3000 visits per day to Fanal has sparked a flood of comments across social media. The population are not in favour….
The main topic in this Sunday’s edition of DIÁRIO is the definition, by IFCN, of the carrying capacity for Fanal. Three thousand daily visits are projected, calculated, it is stated, based on a scientific study.
Regardless, the topic sparked dozens of comments across DIÁRIO’s various social media platforms, most notably Facebook. On this network, the overwhelming majority of commenters consider the limit of 3,000 visitors per day absurd, unfeasible, and dangerous for the preservation of Fanal. The prevailing sentiment is one of indignation, disbelief, and accusations of political incompetence.
There is, therefore, a total rejection of the limit of 3,000 visitors/day. The majority considers the number a serious mistake, an insult to the intelligence of the Madeiran people, and a concrete threat to the preservation of the Laurissilva forest and Fanal mountain range, seen by many as an essential part of Madeira’s natural identity.
Among the many comments, there is one that discusses what is happening with the Faial Caldera in the Azores. It states that there is a daily limit of 35 visitors and that they must be accompanied by a guide. Is this true, and is it true that the Azores are ahead of Madeira in protecting natural spaces?
The aim of this work is to verify the veracity of what is stated about the protection measures for the Faial Caldera in the Azores and, if possible, to try to understand if the Azoreans are ahead in environmental protection measures when compared to the Madeirans.
The verification will be carried out using official documentation from the regional governments of the two archipelagos and their respective official journals.
The key document for understanding the rules of access to the Faial Caldera is the respective access regulation, annexed to Ministerial Order No. 68/2018 of June 21, 2018, from the Regional Secretariat for Energy, Environment and Tourism. This must be considered in conjunction with Regional Legislative Decree 7/2019/A, of March 27, which creates the Capelinhos Volcano Natural Monument and makes the first amendment to Regional Legislative Decree No. 46/2008/A, of November 7, which creates the Faial Island Natural Park.
The main rules for accessing the interior of the Faial Caldera are the requirement for prior authorization from the Natural Park, and access is only permitted through registered entities accompanied by accredited guides. Each guide can lead up to 15 people.
The main rule is a maximum capacity of 40 visitors per day (adjustable by plus or minus 25% depending on trail conditions and weather).
Visits take place only between sunrise and sunset, with a limited stay of 3 hours, always on the marked trail.
There is a fee of 4 euros per visitor, except for residents.
It is mandatory to wear clean clothing and footwear to avoid invasive species.
Access may be suspended for security reasons, and non-compliance may result in rescue costs or fines.
The comment left by the DIÁRIO reader also mentioned a limit of 300 visitors per day in the Caldeira perimeter (PRC04 FAI – Caldeira), which we were unable to confirm. In fact, we can state with a high degree of certainty that this limit does not exist.
Our research also revealed that, in the Azores, there is a relatively ‘closed’ set of natural spaces where access is restricted, with explicit definitions of daily carrying capacity in official regulations.
Let’s look at some cases in summary.
Pico Mountain Nature Reserve (Pico Island): PRC4 PIC Trail – Mountain (access to the mountain) Maximum carrying capacity: 320 visitors per day. Reference capacity at any one time: 160 visitors; Access to Pico Pequeno / Piquinho – 30 visitors at a time, with a maximum stay of 20 minutes.
Faial Caldera – Access to the interior (Faial Island): Maximum daily capacity: 40 visitors per day; Visits must be between sunrise and sunset; The route must follow the marked trail; Maximum stay in the protected area: 3 hours.
Capelinhos Volcano (Faial Island): Access is mandatory via the marked trail; Maximum daily capacity: 80 visitors per day; Simultaneous reference capacity: 16 visitors; Visits only between sunrise and sunset, with a maximum stay of 2 hours in the protected area.
Vila Franca do Campo Islet (São Miguel Island): Bathing season (June 1st to October 14th) 400 visitors per day; Maximum of 200 visitors at a time; Period from October 15th to April 15th (scenic/interpretive visits) 160 visitors per day; Maximum of 40 visitors at a time; Stay in the protected area limited to 1h30.
Ilhéu da Praia – (Graciosa Island): Maximum daily capacity: 20 visitors per day, a maximum of 2 days per week, between July 1st and November 15th; 20 visitors per day, a maximum of 5 days per week, between November 16th and April 15th; Visits are always between 10 am and 4 pm; Maximum stay of 1 hour and 30 minutes.
In Madeira, the areas with restricted access and a limited number of daily visitors are mainly located in the Desertas and Selvagens islands.
Desertas Islands: 2,500 visitors per month; Deserta Grande: maximum 250 people on land and a maximum of 12 overnight stays.
Selvagens: maximum of 500 visitors per month and a maximum of 50 on land at any one time.
The Planning and Management Plan for the Central Mountains of Madeira Island (POGMMC) includes quite detailed studies of tourist carrying capacity for trails in the Central Mountain areas (Pico do Areeiro, Pico Ruivo, Achada do Teixeira, etc.).
For example: On the Pico do Areeiro – Pico Ruivo – Achada do Teixeira route (PR1 + connection) it is estimated that 170 people per day will be able to travel (the initial estimated capacity is much higher, but there are a number of corrections that result in this final number).
In maritime activities, there is also a defined carrying capacity. At sea, the Region is moving towards a model of daily limits on tourist effort, although focused on vessels/trips and not directly on the number of people.
As can be seen, it is true that the Azores have more locations with defined daily visitor numbers, but this alone does not make the statement that they are ahead of Madeira in the management of natural spaces true. As also seen, although the reader’s statement has the correct meaning, the numbers do not. Thus, in general, we consider the statements to be inaccurate.