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