27. 12. 2010.
vetrobran kamiona posmatram kamilju zapregu s kojom se mimoilazimo na putu
za Dasadu, selo na rubu Male slane pustinje Kač:
A potom, prvi deo je na ovom linku
23. 12. 2010.
Inače, nama običnim korisnicima i nevozačima, čini se da su im usluge veoma skupe, u svakom slučaju daleko skuplje nego u „provinciji“, tako da većinu vremena provode na stanicama, čitajući „Kurir“ ili dremajući, što i nije loše, jer tako manje troše gorivo i zagađuju životnu sredinu.
Kada se, retko, ali ipak u nuždi, odvažim da koristim njihove usluge, trudim se da ih odobrovoljim i zapodenem raspravu, kao da će to uticati na sporije otkucavanje taksimetra. Iako se zaista trudim da nađem temu od zajedničkog interesa, pojedini prihvataju razgovor što razumem kao dobar znak, a neki se samo mršte i ćute, ali na kraju, rezultat bude jednako zapanjujući – račun ekvivalentan ceni namirnica u supermarketu za ručak za „prosečnu“ četvoročlanu porodicu (uključujući i pola kile mesa).
Razgovor obično počinje o gužvi i lošim vozačkim veštinama drugih učesnika u saobraćaju (Jao, znao sam žensko vozi... Ko ti dade dozvolu, vidi se Pančevac, stavio bih carinu na Pančevačkom mostu..)
Sa jednim taksistom, preko priče o gužvama, započeo sam i priču o zagađenju vazduha, i kako je život u Beogradu postao nesnosan i da sva deca imaju astmu.
Svaki džukac vozi, kupili polovni auto i samo špartaju...
Pa možda je onda rešenje bolji gradski saobraćaj, rekoh ja pomisleći da rasprava ide u dobrom pravcu.
Ma ko će, bre, da natera ove snobove da sednu u trolu? Ja bih povećao cenu goriva tri puta i da svi voze hibrid. Što da uvozimo naftu od Arapa, vidi Vojvodina, može tri Evrope da prehrani a još se sada gorivo od repe pravi, možemo svi da budemo ko šeici, ej...
Pa nisam baš siguran da obradivo zemljište treba da se koristi za proizvodnju goriva.
Šta? Ja bih, bre, sve zasadio repicom, kakva bre pšenica, kukuruz ko te još za to pita? Duvan, repa, sad je XXI vek. Sad je bar napredovala tehnologija, ukrstiš ribu i šargarepu i dobiješ biljku kakvu hoćeš, za šta hoćeš...
Misliš na genetski modifikovane biljke?
Ma da, pitao bih ja ove što se nešto bune i kao vole crvljive jabuke, koliko se to isplati...
Ne znam, na kraju ispadne skuplja dara nego mera, pojavi se neka nova biljka, uništi sve ostale, izazove alergiju, moramo ipak da budemo oprezni.
Ma ko te pita, brate, važno da uzmeš kintu, ionako će Kinezi da smisle nešto da sve bude jeftino.. Sad kad se isprazne sela, napraviš plantaže, dovedemo Kineze i, brate, samo cepaj.
Kakav si ti patriota, uništiš sve što je tradicija ovog naroda samo da bi dobili jeftino gorivo, započeh ja da prizivam na patriotizam, videći novine koje taksista čita i pokušavajući da pobedim protivnika njegovim oružjem.
A, ne, da uništimo tradiciju. To je najvažnije...
Pa ko će rakiju od požegače da pravi ako svi pređemo na modifikovanu hranu?
Pazi, nisam o tome razmišljao, pa ne znam valjda će ostati negde rezervat. Ej, što moj ortak ima tasta taj pravi rakiju - havarija....
Pa što ne bi i drugi seljaci pravili takve proizvode, od naših, starih sorti, možda mogu da žive od toga?
Nije to loša ideja, ako neko hoće da se cima...Jao opet Pančevac, gde si ti polagao za dozvolu, some?
Ej dobro, stani ovde, stigli smo. Koliko je, upitah plašljivim glasom?
Ma 820 dinara, nego gde ti radiš, vidim razumeš se u te stvari?
Nešto oko ekologije, rekoh ja neusuđujući se da pomenem civilni sektor.
Ej, moja šveca završila biologiju, ne može da nađe posao, ajd ostavi mi vizit kartu, možda da napravite neku kombinaciju...
Izvoli, daj i ti meni tvoju, možda sledeći put bude neki popust na poziv?
Kakav popust, Gradska vlada je to ukinula, i ovako radimo skoro za džabe.
Ništa, nek pozove sestra, videćemo...
Prosečna godišnja kupovina 500 hiljada veštačkih jelki oslobađa 11,5 hiljada tona CO2, što je jednako 6 miliona km pređenih automobilom.
Takođe treba imati u vidu da kupovinom sečenih jelki u stvari se kupuje ubijeno drvo starosti između 5 i 10 godina!
Podržite kampanju Mladih istraživača Srbije - Samo živo drvo je dobro drvo! u subotu, 25. decembra u 12 sati ispred Starog Merkatora i u ponedeljak, 27. decembra, takodje u 12 sati, ispred Opštine Novi Beograd
Svakog decembra u Srbiji se poseče oko milion stabala mladih četinara, prvenstveno smrče i jele. Ta stabla služe kao novogodišnja dekoracija u domovima širom Srbije, što je naravno i jedna od najvećih draži Nove godine! Međutim, većina se ilegalno sece preprodaje i nije sa busenom, čime se ugrožavaju i jelke i životna sredina, a i mi!
A kako nam one doprinose?!
Oslobađajući kiseonik u procesu fotosinteze (hektar šume dnevno potroši oko 4000kg CO2, a oslobodi oko 3000kg O2).
Apsorbujući gasove, sedimentirajući prašinu, filtrirajući čvrste i radioaktivne čestice (stablo staro oko 30 god. može zadržati 120kg prašine i 80kg aerosola godišnje).
Filtrirajući vodu, sprečavajući eroziju i klizišta, smanjujući buku, ublažavajući klimatske promene, smirujućom tišinom …
Srećne praznike i 2011. godinu žele vam
Tanja, Dušica, Jelena, Vera, Vlada, Bojan, Ivan i Milka
vaši Mladi istraživači Srbije
22. 12. 2010.
Biodiversity Year Ends on a High Note as UN General Assembly Backs Resolution Signing into Life an 'IPCC-for Nature'
A new international body aimed at catalyzing a global response to the loss of biodiversity and world's economically-important forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems was born yesterday by governments at the United Nations 65th General Assembly (UNGA).
Procitajte vise ovde
15. 12. 2010.
More than half of the sites that constitute the Natura 2000 network are forest areas. The process of establishing the Natura 2000 network is the most ambitious in European history, so it cannot be completed without understanding, cooperation and contribution of the forestry sector in each country. Therefore the participation of all stakeholders (forest owners, rural communities, concessionaires, the environmental NGOs) in the management of Natura 2000 areas is especially important.
A total of 59 species of forest habitats that are rare or endangered, are listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive and can be classified into six categories: Forests of Boreal Europe, Forests of Temperate Europe, Mediterranean deciduous forests, Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests, Temperate mountainous coniferous forests, Mediterranean and Macaronesian mountainous coniferous forests. Next to forest habitats, the Habitats Directive also identifies some 200 animal and over 500 plant species as being of Community interest. This implies that several types of measures have to be taken to ensure their conservation status, such as designation of sites, general protection measures and regulation of use. The birds directive lists in its Annex I over 180 bird species for which special protection areas (SPAs) have to be designated by a procedure of direct notification from Member States to the Commission. Many of these species are associated with forest habitats.
The EU “Forestry Strategy” from 1998, in its section on ‘Conservation of forest biodiversity’, calls on forest managers to take into account the following measures for the conservation of biodiversity: to adopt mechanisms for preserving the health and vitality of forest habitats, and to carry out reforestation in a way that will not adversely affect the species and habitats (e.g., planting local species): Due to the disappearance of these activities, loss of biodiversity might happen.
The basic requirement for good function of forests, which belong to the Natura 2000 network is the involvement of forest owners and professionals. While there is no intention to block all economic activities on Natura 2000 sites, the economic function of forests, usually the highest priority in forest management, will have to be taken into account at most Natura 2000 forest sites. This may call for changes in current forest management practices, either by finding new and additional sources of income to continue a traditional form of management, whose profitability is in decline, or by increasing incentives to use forest products obtained by conservation-based management.
Natura 2000 sites offer the advantage of high ecological and cultural quality of goods and services. A special approach to managing forests is needed, to combine economic, environmental and social benefits. It also means better communication with the public and continued working with foresters and forest owners' associations. This will fulfill the obligations regarding the conservation of biological diversity. Also, it will prove that producing quality-driven merchandise and services based on sustainable methods is possible.
Awareness raising needed
The Habitats Directive provides clear criteria for the component of forest biodiversity conservation and the requirements that must be taken into account in forest management planning. Strict procedures are provided for monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of forests, where NGOs play a special role. Its implementation improves the knowledge of all participants on forest resources, forest biodiversity and their conservation. It also improves communication between the institutions for nature protection, the forest sector, forest owners, the scientific community, NGOs and other stakeholders.
On the other hand, the implementation of two directives depends on reliable data on the distribution of species and habitats from the Annexes of directives, which are missing in many countries. There is also a lack of knowledge of stakeholders, especially among foresters. They don’t know enough about the species and their ecological requirements, nor about real threats to these species and habitats. It is often difficult to arrange standards for monitoring the conservation status of species.
Given that the determination of Natura 2000 sites, according to the Habitats Directive, is a purely scientific process, owners and forest users are often subsequently informed that their forests belong to the Natura 2000 network, and that they would have to obey further management plans. This results in requests for compensatory measures (if there is any compensatory system in the country) that are often difficult to define or calculate. Therefore, timely and excellent cooperation between all stakeholders must be provided. Good practice examples from the region and EU countries on the establishment and management of forest Natura 2000 sites can certainly benefit all parties.
“NGOs should try to influence EU funds such as the IPA. Every year priorities are discussed at a national level and, as NGOs, we need to ensure that the necessary measures to initiate the designation of the Natura 2000 sites are included as priorities, and that the available money is not used against nature.”
Alberto Arroyo Schnell worked for a regional government in Spain during the implementation of Natura 2000. Five years ago he joined WWF. He is the WWF Natura 2000 coordinator and is considered a Natura 2000 expert.
What is your main advice for the countries that are not on the accession list yet, regarding preparing themselves for Natura 2000?
- If they are not yet on the accession list, it is a bit challenging to suggest something in relation with EU accession. For potential candidates like Serbia or Montenegro, I can give one piece of advice – the better you prepare yourselves before the date of accession, the bigger the influence on creating the network you'll have, and the best Natura 2000 network you will finally have. It is important to start much in advance, to understand the process and to use the capacity of NGOs. Of course, such countries also need to start working on very first steps, which is in principle the collection of scientific data for the identification of sites. Financing, is also something that needs to be dealt with when the accession date is close. For now, what can be done is trying to influence European Union funds like IPA and apply for them. Every year priorities are discussed at a national level and, as NGOs, we can work to ensure that the necessary measures to initiate the designation of the Natura 2000 sites are included in the list of priorities and that the available money is not used against nature.
Being an expert working in the whole Europe, what can you say about the general public – are they aware of Natura 2000? Is it even important for the network?
- That’s a very good point… There is a survey from the European Environmental Agency about the knowledge on biodiversity among EU citizens. Among the questions there is a question: “Have you heard about Natura 2000?” The average in EU is less than 20%. The best country is Bulgaria with 80%, but that’s not the good news. Bulgaria has really an issue, they have a negative story of misunderstanding of Natura 2000. Slovenia is also very highly placed with 46%. So, the knowledge of Natura 2000 is very low! In any case, surely Natura 2000 is a very technical issue and we don’t really expect people to know about it. I would say it is much more important to raise awareness about the need to conserve biodiversity. Natura 2000 is for sure something very important, but it sounds very difficult to speak about it. Of course, as WWF Natura 2000 coordinator, I think it would be very good to have as many projects, instruments, campaigns to try to make the best and the biggest network of protected areas in Europe more well known. It would be useful for our work, but the first step needs to be raising awareness regarding biodiversity.
Is there any country that has carried out the process of implementation of Natura 2000 absolutely fabulously so it could be like an example for the others?
- I am sorry to say that there is no perfect country. But we can highlight some countries. In this sense Slovenia is a good example. They have like 36% of designated area, they made the selection of sites more or less adequately, the discussion was good, the process was positive… They could serve as a role model for the countries in the Western Balkans.
Slovenia has designated 32% of pSCI which is still insufficient, and Denmark closed the designation process with only 7%. Where is that line when a country can say “We are done”?
- The line is set during the biogeographic seminars. There is a scientific discussion and an agreement as to whether the list of sites is sufficient or not for habitats and species. The discussion takes place between MS, Commission and NGOs. Denmark has 7%, so it tells us the country doesn’t have much nature value, while Slovenia has 32%. It is still insufficient, but they have done much more advanced work from the start than was expected. Romania was not good at the accession date, they didn’t even have their list in time. Bulgaria had a list, but very insufficient percentage.
Have you ever been involved in any shadow-listing process?
- Yes… I followed the preparations of shadow-lists for Poland and for Lithuania. There were also attempts to prepare shadow-lists for Slovenia and Hungary. The Polish one was the most successful. There was a big engagement of scientists and NGOs, a very big voluntary work. A lot of people put their heart into doing it, which was quite unbelievable. Thanks to that the whole situation in Poland –which was not easy– was improved. I wish the Polish model would be like a role model for other countries and their scientists to come together and do something big.
Petra Boic Petrac, WWF Mediterranean Programme
“There is never enough time! Natura is an extremely complex thing… It is not a question of democracy. It is a professional approach in which nobody is asked whether he or she wants it or not. That's why communications is essential.”
Peter Skoberne is the Natura 2000 expert in the Slovenian Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. He participated in the preparation of the network ahead of Slovenia's accession, and still works on the complement of the first proposal that will soon be delivered to the Slovenian government and the European Commission.
Some experts highlight Slovenia as a good example for candidate countries that are preparing for the implementation of Natura 2000. Could you describe how the preparations ran in Slovenia?
- One part of the work needs to be done before the accession, but the real work is yet to come when the country becomes a Member State. In some ways it seems that the implementation of Natura 2000 never ends. Therefore, Natura is established by joining the EU, and the implementation itself is made after that. Regarding the establishment of a network, we had a very fierce discussion in 2004 and some areas that were present in the professional draft, fell out. It was because the then Minister led logical policies whose goal was simple - to adopt the proposal for Natura 2000. So everything that was problematic, we just threw out from the proposal. Thus, the government adopted the proposal as a whole.
Did you have enough time for all preparations?
- There is never enough time! Natura is extremely complex thing… Our project had two branches - the professional part of the project and communications. With communications we could not have begun without having the content provided by the professional part of the project. So we didn’t have enough time to communicate everything and in the end it turned out that we had biggest problems in those areas where we had lack of communications. Natura 2000 is not a question of democracy. It is a professional approach in which nobody is asked whether he or she wants it or not. That's why communications is essential.
What was the situation after 2004, when you became a Member State?
- The political support for Natura fell a lot because it was so tied to the accession. Natura was "part of the package". There were, of course, some positive things, but a lot of problems emerged mostly related to the conflicts that we then had to deal with during two biogeographical seminars. We had some technical errors - for example moss fell out of the data even though we had them in the sites... Now, seven years after accession, we still haven’t changed Natura, although we have a lot of new data.
Don’t you have to change the proposal within six years by law?
- After six years we had a debate with the Commission. A professional proposal for change was prepared. However we decided to wait for the end of the year in order to avoid local elections and the possible politicization of the whole story. That would again be very bad for Natura 2000. Of course, we do not expect that we will end the process of implementation. 100% seems unrealistic, but we expect a high percentage.
What was the role of NGOs in the whole process?
- When we started seriously working on Natura, we included all potential stakeholders: professionals, experts and NGOs. When SEEweb was searching for the organization that should have represented NGOs on the biogeographical seminars, I was asked to recommend somebody. It was a problem for me because I couldn’t point out an organization that hasn’t collaborated with us in preparations. So I gave them a list of NGOs to search for somebody. At the end they found an expert who was not directly involved in the proposal and they were very well organized.
What happened with those problematic sites you had to remove from the first proposal of Natura 2000?
- We included them in the new proposal. And of course, some are still very controversial, like the Sava Lower Basin. There are energy experts from major projects and these topics are still very sensitive.
What is your advice for countries that are just now getting familiar with the Natura 2000?
- Natura 2000 has quite a different philosophy than the nature protection we have traditionally worked on. Therefore it must be very well understood and communicated. We love our little gardens, but these gardens should all be connected now. This way Natura 2000 wouldn’t only be a network of sites, but also a network of people. Therefore, NGOs should also understand what this is about, and influence the institutions to be sufficiently aware of the seriousness and their staff to be trained for Natura. Non-governmental organizations are always ready for biogeographical seminars. I can’t say the same for government organizations.
You are highlighting communications all the time. Have you developed the key to the best communications for Natura 2000?
- We had a very efficient project for the preparation of Natura 2000. It was developed with the help of IUCN. It included many NGOs, experts and scientists from forestry, agriculture, nature protection and regional institutes. We had seminars on how to communicate, while the local representatives were trained for their sites. Communications during the project was very good, but unfortunately it did not continue after the project. As for the key – the most important thing is that you build a good knowlage of Natura 2000 issues to be able to communicate well on it, otherwise your effort is useless.
Petra Boic Petrac,
WWF Mediterranean Programme
In the last issue of “Natura 2000 in the Western Balkans” newsletter we explained the importance of Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 6. It encourages Member States to manage Natura 2000 sites in a sustainable way and designates activities that can affect Natura 2000 sites negatively, providing opportunities for certain exceptions in specific circumstances. As promised, in this issue, we will explain the importance of the first paragraph of Article 6
Article 6 (1): ‘For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites’.
The conservation measures can take at least two forms: the form of ‘appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures…’ and ‘if need be’, the form of ‘appropriate management plans’.
The words "if need be," indicate that management plans are not always required. If a member state chooses to adopt management plans in most cases it is best if they are established before the conclusion of the other measures mentioned in Art. 6 (1), especially contractual measures. Contractual measures often include the relationship between the competent authorities and individual landowners, so they will be limited to individual holdings, which are usually smaller than the protected area. In such circumstances, a management plan that focuses on the protected area will provide a wider framework, and its contents will provide a useful starting point for specific details of the contract measures.
The phrase ‘if need be’ refers only to the management plans and not to the statutory, administrative or contractual measures. Thus, even if a Member State considers that a management plan is unnecessary, it will nonetheless have to take such measures.
Different measures may be considered appropriate to achieve the objective of the directive. In general, it includes measures that have a positive effect, but in some exceptional cases, may include measures that do not require any action. Among the measures that include positive effects, agro-environmental measures are a good example to illustrate how socio-economic requirements can be taken into account. For example, for a semi-natural habitat made by man, which are listed in Annex I (meadows and pastures) and species listed in Annex II that live in these habitats, agreements need to be made with farmers in accordance with the Regulation on rural development. In most cases, this will be sufficient contractual obligation, which aims to maintain a favorable conservation status of habitats and species.
Article 6 (1) is not applicable to Special Protected Areas (SPA), in contrast to Article 6 (2), (3) and (4). But the legislator has envisaged a regime that establishes a special protection measures for special protection areas (SPA), which are classified in accordance with the Birds Directive, on the basis of its Article 4 (1) and (2). A regime that defines the extent of protection for Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) is designated under the Habitats Directive, under its Article 6 (1).
For a better understanding of how this looks in practice, we recommend some interesting links:
Guidance document: Managing Natura 2000 sites (2000)
Good Practices in Managing Natura 2000 Sites
Participation of stakeholders in developing management plans for Natura 2000 sites in Poland
Young Researchers of Serbia
Most people have only a vague idea that their well-being is somehow linked to the environment, but few understand just how important these connections are. Many of our health challenges relate directly to the environment and to the profound impact we are having on the planet. The major threat to biodiversity is not just the direct exploitation of species by humans but also the alteration and destruction of habitats that result from the growth of the human population and from human activities that damage the environment.
Around 80% of people in the developing countries rely on traditional medicines, mostly from plants. More than half of the most commonly-prescribed drugs in the developed world such as aspirin come from natural sources. Human health also depends on well-functioning ecosystems. We cannot live without the goods and functions that nature provides to purify our air and fresh water, to maintain soil fertility, to pollinate plants, to break down waste, to provide food and fuel, and to keep disease in check.
The threats to biodiversity
In the Balkan Peninsula, the components of biological diversity are in better condition than those of the more developed European countries. This should be a challenge to be more deliberate in implementing activities focused on biodiversity conservation in its entirety. Considering the wealth of its flora, this region is potentially one of the global centers of plant diversity. According to recent research, in the area of the Balkan Peninsula, the presence of 2600 endemic plant species is evident.
The threats to biodiversity are omnipresent. The most important threats include:
• Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation;
• Population decline in wild species;
• Pollution / Contamination;
• Invasive and non-native species; and
• Climate change.
Different stakeholders have much in common and must join forces in working towards shared goals. Politicians and decision makers should pay greater attention to environmental issues. There are many links between well-being and environment. Although these links are emerging as one of the most powerful arguments for conservation, we need to do much more to communicate them to decision makers and the public.
Natural habitats are being carved up and destroyed by rapidly expanding urban areas, the extension of transport networks and the clearing of land to make way for agriculture. Pollution from multiple sources is degrading ecosystems. Our increasing need for the goods and services provided by nature is threatening species. The introduction of alien invasive plants and animals are having devastating impacts on native species. And then there is climate change, which is already affecting species and ecosystems and will continue to do so in the decades to come – with unpredictable and potentially devastating consequences.
By 2020 biodiversity should be conserved
Nature and people are indivisible. Everything is linked. To save the species, we must save their habitats that are, again, embedded in a broader environment. Therefore, we must tackle climate change, pollution, and the impacts of human development. It means that businesses should be active partners in nature conservation.
We are at a turning point right now, just starting to recognize the economic value of nature’s assets. The TEEB study (The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity, see more on: www.teebweb.org), elaborated by a group of experts led by Pavan Sukhdev, is demonstrating the importance of valuing and putting the right price tag on natural capital. Only by doing this we can make sure that investments are directed at maintaining and enhancing rather than exploiting and destroying natural capital.
In October in Nagoya during the COP 10 CBD a new global strategic plan of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted. This plan should ensure that by 2020, biodiversity is conserved, used sustainably and that the benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably.
Actions are taken at the regional level too. The European Union started marking the beginning of the International Year of Biodiversity earlier this year by adopting a new EU biodiversity target for 2020. Its target recognises that we need restore biodiversity and ecosystems to the furthest extent possible. Ecosystem restoration and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity will be a vital part of EU biodiversity strategy to direct Europe's economy onto a more resource-efficient path..
Nature conservation is essential
For species conservation the important step is assessing and categorizing threats according to internationally recognized standards such as Red Lists, the most comprehensive world inventory of plants and animals protection status. For biodiversity conservation it is also essential to implement “the ecosystem approach” as a strategy for integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use of these resources in inequitable way – UNEP/CBD.
The ultimate goal is to ensure that wildland diversity and ecosystems are maintained and will survive as biologically intact and functional as possible for generations to come. An ecosystem approach broadly evaluates how people’s use of an ecosystem affects its functioning and productivity.
We as humans do not have a choice in whether or not to protect natural world. We must do so, because our health and our lives depend on it.
WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme
Law, Strategy, Regulation – is there any public participation in decisions related to the Protection of Nature?
During the last three months members of the “Natura 2000 Resource Center of Serbia” have experienced what it means to lobby for changes in laws. They found out how interesting it is to strategically plan biodiversity conservation and how they need to participate in the various processes that are taking place in Serbia, and are associated with the nature protection.
Intensive work began in September, after understanding that draft version of the Law Amending the Law on Nature Protection is at least inadequate! The common position of members of the Network was that such way to prepare any amendment to the law, as well as disregarding the opinion of professional institutions and organizations, can’t be good. The fundamental problem with a possible revision of the law represented Article13, which is related to protected natural resources. By these changes it becomes "an act directed towards satisfying enormous needs of business-sector on (usually unacceptably small) part of Serbian territory that includes the best preserved natural values and which is protected by the law " and Article 4 and Article 55 relating to the transposition of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive in the Act. Articles 4 and 55 were also a problem – they refer to the transposition of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive in the Law.
As the Government of the Republic of Serbia, at the time of our reactions, has already adopted a draft law (which then becomes a proposal), the only institution we were able to turn to was the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia - the Committee for Environmental Protection. We sent a letter to the Committee with our proposals for changes and additions. A lot of phone calls and meetings followed, including the one in the National Assembly.
The result: Minister Dulic explained in the Parliament the needs and the reasons for the adoption of the proposed set of laws, among others, the draft Law Amending the Law on Nature Protection. The Minister said, "that the Law should be returned to the Committee on Environment of the Assembly of Serbia in order to find a compromise between Article 13 of the Proposal, and Article 35 of the valid Law."
And then everything was settled in the traditional way: people sat down together and reached an agreement! On the website of the Ministry of Environment a new version of the Draft Law on Amendments to Law on Protection of Nature has appeared, which is different to the one that the Serbian parliament adopted on 23 November 23 2010.
A compromise was reached to some extent. However, the general dissatisfaction with the process, as well as non-involvement of the public, remains.
In the meantime, NGOs were invited to submit their comments on a draft Strategy for biodiversity in Serbia. Comments of the network members were unified and sent to the Ministry. Unfortunately, most of the suggestions of NGOs were not taken into account. Regardless, we hope that we had a great influence on decision makers.
Then we made suggestions for the improvement of the Regulation on ecological networks. We received hearty appreciation for this participation in commenting and submitting suggestions to this document by the Ministry. We are still waiting for the final version of the Regulation.
It is not easy to participate in the decision making process. Not at all! Though young, the network “Natura 2000 Resource Center of Serbia” has shown that it has sufficient knowledge, will and motivation to be a participant in those important processes. As stated at the beginning of the text, we have learned that we “must''. For how it should be, what is the best for all and how it works in other social environments, unfortunately can’t be applied in Serbia.
Young Researchers of Serbia
Snap-shot of some activities within the Project “STRENGTHENING THE CAPACITY OF GOVERNMENTS AND CIVIL SECTOR IN SERBIA AND IN MONTENEGRO TO ADAPT TO EU NATURE PROTECTION AQUIS”:
- Two-days regional workshop “NATURA 2000 - agriculture and forestry” was held in Belgrade (2 -3 November 2010) where 29 participans from Montenegrin and Serbian public institutions, protected areas and NGOs took part and had vivid discusions on relationship between nature protection new mechanism (Natura 2000) and agriculture and forestry practice.
- Two workshops ''NATURA 2000 and protected areas'' took place in both, Montenegro (Podgorica, 11-12 October 2010) and in Serbia (Novi Sad, 21-22 October 2010), with total participation of 57 participant and 11 lecturers from various institutions.
WWF Mediterranean programme
Environment ministers from almost 200 countries adopted historic targets to half the loss of natural habitats and dramatically increase nature reserves to 17 percent of the world’s land area by 2020 from less than 10 percent today.
By endorsing the United Nation’s strategy, the ministers pledged to draw up national biodiversity plans within two years.
U okviru Tvining projekta „Jačanje administrativnih kapaciteta za zaštićena područja u Srbiji (NATURA 2000)“ tokom novembra su održane tri radionice o mreži NATURA 2000 za predstavnike relevatnih sektora.
Sektorske radionice su deo trening programa za izgradnju kapaciteta za pripremu mreže NATURA 2000 koji je izrađen u okviru Tvining projekta, a obuhvata radionice, seminare i studijske posete. Tokom trajanja projekta predviđeno je održavanje pet sektorskih radionica s ciljem informisanja ključnih zainteresovanih strana o konceptu NATURA 2000, kao i radi njihovog uključivanja u sam proces pripeme mreže NATURA 2000 u Srbiji.
Dve su radionice – za sektor zaštite prirode i za predstavnike sektora šumarstva– održane u Palati Srbije u Beogradu, dok je radionica za zainteresovane strane iz sektora poljoprivrede održana u Pokrajinskom zavodu za zaštitu prirode Vojvodiine u Novom Sadu.
Mreža NATURA 2000 i odnos sa relevantnim sektorima kao tema radionica se pokazala voema interesantnom za svaki od pomenutih sektora, sudeći po velikom odzivu za učešće. U radionicama su učestvovali predstavnici svih relevantnih institucija iz pomenutih sektora, od Ministarstava, preko zavoda, instituta, fakulteta, do nevladinih organizacija.
Radna atmosfera na održanim sektorskim radionicama je bila pozitivna i konstruktivna, prikupljeno je više od 50 pitanja o NATURA 2000, od opštih pitanja do specifičnih, vezanih za date sektore. Na jedan deo pitanja, eksperti sa Tvining projekta su dali odgovore na licu mesta, dok će ostatak pitanja biti deo odeljka ’Pitanja i odgovori’ na veb-stranici Tvining projekta. Takođe, više od 100 komentara i predloga u vezi sa mogućnostima, prednostima, izazovima, ograničenjima, te sugestijama za buduću međusektorsku saradnju, su rezultati interaktivnog rada u grupama. Na osnovu rezultata evaluacije radionica, opšte mišljenje učesnika o radinicama je krajnje pozitvno.
Sledeće dve sektorske radionice, za predstavnike sektora infrastrukture, prostornog planiranja, energetike, vodoprivrede, turizma, te lovstva i ribarstva će biti održane u februaru 2011. godine.
Organizatori radionica su Ministarstvo životne sredine i prostornog planiranja i tim Tvining projekta „Jačanje administrativnih kapaciteta za zaštićena područja u Srbiji (NATURA 2000)“. Cilj Tvining projekta je razvoj sistema za zaštitu prirode u Republici Srbiji u skladu sa pravnim tekovinama Evropske Unije.
14. 12. 2010.
Zakon, Strategija, Uredba – postoji li učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka vezanih za zaštitu prirode Srbije?!
Član 6. je ključni deo poglavlja Direktive 92/43/EEC pod nazivom „Zaštita prirodnih staništa i staništa vrsta“. U prošlom izdanju newslettera dali smo opšti prikaz Člana 6. a sada ćemo se fokusirati na stav 1 ovog člana.
Stav 1 Člana 6 glasi: ‘’Za posebna područja zaštite, zemlje članice uspostavljaju potrebne mere zaštite, a ukoliko se za to ukaže potreba, planove upravljanja koji su specifično namenjeni za područja posebne zaštite ili su integrisani u druge razvojne planove, kao i odgovarajuće ustavne, upravne ili ugovorne mere koje odgovaraju ekološkim zahtevima tipova prirodnih staništa iz Aneksa I i vrsta iz Aneksa II koje su prisutne na ovim područjima“.
Mere zaštite mogu biti u najmanje dva oblika: u obliku odgovarajućih ustavnih, upravnih i ugovornih mera, a „ukoliko se za to ukaže potreba“, mogu biti i u obliku „odgovarajućih planova upravljanja“.
Reči „ukoliko se za to ukaže potreba“ ukazuju da planovi upravljanja nisu uvek potrebni. Ukoliko zemlja članica odabere planove upravljanja, u većini slučajeva je najbolje da se oni uspostave pre zaključivanja drugih mera spomenutih u članu 6(1), posebno ugovornih mera. Ugovorne mere često obuhvataju odnos između nadležnih organa vlasti i pojedinačnih vlasnika zemljišta, pa će biti ograničene na pojedinačna imanja koja su obično manja od zaštićenog područja. U takvim okolnostima, plan upravljanja koji je fokusiran na zaštićeno područje će pružiti širi okvir, i njegov sadržaj će pružiti korisnu polaznu tačku za specifične detalje ugovornih mera.
Fraza „ukoliko se za to ukaže potreba“ odnosi se na planove upravljanja, a ne na ustavne, upravne ili ugovorne mere. Zato će zemlja članica, čak i ako smatra da plan upravljanja nije potreban, ipak morati da poduzme gore navedene mere.
Različite mere mogu se smatrati odgovarajućim da bi se postigao cilj direktive. U principu, to uključuje mere koje imaju pozitivan efekat, ali, u nekim izuzetnim slučajevima, može da uključi mere koje ne zahtevaju bilo kakve aktivnosti. Među merama koje uključuju pozitivno delovanje, agro-ekološke mere su dobar primer za ilustraciju kako društveno-ekonomski zahtevi mogu biti uzeti u obzir. Na primer, za neka polu-prirodna staništa koja je napravio čovek, a koja su navedena u Aneksu I (livade i pašnjaci) i vrste iz Aneksa II koje žive u ovim staništima, sklapaju se sporazumi sa poljopriverdinicima u skladu sa Uredbom o ruralnom razvoju. Ovo će, u većini slučajeva, biti dovoljna ugovorna obaveza koja ima za cilj održavanje povoljnog stanja očuvanosti staništa i vrsta.
Član 6(1) nije primenjiv na područja posebne zaštite (SPA), za razliku od člana 6(2), (3) i (4). Ali, zakonodavac je predvideo režim kojim se uspostavljaju posebne mere zaštite za područja posebne zaštite (SPA) koja su klasifikovana u skladu sa Direktivom o pticama, i to na osnovu njenog člana 4(1) i (2) a režim kojim se definišu mere zaštite za posebna područja zaštite (SAC) koja su određena u skladu sa Direktivom o staništima, na osnovu njenog člana 6(1).
Za bolje razumevanje kako ovo izgleda u praksi, preporučujemo vam nekoliko interesantnih linkova i prikaza situacija:
Mladi istraživači Srbije
Europska Komisija objavila je 9. studenog 2010 godišnje izvješće o napredku Hrvatske, Turske, Makedonije, Srbija, Albanije, Crne Gore, Bosne i Hercegovine te Kosova, za članstvo u EU.
Više o svemu čitajte na: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2010/package/strategy_paper_2010_en.pdf