Andreas Beckman: Natura 2000 stvorila je zajednički jezik zaštite prirode kojim svi mogu govoriti

Veliki problem koji imamo mi, ljudi koji radimo u zaštiti prirode, jest da nastojimo sve vidjeti vlastitim očima pa očekujemo da svi vide stvari kako ih mi vidimo. To moramo izbjegavati. Mogli bismo nešto naučiti od oglašivača koji se nevjerojatno dobro znaju postaviti u misli svoje ciljne skupine te s time u skladu oblikovati poruke

Kao bivši koordinator za WWF-ovu inicijativu pridruživanja EU, Andreas Beckman sudjelovao je u pripremama za implementaciju mreže Natura 2000 u novim EU članicama srednje i istočne Europe. Sada, kao direktor WWF-ovog Dunavsko-karpatskog programa, Andreas više nije tako blisko uključen u EU zakonodavstvo zaštite prirode, no to ga ne sprječava da i dalje ima čvrst stav o Natura 2000 i ulozi NVO-a u osiguravanju njezine provedbe.

Osim pripreme 'shadow liste', koja je glavna uloga NVO-a u ekološkoj mreži Natura 2000?

Nevladine organizacije imaju važnu ulogu u Natura 2000. Oni imaju ulogu u pripremi znanstvene osnove za očuvanje mreže, npr. dajući i prikupljajući znanstvene podatke. U mnogim se zemljama državne vlasti zapravo oslanjaju na NVO-e za podatke i znanstvenu ekspertizu budući da takvih podataka sami uglavnom nemaju. Još jedna velika uloga NVO-a je komunikacija i podizanje svijesti. NVO-i su prilično dobri u komunikaciji unutar određenih skupina i zajednica i uvelike mogu pomoći dajući podršku Europskoj uniiji podizanjem svijesti, naročito među lovcima, poljoprivrednicima, šumarima i ostalim ključnim dionicima koji su uglavnom i najviše zabrinuti zbog Natura 2000.

Kako NVO može prići vladi ili instituciji koja priprema listu područja Natura 2000 dajući im do znanja da upravo oni imaju relevantne podatke koji bi za listu trebali biti zanimljivi?

Ovisi o tome s kime razgovaraju! To ima puno smisla iz perspektive države, jer postoje određene stvari koje moraju učiniti a poznati su neki primjeri gdje su vlade učinile prilično loš posao izrade znanstvene osnove za mrežu. Jedan primjer je Rumunjska, gdje je određivanje Natura 2000 područja u mnogim slučajevima temeljeno na zastarjelim i netočnim podacima. Neka mjesta su određena za vrste koje tamo više ne žive... U tim slučajevima, u stvari, određivanje područja nije ni potrebno - to je gubitak resursa i ništa ne štiti. S druge strane, u slučajevima gdje područja s važnim vrstima od europskog značaja nisu određena, nedostaje zaštita i tu dolazi do izražaja uloga NVO-a i drugih dionika koji trebaju pripremiti i dostaviti pritužbe Europskoj komisiji, što košta vremena i resursa koji se mogu bolje iskoristiti.

Tako je u interesu ne samo nevladinih organizacija, nego naročito vlada da izbjegnu takve probleme osiguravajući se najtočnijim znanstvenim temeljima za mrežu Natura 2000. Morate imati svojevrsni dugoročni cilj da biste to mogli vidjeti. Kratkoročno, možda će biti lakše skratiti kuteve, ali dugoročno, bolje je osigurati se dobrom osnovom za Natura 2000 u svojoj zemlji. Radeći to kako treba, iizbjegavaju se problemi u budućnosti i upravo je prvotni smisao Natura 2000.

Kao direktor WWF-ova Dunavsko-karpatskog progama, imate li se još vremena baviti mrežom Natura 2000 kao stručnjak?

Nažalost imam jako malo vremena da se izravno bavim s Natura 2000. No posredno, moglo bi se reći da je dosta toga što radim nekako povezano s provedbom europske ekološke mreže. Natura 2000 je stvorila odlične mogućnosti za zaštitu prirode diljem Europe. Stvorila je zajednički jezik i okvir za zaštitu prirode koji dijele svi Europljani. Da ne kažem da je stvorila znanstvene temelje za zaštitu prirode kakve ranije nismo imali. Naravno, imamo još puno posla, s puno problema i nedostataka. Gotovo 20 godina otkako je usvojena Direktiva o staništima, mi tek sada počinjemo sa stvarnom provedbom mreže. Još je dug put u osiguravanju potrebnih resursa, kao i za osiguravanje da drugi interesi, poput poljoprivrede, transporta ili razvojne infrastrukture, u potpunosti poštuju ciljeve očuvanja Europske unije.

No, to ne uklanja neke izvanredne uspjehe vezane uz Natura 2000. Čaša nije samo poluprazna, nego je i napola puna. Postigli smo puno!

Postoji li neka zemlja u Europi koja se nije susrela s problemima u implementaciji Natura 2000?

Ne, ne vjerujem da postoji. Uvođenje Natura 2000 svima je bio izazov, od zapadne do istočne Europe, od starih do novih članica. Mnoge su lekcije naučene, pa su novije EU članice imale određene beneficije učeći iz prijašnjih iskustva. Zbog toga su u mnogim slučajevima odradile bolji posao u pripremama mreže od bogatijih i razvijenijih zapadnoeuropskih susjeda. Hrvatska je vrlo dobar primjer zemlje koja još nije ni članica, a već je napravila znatan napredak pripremajući se za Natura 2000. Za to su, vjerujem, zaslužne relevantne hrvatske vlasti koje su bile relativno dalekovidne i dobro organizirane te su napravile dobar posao koristeći se mogućnostima, uključujući projekte financirane iz EU, kao i podrškom nevladinih organizacija.

U smislu komunikacije, jeste li otkrili neku savršenu formulu kako razgovarati s dionicima?

Nisam, naravno… No vjerujem da je osnovna stvar razgovarati njihovim jezikom. Veliki problem koji imamo mi, ljudi koji radimo u zaštiti prirode, jest da nastojimo sve vidjeti vlastitim očima pa očekujemo da svi vide stvari kako ih mi vidimo. To moramo izbjegavati. Mogli bismo nešto naučiti od oglašivačkih tvrtki koje se nevjerojatno dobro znaju postaviti u misli svoje ciljne skupine shvaćajući tko su, što ih motivira, što vole ili ne vole. S time u skladu oni oblikuju njihove poruke i dostavljaju im ih dobivajući maksimalni efekt. Ljudi koji rade u zaštiti prirode u tome nisu vrlo dobri. Ako razgovarate kao poljoprivrednik, jezikom koji on razumije, te razumijete njegove potrebe, komunikacija može biti djelotvorna. U protivnom može biti kontraproduktivna.

I posljednje pitanje – što ste radili prije negoli ste postali direktor WWF DCP-ja?

U prošlom sam životu bio muha što vjerojatno objašnjava moje zanimanje za zaštitu prirode… Reinkarnacijom sam postao to što sam danas! (smijeh)

Došao sam u WWF u 2001 kao koordinator za pristupanje EU. Fokus su mi bili Natura 2000 te poljoprivredni i strukturalni fondovi Europske unije. Tu sam bio uključen u izgradnju kapaciteta i strunosti unutar WWF-a i partnerskih organizacija, naročito u zemljama središnje i istočne Europe. Godine 2005. počeo sam raditi u Dunavsko-karpatskom programu WWF-a kao zamjenik direktora, da bih prošle godine postao direktorom.

Petra Boić Petrač, WWF

Andreas Beckman: Natura 2000 created a common language of nature conservation that all could speak

The big problem that we, nature conservationists have, is that we tender see everything through our own eyes and expect everybody to see things as we do. We need to avoid this. We could learn something from advertisers that are extremely good in putting themselves into the minds of the target audience and they are shaping their message according to that.

As the former coordinator for WWF’s EU Accession Initiative, Andreas Beckman was closely involved in preparations for the EU’s Natura 2000 network in the EU’s new member states of Central and Eastern Europe. Now, as director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian programme, Andreas is no longer so closely involved with the EU’s nature conservation policy – but that doesn’t keep him from having some strong opinions on Natura 2000 and the role of NGOs in securing its implementation.

What is the main role of NGOs in Natura 2000, apart of preparing the shadow list?

NGOs have a big role to play in Natura 2000. They have a role in preparing the scientific basis for the conservation network, e.g. by providing and collecting scientific data. In a number of countries, in fact, state authorities have relied on NGOs for data and scientific expertise, as they have not had enough themselves. Another big role for NGOs is in communications and awareness raising. NGOs are quite good in communicating within certain groups and communities and they can certainly help in supporting EU awareness, especially among hunters, farmers, foresters and other key stakeholder groups that are most concerned by Natura 2000.

How can NGOs approach government or institutions that are preparing Natura 2000 list letting them know they have data that might be interesting for them?

It depends on who you’re talking to! It makes a lot of sense from a government perspective, there are certain things they need to do and there are some examples where governments have done a relatively poor job of preparing the scientific basis for the network. One example is Romania, where the site designation in many cases was based on outdated and inaccurate data. Some sites were designated for species that don’t live there anymore… In those cases, in fact, designation is not actually needed – it is a waste of resources and protecting nothing. On the other hand, in cases where areas that have important species of European interest have not been designated, protection is missing, and there is an opening for NGOs or other stakeholders to submit complaints regarding this to the European Commission, which costs time and resources that can be better used.

So it is in the interest not only of NGOs but also and especially of governments to avoid these problems by ensuring that the scientific basis for Natura 2000 is as accurate as possible. You need to have a certain kind of long-term view to be able to see that. In the short-term, it may be easier to cut corners, but over the long-term, you certainly are better off by ensuring a sound basis for Natura 2000 in your country. By doing it properly, you avoid the problems in the future and it’s the whole point of Natura 2000 in a first place.

As director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian programme, do you still have time to deal with Natura 2000 as an expert?

I unfortunately only have little time to be involved with Natura 2000 directly. But indirectly, you could say that much of what I do is somehow connected to implementation of Europe’s safety net for nature.

Natura 2000 has created great opportunities for nature conservation across Europe. It has created a common language and framework for nature conservation shared by all Europeans. It has also created a scientific basis for nature conservation which we didn’t have before.

There is of course still very much to be done, with plenty of persisting problems and insufficiencies. Indeed, almost 20 years since the Habitats Directive was adopted, we are still beginning now to actually implement the network, and still have a long way to go in securing the resources needed for this as well as ensuring that other interests, like agriculture, transportation or other infrastructure development, fully respect the EU’s conservation objectives.

But this does not remove some remarkable achievements connected to Natura 2000. The glass is not only half empty but also half full. We have achieved a lot!

Was there any country in Europe with no problems in implementation of Natura 2000?

No, I don’t think so. Introducing Natura 2000 has been challenging for everyone, from western to eastern Europe, old to new EU member states. There have been many lessons learnt, and the newer EU member states have been able to benefit from previous experience and in many cases have done a better job in preparing for the network than their richer and more developed Western European neighbours. Croatia is a very good example of a country that isn’t a member state yet, but has already made remarkable strides in preparing itself for Natura 2000. Credit for this goes I think to the relevant Croatian authorities, which have been relatively farsighted and well-organised, and have done a good job in using opportunities, including EU-funded projects as well as NGO support.

In terms of communications, have you discovered some perfect formula how to talk to the stakeholders?

No, of course not… But I think the key thing is to speak their language. The big problem that we nature conservationists often have is that we tender see everything through our own eyes and expect everybody to see things as we do. We need to avoid this. We could learn something from commercial advertising companies that are extremely good in putting themselves into the minds of the target audience: understanding who they are, what motivates them, what they like or don’t like, what motivates them, and then shaping their message and delivery of that message accordingly, to have maximum effect. Not just in terms of the content but also the way they phrase it and the way they transport it. Nature conservationists aren’t very good at this. If you talk like a farmer, in the language that a farmer can understand, and meet his needs, then communication can be effective. Otherwise, it may actually be counter-productive.

And the final question – what did you do before you became WWF-DCP director?

I was a fly in my previous life, which perhaps explains my interest in nature conservation… With reincarnation I became what I am today! (laughing) I came to WWF in 2001 as the EU accession coordinator. My focus was on Natura 2000 and EU agricultural and structural funds, where I was involved in building up capacity and expertise among WWF and partner organisations especially in countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In 2005 I moved to work for the WWF Danube-Carpathian programme as deputy director, and since last year I have been working as director.

Petra Boic Petrac, WWF