Access menaces on the Encantats massif

The Encantats massif, not in France?

One might wonder why Internet sites dedicated to French access problems publish texts about access problems of a ``foreign'' site. Thus, let us recall that the Encantats massif (Aigües Tortes National Park) is actually in the Spanish Pyrenees, more precisely in the Catalonia region.

However, although part of the water divide between the Garonne basin (North) and the Ebre basin (South), it lies entirely within spanish territory (Catalonia region) as well as the upper Garonne valley (Vall d'Aran). It is therefore an important mountain massif of quick and easy access from France (N20 highway from Toulouse) and very popular for French backpackers and alpinists, who often are more numerous than catalan and other spanish people.

Thus, access menaces on mountaineering in the Encantats are of the same importance as problems happening in Cauterets or Luchon.

Which menaces on the Encantats and the Aigües Tortes National Park?

Scanning various Internet sites, a topic section has been discovered, concerning complaints by the FEEC (Federació d'Entitats Excursionistes de Catalunya, which is somewhat the Catalan equivelent of FFME or the French Alpine Club). This Web site is www.feec.es/central.htm or, more precisely, www.feec.es/Noticies/415.htm.

In fact, the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya) published in his official Gazette a project of bye-law named Plan Directeur d'Usage et de Gestion (PRUG: use and management guideline plan) of the Aigües Tortes National Park which plans restrictive regulations concerning rock climbing, alpinism, hiking, skiiing and canyoning;

Comments on the various ban and limitations : the meaning of words

ON must emphasise the existence of clear restrictions on hiking and rock climging, and not on what is called ``alpinism'' by the PRUG. Thus, if one cleverly plays with the words, the access situation is perhaps less severe than its first appearance:

Hiking/trekking
is called senderisme/o in catalan and spanish, and it precisely means ``footpath hiking'', a pratice definitely distinct from alpine/mountaineering hikes which are supposed to be -- at leats partially -- practiced off-path. Thus, forbidding ``off-path senderisme'' becomes an empty sentence!

Alpinism
is defined in the bye-law project (article 24): In the present guideline plan, alpinism refers to performing ascents on high summits or of difficult access as well as high mountain traverses on ridges or non-marked routes.

Rock climbing
(``escalada'') is also defined in the project (article 24): it refers to a practice of alpinism where artificial protection and belays anchored within the rock are used.

After a careful look at the text, alpinism is not subjected to any specific restriction other than not entering the [natural] reserve areas (of restricted extent). Restrictions only affect ``senderisme'' (hiking) and ``escalada'' (rock climbing).

A weird fact is that the PRUC calls ``escalada'' a subset of alpinism which uses artificial archorages. What is not presently known is whether roped progression (the meaning of the Catalan word ``de subjecció'' is obscure in this context) is considered as rock climbing, or as alpinism as soon as one uses only a rope, slings and perhaps nuts.

A priori, if somebody claims to ``perform alpinism'' each time he walks out of establisehd paths to climb a neighbouring off-path summit, he should not be condemnable... in the strict respect of word meanings.

The planned facility installations and removals

Numerus clausus et safety decisions

Our Conclusions

As literally written, the PRUG causes a little harm to mountaineering practice: it suffices to claim that one is doing alpinism when ascending an off-path summit, and it is a reasonable policy to ask path hikers to stay on the path.

However, future interpretation of this bye-law might be dangerous. For example nobody knows whether the authorised ``existing footpaths'' will be the whole of the presently existing, marked or not, good or bad but visible footpaths, or whether they will be only a few major trails (those overlined in red on maps). In the same way, one does not know whether traditional shortcuts (case of tracks making hairpin bends) will be closed and forbidden (as they are in Tenerife).

Moreover, several articles allow the Park administration to make additional conservatory decisions, for example give a very restrictive definition of alpinism. Thus, while it is obvious that hiking on established trails will remain free, it might happen that the lack of specific specific regulation for alpinism be considered as an error or an omission. It is then likely that the Park administration would resolve a possible confusion between erratic off-path hikers and true alpinists by requiring the actual alpinists to register or get a personal permit to escape the general rule which forbids walking out of established paths and trails.

In the same way, one does not know whether the planned inventory of ``existing'' rock climbing routes will be comprehensive or limited to a restricted number of classics.


When comparing these future harassments with the various future installations designed for the average visitors, one might wonder as the Catalan excusionists do whether this PRUG is not: ``Less freedom for the lovers of nature, but more services for the Sunday consumer tourists. Only activities of poor economic interes shall be restricted. Nature protection considerations are submitted to economic interests.''

Anyway, il is advisable to sign the FEEC's petition (unfortunately in catalan) at:

http://www.feec.org/alegacions.htm.

The speech of the President of the FEDME

As he was alerted by several Spanish members, the president of the FEDME (the Spanish Mountaineering Federation) made an important speech on February 3rd, 2003, towards the Environment Commission of the Spanish Senate.

The entire text of this speech is posted (in Spanish) at: fedmesen.doc


,
une collaboration COSIROC et www.kairn.com
© CoSiRoc [Taupin] dim 24-08-03