas. PAN Parks is the

result of a partnership since 1997 between the World Wide Fund for Nature-Netherlands

and the Dutch Molecaten Group, a leisure and tourism group that develops holiday villages

in Europe with assets of 45 million euros and turnover of 13.5 million euros. The concept

of PAN Parks is “to create a network of parks with an international reputation for

outstanding access to wildlife and excellent tourist facilities, combined with effective

habitat protection and the minimal environmental impact possible” (WWF, 1998: 1). This

can be broken down into the following components:

“A recognisable network of well-managed, protected natural areas which welcome

visitors and avoid potentially conflicting activities;

A partnership between the authorities of protected areas, the local population, and

commercial and nature conservation organisations;

A way to promote well managed natural areas to create a balance between nature

conservation, local development, tourism and recreation;

An organisation to increase the number of well-supervised natural areas in Europe”

(WWF, undated: 3)

The aim of this project is to create “the Yellowstone Parks of Europe” by identifying

protected areas holding wilderness characteristics and tourist attractiveness not only of

national but pan-European importance, and encouraging sustainable environmental and

tourism management and promoting it. The concept of reproducing the success of

American parks in tourism is an ambitious challenge for Europe. There are no more than

100 parks in Europe that would qualify on size alone. Most such areas are found in Eastern

3

Europe, with overstretched budgets, little tourism infrastructure, limited visitor

management experience and local use of the park for poaching and illegal harvesting. Yet

the preservation of these areas in the medium term, and the link through corridors between

the remaining European pieces of jungle in the long term could have invaluable impact on

the preservation of Europe’s wildlife. PAN Parks and the European Charter are working

jointly to benefit from synergies between their projects. Cees Lager, head of the founder

Molecaten group, sees the benefits in tourism development that is linked to nature

conservation, and takes point of view of including non-financial return on investment, such

as nature conservation, as a key value in this project. At the same time the financial return

on investment is clear: the Molecaten group has lobbied for the development of PAN

Villages within or adjacent to the physical boundaries of the parks that are verified,

although this is currently optional for parks. PAN Parks Accommodation BV is the limited

liability company made up of investing partners, and initially managed by Molecaten, that

will seek investors to provide “appropriate accommodation at approved PAN Parks, to

generate income for its shareholders and to provide financial support for the PAN Parks

Foundation” (Pan Parks Foundation, undated: 7). Molecaten and other investors will “help

protect and develop many of Europe’s most beautiful wilderness areas while enjoying a

sound return on their investment” (Pan Parks Foundation, undated: 1). The return will allow

for reinvestment into the PAN Village and the PAN Parks Foundation, but no figures are

available at this early stage.

This chapter will discuss the process of engaging a core group of European parks in the

development and implementation of habitat, visitor, tourism and business management

strategies in their process of application for the PAN Parks quality trademark, and

4

ultimately to ensure a more sustainable use of the parks’ resources. The first section will

review the applicants to PAN Parks and the benefits from application as presented by the

PAN Parks Foundation and perceived by the applicants. This will be followed by a review

of the key principles of the process of compliance assessment (Font, 2002; Font & Tribe,

2001) and how PAN Parks is following this process of setting up criteria, ensuring the

criteria are assessable, verifying standards of applicants, certification of results and

ensuring recognition and acceptance by the target audiences. Since PAN Parks is still in its

early years, this chapter will focus on the outcomes from the first stage and it will critically

assess its main challenges for its feasibility to contribute to sustainable tourism.

The PAN Parks candidates

For parks to qualify they need to be large (usually over 25,000 hectares), with evidence of

outstanding environmental quality and management. The list of candidates varied often int

the first three years of the project, depending on the level of commitment shown by

individual national parks and nature reserves, and different issues of the PAN Parks

Courier, the magazine from PAN Parks, show a different number and status of parks. The

following list of candidates (see table 1) were present at the first Candidate PAN Parks

Conference, in Holland on June 2001. PAN Parks aims to appoint another six out of a

preliminary list of ten other parks as prospective candidates in the near future.

The parks going ahead with the process represent some of the richest natural resources of

Europe. These are home to big mammals and predators such as wolf, chamois, bears, lynx,

moose, chamois and eagle, to name but a few. As examples, there are 200 rare animal

species in Bieszczcady, 100 Marsican Brown Bears and 60 Appenine wolves in Abbruzzo,

5

and 6300 chamois in Mercantour. Besides their animal wealth, these are also sites of high

concentration of species. Triglav has 5500 species of vegetation and wildlife, Abruzzo has

1/3 of superior plants of Italy, Oulanka has 500 species of vascular plants, which is special

for a Northern territory. Mercantour is home to 2000 species of plants, including 60 species

of orchids, 200 rare and 300 endemic species, due to landscapes ranging from

Mediterranean (20 kilometers away from the sea) to Alpine (3000 metre mountains with

glaciers), Slovensky raj has more than 2100 species of butterflies due to their high

concentration of gorges and caves.

At the same time some of the parks have a wide range of facilities: Abruzzo has 15 visitor

centres and 10 mountain refugees, Oulanka has 36 cooking and camp fires, 32 campsites

and 8 unlocked cabins for recreational use, Triglav has 32 alpine houses and huts. Land use

in these parks varies, and although they all have core conservation areas, poaching and

illegal hunting are still common. Some of the parks generate part of their own income from

tourism and recreation, for example Triglav generates 40% of its funds this way, but this is

an exception and in general the parks rely on governmental funds, whereas tourism benefits

are captured by the local population. The park management at Oulanka hope that PAN

Parks will be a vehicle to generate direct benefits from tourism for the park as well as the

local population, since at present the park does not generate any income from its 120.000

visitors, yet it is calculated that 30% of the income from the neighbouring towns a result of

tourism to the park.

*** insert table 1.

6

Short and long term benefits to the parks

The current candidates are also piloting the process and materials developed to support

other parks in the future, hence the longer timespan. Each park is a case of good practice in

at least one area of the standards that are being set, and therefore are informing the

development of benchmarks. At the same time the parks are discussing areas of

weaknesses, and networking in this way encourages the transfer of good practice.

Parks can benefit from WWF support in training and resources to meet the criteria, and

once they qualify and provide the necessary evidence to meet the criteria, certified parks

can use the PAN Parks logo for marketing. Table 2 shows a list of benefits broken down by

the category of park, whether they have been verified and certified, they are a candidate

park aiming for verification, or they have made prospective enquiries but not entered the

process as a candidate. The benefits of working towards the PAN Parks standards are not

clear to every park, and in the last three years many parks have shown interest for a short

period of time, after which they have decided to not go forward. Out of the current parks

working towards certification, the two in France and Italy, with longer experience in

tourism management, are more critical of the benefits that can be gained from the process,

whereas parks with lower tourist numbers have shown more interest.

*** insert table 2.

The benefits that PAN Parks lists in table 2 generally coincide with the park manager’s

expectations of the outcomes from this process. Parks view PAN Parks as a quality

7

trademark, but when questioned managers translate this as different outcomes to each park

(PAN Parks Courier, 2001). The reported benefits by each park include opportunities for

increased -and mainly international- tourism business (Fulufjällets, Mercantour, Triglav,

Oulanka), networking and research opportunities (Abruzzo, Bieszczady, Mercantour,

Slovensky raj, Triglav), closer co-operation with local population and stakeholders

(Oulanka, Slovensky raj).

Most candidate parks have stated that PAN Parks has given them a medium term goal and a

short term pathway to put into practice a variety of issues that have been in the back burner.

Community consultation and the development of visitor and tourism management strategies

are the short term benefits mentioned most often. Besides these general considerations, two

examples can be given of the benefits of PAN Parks to prospective candidate parks to date.

First, PAN Parks is helping promote tourism to the Bialowieza National Park (Poland), a

prospective candidate park (see http://www.poland.panparks.org). Second, Fulufjällets Nature

Reserve has submitted a proposal to the European Union to be reclassified as National

Park, which has been accepted and will become operational in 2002 thanks to the support of

PAN Parks. To assess the possible long term benefits of PAN Parks it is necessary to

review the process that applicants will have to follow in their efforts to achieve

certification.

Standards

A standard is a document approved by a recognized body that provides for common and

repeated use of a prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements (Toth, 2000). Setting

standards is one of the hardest elements of a project of this style, since varying

8

geographical and other site specific conditions mean what is appropriate for one park is not

acceptable elsewhere. For example, slash and burn is a traditional practice in Finland that

has been lost during the years, and in the Koli National Park (Finland) this practice has

been reintroduced as a mean of rescuing traditions, yet forest fire is a major threat to

national parks in the Mediterranean (Font & Tribe, 2000). The other major difficulty is the

differences in national legislation, practices and objectives, since standards should not be

below national legislation requirements, but this might be too tall an order for some other

countries. For these reasons standards tend to be a mixture of environmental performance

and environmental management (Font, 2002), as seen in the case of PAN Parks.

PAN Parks is developing its standards in the form of criteria, grouped under five principles.

A manual of good practice for parks needing support to meet the requirements of the

principles will be developed, complementing the theory of nature, visitor and tourism

management plans and their contents with case studies from the pilot sites.

Principles and criteria

PAN Parks has laid out five principles for assessment of the park’s performance and

management (see table 3). The first three principles are under control of the park’s

management unit, whereas the fourth principle is more challenging, since it recognises the

dependence between the park and its surroundings, and the need for the park to engage a

variety of stakeholders in determining limits of acceptable change from tourism and a

subsequent joint strategy. The criteria for each principle are set out following the concept of

management systems, used by an increasing number of quality and environmental quality

systems, with minimum requirements for core environmental and social criteria. These are

9

the process followed, the contents of the plan or strategy, its implementation, the collection

of evidence of outcomes, the monitoring of results, and the review of the plan.

*** insert table 3

The first principle is the park’s rich natural heritage, a baseline principle to ensure that this

park can be considered. The second principle is the management effectiveness of protected

areas, with nature conservation being the most important element of the concept. The third

principle is the park’s visitor management strategy and plan, including the provision of

education and interpretation to visitors. The first three principles are more traditional and

they are also the first that were agreed internally. The two subsequent principles are more

innovative and therefore have received more attention here.

The fourth principle, the sustainable tourism development strategy of the park and its zone

of influence, ensuring that the development around the park is in keeping with the values of

the park, and considering the market needs as well as environmental, socio-economic and

cultural constraints. This is a challenging principle since the park’s management has limited

influence on what takes place outside its boundaries, but park authorities need to see

beyond their physical boundaries since the activities taking place in neighbouring towns

and villages rely in many ways on the park, and also affect the use of the park’s resources.

The fifth principle is linked to the quality of the park’s business partners. This takes the

concept of principle four further, by expecting the park to set up agreements with individual

companies who commit themselves to meet a list of criteria and be assessed against it. This

10

implies that the park will have to set up a list of potential benefits to those businesses

aiming to become partners. PAN Parks has considered current methods to verify potential

partners (Roherhorst, 2000) with little success. PAN Parks faces the difficulty of assessing

international and local business partners, and takes into consideration a study from WWF-

UK that states that global certification mechanisms for small businesses will not be

successful unless implemented through a credible local association (Synergy, 2000);

therefore criteria, and specially methods to assess these criteria, are likely to still change in

the future.

The principles and criteria were devised in consultation with a team of international experts

and field tested in 1999. Once a basic shell was agreed, indicators were introduced to verify

the evidence of the criteria. These were tested in a second round of consultation and the

self-assessment of 17 national parks from 14 countries against the criteria and indicators.

After this consultation the principles and criteria have further evolved through the

leadership of Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) Hungary developing principles 1 to

3, Europarc working on principle 4 and an independent consultant on principle 5, until the

current version of September 2000 (Kun, 2001).

The involvement of stakeholders is also promoted by creating the status of partner to a

park. Not only organisations in the tourism industry can apply to be partners, but also any

business or association (including residents) that can prove they have a vested interest or

influence in the park. Criteria were devised to determine who could be a partner, including

issues such as supporting the park’s objectives and contributing to their implementation.

International organisations wanting to use the park will be encouraged to be certified by the

11

relevant body (for example, Green Globe) or involved in recognisable programmes (such as

the Tour Operators Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development), to name just two.

These bodies will be part of a forum involved in the sustainable tourism development

strategy (principle four), and their involvement in decision-making will depend on the

permanency of the company in the area. For example, hotels, inbound tour operators and

shops trading directly in tourism will have a greater say than outbound tour operators from

overseas, since they have made a higher long term investment in the destination and

outbound tour operators can move their business away from the area, but local

organisations rely on the long term sustainable use of the park’s resources.

Assessment

Assessment is the process of examining, measuring, testing or otherwise determining

conformance with requirements specified in an applicable standard (Toth, 2000). Sites will

firstly self-assess their performance on the four principles and the presence of partners

(principle 5), and support them with written evidence. An initial desk research process will

lead to a set of recommendations. Parks will then have to demonstrate that a process has

been devised to meet the requirements in nature, visitor and tourism management, and how

this process can produce the outcomes within a certain timeframe. Table 4 gives a snapshot

of how indicators for assessment are linked to a specific criterion.

*** insert table 4.

If the processes suggested are accepted as feasible, the park will be given the status of

candidate and be given training resources and opportunities. Candidature periods are

12

negotiated individually with parks depending on their position, at the end of which the park

will submit their progress in meeting the criteria. The current seven candidate parks

developed the first draft of their strategies at a workshop meeting in Holland last June

2001; this demonstrates the open and flexible approach taken by PAN Parks in encouraging

applicants to set their own agendas.

Verification and certification

After an internal, first party assessment of performance against the indicators, the candidate

parks need to be assessed externally. Verification will involve a site visit and a review of

desk evidence such as plans, minutes of meetings, procedures, surveys, assessments and so

on. PAN Parks has opted for third party verification, involving the contracting of

independent individuals (Kun, 2001). Other options would be second party verification, i.e.

for PAN Parks staff to undertake this, yet the difficulty is the conflict of interest likely to

arise from the same staff that have provided support throughout the process to then do the

assessment. A final option would be to contract an external company to undertake all

verifications, yet the small scale of PAN Parks does not make this feasible. PAN Parks

plans to have eight parks verified by 2006.

During a workshop held in Zwolle, the Netherlands, 11 April 2000, participants agreed that

the PAN Parks Foundation must develop its own verification manual, which will be

provided to a third party verifier in order to do the field verification. This increases

standardisation of the verification process, yet independent experts can be contracted for

different sites. The process that leads to the development of the verification system is as

follows:

13

The Principles and Criteria system including measurable and objective indicators

will be finalised by October 2001.

Société Générale de Surveillance (known as SGS) Hungary has been appointed to

develop verification manual including general guidelines and checklist. SGS is one

of the world leaders in verification, testing and certification and have collaborated

closely with Green Globe.

The verification manual has been tested and so finalised through field tests in pilot

areas.

The verification manual will be provided to the verifier, who will be contracted by

the PAN Parks Foundation.

The verification process is planned as follows:

1. The park’s management unit submits an assessment, which is made on the basis of

the checklist (Principles 1-3). Any area will be able to download the application

form at the PAN Parks web page (www.panparks.org ).

2. The assessment is evaluated by PAN Parks and a decision is made whether it seems

to be worth verifying it.

3. The park, with expert support from PAN Parks, will devise a plan to meet the

requirements of the criteria, and collect evidence for each one of the indicators, by a

negotiated date.

4. The verifiers travel to the area to review evidence.

5. Verifiers submit their recommendation to the PAN Parks Foundation.

6. Verification is awarded and/or recommendations to increase the standard are

provided to the management of the park.

14

Although fees have not been set, and the first parks will not be verified until early 2002,

there will be a verification and use fee to use the PAN Parks logo. Initially this will be

subsidised to 50% for European Union countries and up to 75% for EU Accession

countries, including Eastern Europe, where most applicants are based. The fees will be used

for third party verification and for providing other services, such as consultants or training

programmes. The cost of operating PAN Parks is much higher than the fees paid by

members, and the operations of the secretariat function of the PAN Parks Foundation,

membership services, and publications will require external funding. Additional fees

charged for training materials, inspections and audit visits will be self-financing. PAN

Parks relies in the short and medium term funding from the Molecaten group, and one

method to ensure its long-term financial viability is to use part of the profits of the

operation of the PAN Villages.

The idea of the PAN Parks certificate is to create a reliable trademark for tourism,

recreation and nature. The literature of PAN Parks confuses the terms verification and

certification, but in essence the certification is the process by which a third party (i.e. the

awarding body, in this case the PAN Parks Foundation) gives written assurance to the

consumer (and the industry in general) that a product, process, service, or management

system conforms to specified requirements (Toth, 2000).

The main difficulty foreseen is the long term certification of the PAN Parks candidates in

those cases where the park provides land to create PAN Villages. Removing the logo or

trademark will be difficult since the investment is already there, and there is room for

15

conflicts of interest. This is an issue that the PAN Parks Foundation is aware of but has not

reached a conclusion as to how to solve it.

Recognition and acceptance

Recognition and acceptance are the outcome of a good communications campaign, be it

directly by the PAN Parks organisation, the parks themselves or the distributors of tourism

products. This is costly, and one of the major drawbacks in certification systems of this

style. At present PAN Parks is communicating with four groups: pilot PAN Parks and self-

assessment participants, WWF-offices, (potential) investors and (potential) partners, all

with different information needs, as shown by an internal survey (van Ladesteijn, 2000).

All prospective candidates interviewed were keen to become PAN Parks and they wanted

targeted practical information, know-how support, and finance; this has been echoed in the

PAN Parks benefits to applicants. WWF offices require more focused information, current

work overloads mean they are not overly keen to take another program on board. Potential

investors and potential partners see free publicity as a key benefit, and WWF has been

successful in the generation of funds to support the PAN Parks initiative.

The PAN Parks message is disseminated to a relatively small target market of

conservation/recreation specialists, within which PAN Parks is recognised. An internal

survey that did not specify the survey population found that PAN Parks was perceived as a

“promotional and awareness network of high quality parks combining nature protection and

tourism”. One of the key objectives in the next few years is to ensure that the concept of

PAN Parks is understood by the public in general; this is not the case at present, but there

are no parks certified yet and so this would be not expected at this stage.

16

Assessing the success of PAN Parks

PAN Parks started as a concept in 1997, and has spent four years in the development and

piloting stage, mainly organising internal structures, developing the systems for compliance

assessment and setting links with potential candidates. The next four years will demonstrate

whether this considerable investment has paid off. Other projects that promote sustainable

tourism management in Europe have suffered from only being funded at the development

stage, but they are not robust enough to survive once European or national funding is

withdrawn, but simply moving to the next source of funding for a different project.

Cees Lager, from the Molecaten group, introduced the first Candidate PAN Parks

conference by stating the market demand for ecotourism that is comfortable in nature,

hence the proposal for development of PAN Villages within or adjacent the boundaries of

the parks. For many the concept of luxury is not inkeeping with the ethos of ecotourism,

and part of learning about nature is experiencing it from close. Besides whether ecotourism

can take place when staying in comfortable accommodation, the issue of using some of the

park’s land for development is controversial. Introducing a PAN Village to the park is

optional and it is only envisaged for those regions with reduced accommodation capacity.

Two candidates are going ahead with the proposals to develop PAN Villages, these are

Bieszczady and Fulufjället (PAN Parks Supervisory Board, 2000). At the time of writing

this chapter the Fulufjället PAN Village has been planned to 40 self-catering chalets with

planning permission for 62, with planning and gaining permissions being over winter

2001/2002, the construction of infrastructure by summer 2002 and the chalets by 2003,

17

opening on July 1st 2004 (PAN Parks Foundation, undated). Fulufjället, whoever, has not

been awarded PAN Parks status, it is simply applying for it.

Challenges and factors for success include marketability of the parks, ability to collaborate

with local communities in sustainable park management and tourism development. The

project is run by a team of conservationists with limited experience in international tourism,

and the likeliness of PAN Parks reaching the mass market is very low. However, it is

possible to use selected specialist tour operators as the means to commercialise tours to the

parks, and using the PAN Parks brand (but with close support from the WWF brand) to

encourage tour operator trial trips. Collaboration with local communities is one of the

weaknesses from most parks at present, and although communities as a whole will gain

more economic benefits from tourism than through poaching and hunting, the benefits will

go to different members of the community.

The experience to date is positive for those parks in need of exposure and expertise, mainly

located in more remote parts of Northern and Eastern Europe, whereas parks in wealthier

areas and with more experience in tourism management are questioning the benefits of their

involvement. Yet it is Eastern European parks that offer the greatest potential and also the

greatest need. A project like PAN Parks requires funds and long term commitment, and the

future of this project is somehow clearer due to the strength of WWF in securing

sponsorship (WWF, 2000c) compared to other projects that bring in external experts for a

limited start-up period and only fuelled by external funds.

18

The authors believe that outcomes of the PAN Parks network might become the new

landmarks for European nature tourism in the 21st century. Whether these parks will be

more sustainable than they would have been without the input from PAN Parks is difficult

to assess, and one could argue that few parks will take special actions to meet the criteria

one, two and three. But criteria four and five, the engagement of the local community and

working partnerships with tourism businesses is more in line with the more pro-active

attitudes amongst park managers (Blangy & Vautier, 2001) and the requirements of Natura

2000 (European Commission, 2000a, 2000b) and therefore likely to lead to sustainable

rural development funds. PAN Parks might become a vehicle to encourage better nature

management at larger parks in less developed parts of Europe to introduce this pro-active

philosophy and ultimately improve the image of Europe’s natural heritage and the public’s

support for conservation.

References

Anon (2001) PAN Parks principles and criteria, principles 1-5, April 2001, draft for

consultation

Blangy, S. & Vautier, S. (2001) Europe, in Weaver, D. (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of

Ecotourism, Wallingford: CABI, pp 155-172.

European Commission (2000a), Sustainable tourism and Natura 2000, Guidelines,

initiatives and good practices in Europe, DG ENV, Brussels: European

Commission.

European Commission (2000b) Natura 2000, European Commission DG ENV Nature

Newsletter, Issue 13, December 2000.

19

Font, X. (2002) Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process

and prospects, Tourism Management, 23(4). In print.

Font. X. & Tribe, J. (2000), Recreation, conservation and timber production: a sustainable

relationship? In Font, X. & Tribe, J. (Eds) Forest tourism and recreation: case

studies in environmental management, CAB International: Wallingford, United

Kingdom, pp 1-22.

Font. X. & Tribe, J. (2001) The process of developing an ecolabel. In Font, X. & Buckley,

R. (Eds) Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion of sustainable

management, CAB International: Wallingford, United Kingdom, pp 87-104.

FNNPE (1993) Loving them to death? The Need for Sustainable Tourism in Europe’s

Nature and National Parks. The Federation of Nature and National Parks of

Europe: Grafenau, Germany

Kun, Z. (2000) PAN Parks verification, draft 3.2., 11th September 2000, WWF: Budapest,

Hungary.

PAN Parks Courier, 2001, Summer 2001, Budapest: WWF Hungary.

PAN Parks Foundation, undated, PAN Parks Accommodation BV, Zwolle (Netherlands):

PAN Parks Foundation.

PAN Parks Supervisory Board (2000), Resolutions meeting PAN Parks Supervisory Board

(PPSB) on 29 September 2000.

Roerhorst, I. (2000) PAN Parks business parters: Quickscan of environmental assessment

systems for the tourism industry, WWF: Zeist, Holland.

Synergy Ltd (2000) Tourism certification: an analysis of Green Globe 21 and other

certification programs, Godalming: WWF UK.

20

Toth, R. (2000) Elements of success and failure in certification/ accreditation. In

Ecotourism & Sustainable Tourism Certification Workshop, November 17-19 2000,

Mohonk Mountain House, New Paltz, New York.

Van Ladesteijn, N. (2000) Picture of PAN Parks anno 2000, Communication: evaluation of

current practices and future possibilities, WWF: Zeist, Holland.

WWF (1998) PAN Parks: investing in Europe’s future, WWF: Zeist, Holland.

WWF (2000a) Squandering paradise? The importance and vulnerability of the world’s

protected areas, WWF International: Gland, Switzerland.

WWF (2000b) PAN Parks workshop on principles and criteria 4-6, Zeist (Holland) April

2000, minutes of meetings

WWF (2000c) PAN Parks workshop on principles and criteria 1-3, Gland (Switzerland)

April 2000, minutes of meetings

Inserts

21

Table 1. Candidate PAN Parks

Name of area Country Area (ha)

Visitors per year

Strengths Weaknesses

Abbruzo National Park

Italy 43,950 2,000,000 1,600 small-scale businesses in operation local people represented on board of

directors

no distinct management plan document

Bieszczady National Park

Poland 29,200 250,000 Trilateral Man & Biosphere Reserve 70% of park is strictly protected

park is perceived as limiting to local development

Fulufjällets Nature Reserve

Sweden 35,000 100,000 local people are interested in PAN Parks Traditional use of resources

Mercantour National Park

France 68,500 550,000 Partnership with Gites Panda Twinned with Italian park

Conflicts with shepherds on wolf issue

Local people just start to realise importance of tourism

Oulanka National Park

Finland 27,500 150,000 Park can raise income for itself Local people are active

There is no co-operation with companies

Park does not communicate with local people

Slovensky raj National Park

Slovak Rep. 32,774 500,000 Comparative advantage in Slovakia Joint press conference with PAN Parks

High pressure from tourism Contradicting legislation on zoning

Triglav National Park

Slovenia 83,807 2,000,000 Co-operation with local people No hunting on 25,000 hectares

Too much tourism Co-operation needed with groups

working on tourismSource: adapted from PAN Parks Courier, 2001.

22

Table 2. PAN Parks benefits to verified, candidate and prospective candidate parks

Benefits Verified

park

Candidate

park

Prospective

park

Introduction of a PAN Park Village (√)

PAN Parks Foundation support √

Access to loans √

Access to EU subsidies √

Access to on-site conservation projects √ √

Training material and opportunities √ √

Inclusion in PAN Parks Brochures √ √

Communication package √ √

Local partner website √ √

Benefits from PAN Parks research √ √ √

Access to the PAN Parks Intranet √ √ √

Promotion at the PAN Parks Website √ √ √

PAN Parks Courier (magazine) √ √ √

Source: PAN Parks internal information not published.

(√) PAN Park Villages will be introduced on a longer term basis.

23

Table 3. Summary of principles of criteria

Principles Criteria

Principle 1:

Natural values

PAN Parks are large protected

areas, representative of Europe's

natural heritage and of

international importance for

wildlife and ecosystems.

The area is adequately protected by means of an enforced act or

decree.

The protected area is of Europe-wide importance for the conservation

of biological diversity and contains the best existing representatives of

original natural ecosystems in the region.

The minimum size of the protected area is 25,000 hectares.

Principle 2:

Habitat management

Design and management of the

PAN Park aims to maintain and,

if necessary, restore the area's

natural ecological processes and

its biodiversity.

Design of the protected area aims to maintain natural ecological

values.

Regulations protecting the area are adequately enforced.

The protected area has an integrated management plan that is actively

implemented. Regular monitoring and assessment of the plan are

carried out and there is provision for updating and monitoring the plan

in light of the results of this.

Management of the protected area makes use of zoning or some other

system that ensures protection of the area's nature conservation values

while allowing for human activities compatible with this.

If the protected area is zoned, there is an unfragmented core zone of at

least 10 000 hectares where no extractive use is permitted and where

the only management interventions are those aimed at restoring

natural ecological processes.

If the protected area is not zoned, management of the whole area aims

to maintain and, if necessary, restore key natural ecological processes.

The protected area's management system pays particular attention to

24

threatened and endemic species.

In the case of a protected area adjacent to a national border, trans-

border co-operation in management is actively sought after.

Principle 3:

Visitor management

Visitor management safeguards

the natural values of the PAN

Park and aims to provide

visitors with a high-quality

experience based on the

appreciation of nature.

The protected area has a visitor management plan which is actively

implemented. Regular monitoring and assessment of the plan are

carried out and there is provision for updating and modifying the plan

in light of the results of this.

Visitor management safeguards the natural values of the protected

area.

Under the visitor management plan visitors are offered a wide range

of high-quality activities based on the appreciation of nature.

Visitor management creates understanding of and support for the conservation goals of the protected area.

The protected area has a visitor centre, for which clear goals and a

policy are set out in the visitor management plan.

The visitor management plan includes training programmes for staff

and others involved in the provision of services to visitors.

Principle 4:

Sustainable Tourism

Development Strategy

Protected Area Authority and

its relevant partners in the PAN

Parks region aim at achieving a

synergy between nature

conservation and sustainable

tourism by developing a

Sustainable Tourism

Development Strategy (STDS),

committing to it and jointly

The protected area and its region have sufficient tourism potential and

carrying capacity for sustainable tourism.

The present tourism activities do not harm the protected area in order

to implement its nature conservation goals.

Protected Area Authority and local stakeholders have the opportunity

to cooperate within the framework of an official forum that aims at

developing a STDS.

An Executive PAN Park Organisation (hereafter EPPMO) or an

existing forum for co-operation, which could assume responsibility for

implementing PAN Parks, has been established in which all relevant

stakeholders have formally confirmed their support and commitment

to the conservation goals of the protected area and PAN Parks

25

taking responsibility in its

implementation.

Organisation. The EPPMO (or similar) formulates, implements and

monitors a Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy (hereafter

STDS) for the protected area and its surrounding region.

Tourism development and existing tourism activities, which are under

the control of EPPMO, are based on sustainable use of the ecological

resources of the region.

Tourism development and tourism activities are based on sustainable

use of the socio-economic resources of the region, including minority

and if necessary indigenous people issues.

Tourism development and tourism activities are based on sustainable

use of the cultural resources of the region.

The STDS’ communications and marketing strategy aims at informing

all target groups.

Principle 5:

Business partners

PAN Parks’ business partners

as legal enterprises are

committed to the goals of the

protected area in their region

and the PAN Parks

Organisation, and actively

cooperate with other

stakeholders to effectively

implement the region’s

Sustainable Tourism

Development Strategy as

developed by the local EPPMO

PAN Parks Business partners follow all national legislation related to

their business.

Business partners support the protected area and its management

goals.

PAN Parks business partners are committed to the PAN Parks

Organisation and its goals.

Business partners actively participate in the implementation of

Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy as developed by EPPMO

and verified by PAN Parks Organisation.

26

(see Principle 4).

27

Table 4. Assessment indicators linked to criteria (from principle 3, criterion 3.1.)

Criterion Indicators

The protected area has a visitor

management plan which is actively

implemented. Regular monitoring and

assessment of the plan are carried out

and there is provision for updating and

modifying the plan in light of the results

of this.

Provide the visitor management plan (an English summary

and a copy (if available)).

Provide information of the plans long- and short-term goals.

Provide information on the resources available for the

implementation of the visitor management plan.

Describe how the effects of the visitor management plan's

actions are being monitored.

Indicate how the plan can be revised accordingly.

28

Xavier Font is Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management at Leeds Metropolitan University

(UK), and member of the PAN Parks Advisory Board. His education is in tourism

management and marketing, and his research focuses on marketing and management of

ecolabels in tourism and hospitality. He has co-authored and co-edited three books in

English (Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion of sustainable management,

Environmental management for rural tourism and recreation, Forest tourism and

recreation) and one in Spanish (Marketing of tourist destinations: analysis and

development). He has undertaken research and consultancy on ecolabels, sustainable

development and ecotourism for the EC, WWF, UNEP and WTO. Centre for the Study of

Small Tourism and Hospitality Firms, Leeds Metropolitan University, Calverley Street,

Leeds, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom, phone +44 113 283 2600 x5880, [email protected]

André Brasser is PAN Parks Communications Manager. His education is in journalism

and physical geography. After graduation he has had an occupation at the University of

Amsterdam as a part time lecturer on environmental science in combinationa with chief

editor of a regional daily in The Netherlands. Before joining WWF and PAN Parks in 1999

he worked two years at the Ministry of Environment in The Netherlands and six year as

communication consultant specialized in environmental affairs. World Wide Fund for

Nature- Netherlands, Boulevard, 12, PO Box 7, 3700 AA, Zeist, Netherlands, phone +31 30

693 7378, [email protected]

29