Snaga mreže

“Ne pitaj šta tvoja mreže može da učini za tebe već pitaj šta ti možeš da učiniš za mrežuJ”

Maleni brod predstavlja NVO mrežu koja se bori da spasi prirodu (c) crtež Bjanke Prakljačić

2008. godina je donela za moju (Mladi istraživači Srbije), a i mnoge druge organizacije u Srbiji, novu energiju. To je bila ključna godina za uspostavljanje saradnje moje organizacije sa WWF-om. To je bila važna godina za jačanje saradnje sa ostalim organizacijama u Srbiji. U to vreme mi, organizacije koje se bave zaštitom prirode, znali smo jedni za druge, sarađivali. Znali smo i organizacije iz Crne Gore. Ali, nedostajalo nam je “nešto” da budemo bolje organizovani. To “nešto” došlo je sa projektom koji je podržalo Norveško ministarstvo spoljnih poslova i mi smo se umrežili kako bismo zajedno radili na primeni EU acquisa za zaštitu prirode. Tokom 2009. godine bili smo podržani i od strane Evropske komisije (EC), Generalnog direktorata za životnu sredinu, za projekat izgradnje kapaciteta. Ova dva projekta savršeno su se uklopila!

Kako smo svi, na nacionalnom, regionalnom i međunarodnom nivou, imali jako lepa iskustva sa ovim projektima i postali dodatno motivisani, usledio je sledeći korak - razvili smo projekat “Partnerskeakcije za zaštitu biodiverziteta na zapadnom Balkanu”, koji je podržan od strane EC.

Partnerstvo je jaka reč! Važno je i već je postojalo među mnogim organizacijama. Ali, ovaj projekat je doprineo da naša partnerstva postanu snažnija. Na pitanje šta je partnerstvo na ovom projektu donelo meni i mojoj organizaciji, ja bih ukratko rekla: Pokretački duh ali i stres! Dobre ideje i akcije! Mnogo znakova pitanja iznad naših glava, a onda sreću kad shvatimo šta naši partneri zapravo žele! Nova znanja, dobre savete! Razumevanje onoga što partneri rade i planiraju! Jasne ideje o tome “šta i sa kim ne bih volela da radim” i mnogo, mnogo drugih stvari!

Druga jaka, i možda još važnija reč, koju smo toliko puta izgovorili i napisali tokom projekta, je umrežavanje. Naša mreža organizacija ima 56 nevladinih organizacija članica, 4 radne grupe a moja organizacija ima ulogu sekretarijata. Uopšte nije lako! Jako puno stvari treba imati u vidu, biti pažljiv u radu sa mrežom. Ponekad je previše zahtevno ali …. odlično je! Šta je vrednost mreže? Pa, posle skoro četiri godine rada sa drugim organizacijama u mreži tvrdim da imam odgovore na sva pitanja koja se tiču zaštite prirode, primene evropskih politika, Natura 2000 u Srbiji.

Ne, ne, ne… nisam ja baš tako informisana i samouverena! Ovo tvrdim i navodim jer imam kolege u mreži, mnogo njih, sa različitim znanjem, obrazovanjem, iskustvom. Zahvaljujući poverenju, kao i načinima razmene informacija, mogu da dobijem odgovore na pitanja od njih. I obrnuto, uvek ću dati odgovore kolegama, pomoći. U mreži možemo da pitamo jedni druge različite stvari i da se uzdamo jedni u druge. Naravno, nije sve to baš tako idilično. Imamo puno “uspavanih” članova, često je veoma teško motivisati organizacije i pojedince da se uključe. Ali, verujem da ćemo, polako, polako, motivisati i njih.

Da zaključim, MREŽA NVO je najveća promena koja se dogodila, po meni, u 730 dana implementacije ovog projekta. Saradnja sa kolegama iz drugih organizacija na projektnim aktivnostima bila je bitna da bih razumela koliko je umrežavanje važno. To me je i dodatno motivisalo da doprinosim radu mreže, i na dalje.

 Milka Gvozdenović, Mladi istraživači Srbije

Tanja Petrovic: Institutions work with us. However, more effort would be appreciated…

Tanja Petrović (c) MIS

The knowledge among NGOs in Serbia on Natura 2000 is respectable. A good part of the credit for that belongs to Young Researchers of Serbia, who were the first one in Serbia to organize workshops and trainings about the importance of Natura 2000. One of the projects that secured funds for such an education was “Partnership Actionsfor Biodiversity Protection in Western Balkans”. We spoke about it to Tanja Petrovic, executive director of Young Researchers of Serbia (YRS).

Young Researchers of Serbia have been working on the preparation of NGOs for Natura 2000 for more than 3 years already. How did you decide to take the initiative to support the creation of that ecological network in Serbia?

I must admit that dealing with Natura 2000 was one of the easiest decisions we have made in the last few years J. Dealing with Natura 2000 for us was entirely natural. Since our establishment (this year we celebrate our 35^th anniversary), we have dealt with nature conservation and biodiversity.  Membership in international networks, such as CEEweb, has enabled us to understand the  importance of Natura 2000 considerably before it became a topic in Serbia. We understood the importance of establishing the network in Serbia, the benefits, the importance of implementation and, more important, the need for preparation and training for organizations dealing with nature protection in order to become an equal and respectable partner of state institutions for the establishment of Natura 2000 in Serbia.

The project “Partnership Actions for Biodiversity Protection in Western Balkans” is at the very end. Are you satisfied with its implementation? What could have been done better? What are the lessons learned? 

In general, we are satisfied. With our partners we have succeeded in gathering NGOs in two countries dealing with nature conservation, forming two informal but functional national networks. This is what I consider to be the biggest value of this project. Those organizations are now better trained, better prepared… With our study visits to Brussels and Croatia we gained significant experiences. Some prejudices about what is and what is not possible in Natura 2000 are outdated now and nothing is “mission impossible” anymore.

What could have been done better? There was a lack of concrete field work. Some things were done through local actions, but not enough. But two years are, in fact, not enough… So, this still remains for some future projects!

Future

Will YRS work on Natura 2000 in the future? Do you have some new projects?

The fact that our project is at the end doesn’t mean we have finished our work. This project gave us an opportunity to learn. Now we need to implement the knowledge we have obtained. So yes, we will definitely continue working on Natura 2000. After the establishment of Natura 2000, which is a very complicated and complex process, a lot of work is still ahead for the civil sector. The establishment of the network is just the beginning.

Regarding our projects, we have just begun implementation of the project “Promoting socio-economic Benefits of Natura 2000”. We are still waiting to hear from our donors regarding a few more projects dealing with Natura 2000.

What is the future plan for the Natura 2000 Resource Center of Serbia, a network for which your organization is secretariat?

Our intention is, of course, to continue working with the network. There are 4 working groups within the network: communications, research, lobbying and education. Many activities have already started: promotion of Natura 2000, workshops, participation in biogeographical seminars for the Emerald network. This year we have secured funding for regular meetings. The projects we have developed in the meantime are to provide funds for such activities in the future.

What is the opinion of NGOs in Serbia regarding the political will for the implementation of EU acquis for nature protection? Is there such a will in Serbia?

Partly. As politicians would say, I doubt there is any consensus about it. There are institutions in Serbia that are, together with their leaders, ready and willing to implement EU acquis, but there are also the others that see the implementation of Natura 2000 only as an imposed obligation. This means that we, as civil society and as a sector, are facing a lot of work, education and capacity building for the establishment of an ecological network. Many people see only in-kind commitments in Natura 2000, they don’t see benefits… So far! 

Are you invited to the council or working group for the Natura 2000 network formed by the Government of the Republic of Serbia?

At this moment we have only informal information that the representative of the civil sector will be appointed to the working group on Natura 2000. Nothing official has happened yet, there is no decision on the appointment. However, I think that’s not enough – the civil sector should have a representative on the Council as well. This, of course, wouldn’t be a precedent. Three representatives of civil society are permanent members of the Council for Sustainable Development of the Republic of Serbia and it works just fine ... I suppose this is not the only example.         

In my opinion the cause of frequent misunderstandings and disputes among civil society and institutions involved in nature protection is the lack of information, lack of recognition of the potential that lies in the civil sector, misunderstanding of the nature of civil society on the one hand, and the way in which the state administration works on the other side... Membership on the Council and in the Working Group would probably contribute to resolving these problems. It would also contribute to the more efficient and safe establishment of Natura 2000 in Serbia.

Cooperation

In your opinion, is the Government of Republic of Serbia cooperating with NGOs?

This year we made important progress… the Government office for cooperation with the civil sector was formed and we already see the benefits of this institution. As for our relevant ministry (Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning), they are just designing some institutional mechanisms that should improve this cooperation.

Not to leave this question without a proper answer – yes, the RS government cooperates with the civil sector. However, it is necessary that they insert more effort and good will to make this cooperation more efficient.

Do you have a message for institutions working with nature conservation in Serbia?

“Together we can be stronger!”

Petra Boic Petrac, WWF

Morača treba ostati prirodni biser Europe

Neuspjeli tender za izgradnju niza  hidroelektrana na rijeci Morači potvrdio je argumente civilnog društva, sveučilišnih profesora i nezavisnih eksperata da je predloženi projekt ekonomski, društveno i ekološki neisplativ

Morača © Michel Gunther  WWF-Canon 

Tender za izgradnju niza hidroelektrana na rijeci Morači proglašen je neuspjelim 30. septembra, jer nije prispjela niti jedna ponuda od potencijalnih investitora. Ekonomski i ekološki nedostaci sadržani unutar predloženih projekata na koje je u više navrata ukazivalo civilno društvo tokom tenderskog postupka su na ovaj način prešutno potvrđeni i od strane nekoliko preostalih zainteresiranih investitora.

Prema Ustavu, Crna Gora je ekološka država, ali napori Vlade u ispunjenju njenih obaveza vezanih za održivi razvoj morali bi biti znatno veći nego što su bili u posljednje vrijeme, naročito u slučaju rijeke Morače.

Svojim planom da izgradi seriju od četiri hidroelektrane na jednom od najvećih europskih prirodnih dragulja, Vlada Crne Gore je ozbiljno ugrozila proglašeni status i orijentaciju ka ekološkoj državi. Ustrajnost Vlade u implementaciji ovog projekta i zanemarivanje mogućih društveno-ekonomskih i ekoloških posljedica, dovelo je do žestokih diskusija sa naučnom javnošću i civilnim društvom, koji su zajedno sa WWF-om više puta upozorili da bi izgradnja hidrocentrala na Morači imala ozbiljne društveno-ekonomske posljedice na život lokalnog stanovništva, kao i na jedinstvenu biološku raznolikost i prirodu sliva Morače i Skadarskog jezera.

Vlada je nastavila sa tenderom i nakon istraživanja koje je provela NVO Green Home, koje je pokazalo da većina građana, bez obzira na njihovu političku orijentaciju, obrazovanje ili godine, ne podržava namjeru Vlade i smatra da su hidroelektrane na Morači loše za nacionalnu ekonomiju i za životnu sredinu.

Izgradnja serije hidroelektrana ne samo da bi mogla ozbiljno ugroziti čitav hidrološki sistem sliva Morače, već bi također mogla da ima značajan utjecaj na Skadarsko jezero, jednog od najvećih staništa biodiverziteta u Europi i močvare sa RAMSAR statusom. Izgradnja HE na Morači bi također mogla da znači potapanje pojedinih dijelova Mrtvice i Male Rijeke koji su EMERALD područja od najvećeg ekološkog značaja i veliki turistički potencijal, zaštićena Bernskom konvencijom. Ovo znači da bi plan izgradnje brana također mogao ozbiljno ugroziti proces uspostavljana Natura 2000 mrežom zaštićenih područja, koje Crna Gora mora nominirati prije nego što postane punopravni član Evropske Unije. Predstavljeni su bili i planovi u kojima bi se dodatna količina vode preusmjeravala iz rijeke Tare, koja je pod zaštitom UNESCO-a kao svjetska prirodna baština, i koja je poznata po najdubljem i najslikovitijem kanjonu u Europi, nazvanim i “Crnogorski Kolorado”.

Negativne posljedice predloženog projekta prepoznala je i jedna od vodećih kompanija za izgradnju hidroelektrana – Norveški Statkraft, koja je napustila projekt zbog ekološke i ekonomske neisplativosti. “Prije investiranja mi želimo da se uvjerimo da je predloženi dizajn brane, pored toga što je ekonomski isplativ, u isto vrijeme i ekološki prihvatljiv i da podržava društveni i ekonomski razvoj. Ovo je bio naš fokus u Albaniji, a investicija u Crnoj Gori je neizvjesna - osim ukoliko se ne otvore mogućnosti za minimalizovanje društvenih i ekoloških utjecaja i optimalizaciju potrošnje i proizvodnje,“ rekao je Bredo Erichsen, Direktor Statkraft Albanija, objašnjavajući razloge zbog kojih se odustalo od projekta na Morači. Potencijalni investitori su ispitivali projekt od početka tendera, a Statkraft nije jedina kompanija koja je odustala od njega. Druge globalne kompanije, kao što je kineski Synohydro i austrijski Strabag, koji su u početku ušli u uži izbor na kraju su odustali od tendera.

Vlada Crne Gora bi trebala slijediti primjer brana na Morači kao upozorenje da projekti koji sa sobom nose visok utjecaj i visoke troškove moraju biti dobro proučeni kako bi se izbjeglo nepotrebno trošenje energije i novca.

Činjenica da nije bilo zainteresiranih investitora koji bi se prijavili na tender za izgradnju serije hidroelektrana predstavlja jasan dokaz ekonomske i ekološke neodrživosti projekta na Morači, činjenice koju su konačno priznali i preostali potencijalni investitori.

Tokom čitavog tenderskog procesa, organizacije civilnog društva i nezavisni eksperti iz različitih oblasti tvrdili su da nedostaju važne informacije unutar studija i analiza, da su sačinjene nerealne prognoze, i da su ekološki i društveni negativni utjecaji jednostavno preveliki da bi se ovaj projekt realizirao. Nakon neuspjeha tendera civilno društvo Crne Gore i međunarodne organizacije su još uvjerenije da se projekt na Morači mora u potpunosti zaustaviti.

Bojan Stojanović, WWF

Protected Areas and Natura 2000 workshops in Serbia and in Montenegro

Natura 2000 workshop in Serbia

80 representatives from the nature conservation sector in Serbia and in Montenegro took part in workshops on the NATURA 2000 concept for protected areas as well as explaining stakeholder involvement in the process of designation of NATURA 2000 sites. Among the participants were protected area managers, representatives of nature protection authorities and civil society organizations from the two countries.

During the two-day workshops, participants improved their knowledge of how to go about establishing the NATURA 2000 network in their respective countries. Speakers from Romania and Bulgaria presented examples of good practice from the region and how the NATURA 2000 network took shape in the newest EU member states.

Participants in the workshop in Serbia were greeted by Biljana Panjković, Director of the Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province. She highlighted the importance of the NATURA 2000 network as a good opportunity to conserve nature and natural resources. She also emphasised the role of civil society organizations as important partners in nature conservation.

Natura 2000 workshop in Montenegro

Experts from the WWF, IUCN, the Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, the Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province and Young Researchers of Serbia also shared their expertise. Representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture, Trade, Forestry and Water Management introduced the latest legislation on nature conservation and water protection.

At the workshop in Montenegro, Vasilije Bušković from Institute for Nature Conservation of Montenegro talked about the previous steps made in establishing the ecological network in the country. Experts from WWF and Wildlife Society Balkani from Bulgaria shared their experience and stressed the challenges they faced. Experts from Daphne Institute for Applied Ecology from Slovakia, together with the NATURA 2000 team of the Ministry for Sustainable Development and Tourism, presented the methodology and highlighted the challenges of field work.  Natura 2000 team presented achievements in development of Natura 2000 database and Catalogue of biotopes (habitats), etc.
The workshops are part of the project “Strengthening the Capacity of Governments and Civil Sector in Serbia and in Montenegro to adapt to EU Nature Protection Acquis”. The project lasts for three and a half years (2009 – 2012) and is implemented by WWF in cooperation with the NGO Young Researches of Serbia and the NGO Green Home from Montenegro. The project is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Sonja Bađura, WWF

Why Environmental NGOs like EU? Maybe because of operating grants to European environmental NGOs?

For development and implementation of EU environmental policy there is a need for broad dialogue with stakeholders, NGOs also participating in preparatory work and expert groups and conduct research and studies. It is important that NGOs are able to take part in such a dialogue since they have a good understanding of public concerns on the environment. Their presence is important to provide a sound balance in relation to the interests of other actors.

Therefore, the LIFE+ Regulation provides funding of "operational activities of NGOs that are primarily active in protecting and enhancing the environment at European level and involved in the development and implementation of Community policy and legislation" (Annex 1 to the Regulation).

This funding is targeting non-profit making and independent environmental non-governmental organisations active at a European level.

Regarding the application procedure and selection:

· Calls for proposals are published once a year.

· The next application round for grants for 2012 is to be published in autumn 2011.

· The applications are evaluated according to a number of criteria based on their contribution to the priority areas of the 6th Environmental Action Plan (climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health, natural resources and waste and horizontal issues).

More info http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/intro_en.htm

Andrea Stefan, WWF

THE VOICE OF an NGO – dr Gabor Mesaros, Protego: We have good cooperation with the Institute, but with the Ministry there is no cooperation

Dr Gabor Mesaros is the Chairman of the Board of Protego, an NGO from Serbia. After teaching at the college, Dr. Mesaros moved to the non-profit sector. We are interested to hear his experience.

You have experienced both sides. Where is more interesting?

I have experienced both state and private sector, and now I'm in the NGO sector. It is safest in the state sector, but NGOs give you greater freedom. The big advantage of the NGO sector is the fact that you plan your activities alone. There are no outside influences, at least not direct.

What do you do at the moment?

Generally we are oriented towards water and the stagnant waters in Vojvodina. This is a continuation of research and protection programs for the terrapin that we expanded on its habitat. We are working on inventories of those waters, a rapid environmental assessment and an attempt to include some of those waters in the ecological network. There are a perhaps tens of hectares of water area. We have established contacts with government institutions; we exchanged our database so that we work together, although it can’t be called a partnership. They have to complete the ecological network, all in the context of the Emerald, Natura 2000 and the Decree, so the information they get from us is quite welcome.

I have come from a state and professional academic structure so I know these people and there are no difficulties.

Being a scientist with a Ph D who is coming from their “environment”, is your data automatically credible?

They are loaded with their tasks, given by somebody who is in a higher position… So they look only at the resources around them. The NGO sector is not considered to be a resource, although the situation has changed in the last few years. With the Institute we have good cooperation, but with the Ministry, there is no cooperation.

NGO Protego is a part of the “Natura 2000 Resource Center of Serbia” network. What is your opinion on the networking?

Networking is a great idea…

What about the implementation?

Well, it’s good. I don’t know what to expect. Protego has been part of the network since January 2010 and when I look back, I've got all sorts of useful information which I wouldn’t have if I wasn’t a member: information about meetings, some travelling, contacts with people ... There is much to be done, we often mention working within thematic units that is really necessary. There is also our joint approach, where we gave remarks on some regulations and rules, the changes in the law. That didn’t change excessively the attitude of decision makers at the republic level but there is awareness that we are here and we can coordinate some things.

How will Serbia react to the Natura 2000 network? Do you expect some problems?

Some difficulties, yes. We need to work a lot on education, not only with citizens, but also with the decision makers at all levels. People in Serbia think that protection means being deprived of something, so they are desperately struggling not to give their property. I was assured on several meetings that this needs to be changed. Protection isn’t primarily conservation but sustainable management, use of resources in a way that does not jeopardize its long-term natural values​​. We need to continue working on this, especially with those who work with water management and forests. It seems to me that this is the result of performance of the Institute for Nature Protection, because they think that the protection is only what the law defines. We saw some space there and we are working to point out that there is a way that the resource is used but still preserved. This is protection. Natura 2000 has a lot of examples on the development of management plans... It's not just setting up tables, but it’s more about the managing. It’s hard to determine what progress the process will make in Serbia. I guess slow, but constant.

Petra Boic Petrac, WWF

Christoph Stein: Capacity building is about transforming your society, starting with you and your organization

In many countries NGOs are competitive. I can’t say NGOs in Serbia and in Montenegro are not competitive, but I see many of them caring about each other which makes me proud of our two partners, Young Researchers of Serbia and Green Home

Christoph Stein lives in Barcelona, but being WWF capacity building officer, his working area, apart from Spain, includes Northern Africa, Middle East and Western Balkans countries. Through the IPA project “Partnership actions for biodiversity protection in Western Balkans”, Stein has trained several NGO representatives from Montenegro and Serbia for lobbying and advocacy.

The Project ”Partnership actions for biodiversity protection in Western Balkans” is in its final phase. Being capacity building officer, what is your opinion on this project?

Capacity building is one of the main line of the project. If you start a new policy process, such as Natura 2000, you have to find a way to connect it to civil society for many reasons. Civil society has to push the government to be active on Natura 2000 and later on to monitor the process. This is something that needs to be built up, and you can’t do it in few weeks. We are very lucky with this project that we have two years to work with the group that slowly grows within the project.

This is your second project in the region, after the one you’ve already worked on with Young Researchers of Serbia and Green Home. Are you satisfied with these collaborations?

We had another capacity building project that was a small project. It is really good to see those NGOs are both champions in their countries with an interest in other NGOs. In many countries NGOs are competitive. I can’t say NGOs in Serbia and in Montenegro are not

competitive, but I see many of them caring about each other which makes me proud of our two partners.

Photo: Christoph with the IPA project team in Zagreb

How long have you been interested in capacity building?

Capacity building is about how to use educational processes in the best way to achieve previously established learning objectives. In this, I started in early 1990s, first as a teacher in different schools, then I worked for other NGOs on educational projects. In 2000 I came to WWF and this is when we started talking about capacity building and education. I have worked in the region for 10 years with capacity building. But, my job is divided – I work in the Western Balkans and in Northern Africa and Middle East.

Is there any fundamental rule of capacity building?

No main rules. Capacity building is about pushing for transformational changes. We all want to change something in a positive way. First you want to change yourself. You need to learn how to do it and how to apply it to other people. So, capacity building is about transforming your society, starting with you and your organization. It’s about listening and asking the right questions, it’s about being open to learning and changing and for an organisation it means a permanent process.

Lobbying is a part of your training. Do you have good experience with NGOs learning about lobbying?

Lobbying is part of most NGO work – there are few NGOs who are not dealing with advocacy or lobbying in a different context. If you work for an environmental or social NGO, you need to know how to lobby. You need to lobby people and advocate institutions. There is a lot to learn and a lot to improve. When you start to plan that process, you see how difficult it might be. Many NGOs say: “We have no power, we are too small...” That is not true! NGOs need to understand that their power starts at the community level where they work. From there it goes up… But, yes, they have power – not to change alone, but to push that change with their partners.

And what about lobbying and advocacy, is there a golden rule?

You have to be very clear what exactly you want a person or an institution to do. You have to ask yourself the question: what exactly do I want and what can this person or organisation really do to help me to achieve my goals. A golden rule in most advocacy processes is that you have to evaluate your progress and to be flexible enough to adapt to changes on the policy level.

Do you get feedback from stakeholders you have trained?

We have different feedback – from evaluations that people write after training, in personal contact… As I see it, people are positive. Organizations come back to our training courses. This means they were satisfied with the previous training, and we have a relationship of trust, we are on a good track. What they learn, they try to apply. We can see this from small grants that we gave to 17 NGOs within the project “Partnership actions for biodiversity protection in Western Balkans”. It’s a pity this project is ending this year, there is so much more we could do. Hopefully there will be funds to continue this project…

What would be the next steps of the follow up?

We could keep this group together to work on the implementation of Natura 2000. This is not a process of one of two years, but of 10 years! We should motivate this group to keep on this process, to work with public institutions, for which they need a lot of energy. This follow up could be on socio-economic assessment, on communications… There are so many possibilities and if we want to work on it for the next 10 years, we could. The group of NGOs is very motivated and all we need now is to find funds to continue the process….

Petra Boic Petrac, WWF

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.

Milka Gvozdenovic,
Young Researchers of Serbia

Administrativni kapaciteti neophodni za provedbu Natura 2000

Dvije glavne direktive na području zaštite europskih divljih vrsta su Direktiva o pticama (79/409/EEZ) i Direktiva o staništima (92/43/EEZ). Te dvije direktive predstavljaju najambiciozniji pothvat očuvanja europskog biodiverziteta i srce su ekološke mreže Natura 2000.
Ciljevi dvaju direktiva
Direktive su usmjerene na zaštitu vrsta i na određivanje dragocjenih staništa za te vrste. Predviđaju brojne ciljeve poput određivanja područja posebne zaštite SAC (Direktiva o staništima) i područja posebne zaštite za očuvanje staništa određenih vrsta ptica SPA (Direktiva o pticama) te odabir područja od posebnog značaja za zajednicu pod nazivom Natura 2000.
Ustanovljavanje potrebnih mjera za očuvanje tih područja i praćenje stanja očuvanosti staništa i vrsta još je jedan od ciljeva Direktiva, kao i poduzimanje potrebnih koraka kako bi se izbjeglo propadanje prirodnih staništa i staništa vrsta. Među ciljevima Direktiva još su: određivanje vrsta kojima se može trgovati i vrsta čije iskorištavanje može biti predmetom mjera upravljanja; stvaranje sustava za praćenje slučajnog zadržavanja ili ubijanja pojedinih vrsta te zabranjivanje pojedinih metoda njihova zadržavanja, ubijanja ili pak transporta. Tu su i posebne sheme za vrste koje se legalno smije ubijati, zadržati ili njima trgovati.
Uspostavljanje odgovarajuće administrativne strukture
Svoj prijedlog za provedbu ekološke mreže Natura 2000 mora imati svaka zemlja koja želi postati članicom Europske unije. Međutim, kako bi se mogli provesti razni pravni propisi koje članstvo u EU sa sobom nosi, država mora na odgovarajućim razinama (nacionalna, regionalna i lokalna) odrediti nadležna tijela. Drugim riječima, država kandidat ili država pristupnica već mora imati odgovarajuću administrativnu strukturu. To znači da odgovornosti za različite aktivnosti među raznim tijelima moraju biti jasno definirane. Na primjeru planiranja to bi podrazumijevalo: uspostavljanje politika i smjernica, označavanje područja za poboljšanu zaštitu, provođenje mjera za zaštitu vrsta, osiguravanje provođenja planova i politika, praćenje stanja (monitoring), prikupljanje podataka te izvještavanje.
Kako postići ciljeve Direktiva
Suradnja i komunikacija između različitih odjela je neophodna. Ne smiju se preklapati stručnosti između pojedinaca ili pak između ministarstava, agencija ili stupnjeva administracije i mora se znati tko je za što nadležan. Administrativni sustav mora imati posebnu stručnost/ekspertizu za očuvanje prirode (vrsta i staništa) usklađenu sa zahtjevima dviju Direktiva. Dakle, nadležno ministarstvo, odgovorno za administrativne i stručne zadatke koje uključuje planiranje, izvještavanje, davanje dozvola te nadzor/inspekciju, i nacionalna stručna institucija koja ima popis vrsta i bavi se monitoringom i stručnom analizom (primjerice, Zavod za zaštitu prirode) moraju blisko surađivati. U idealnim uvjetima, države bi trebale imati institucije za zaštićena područja kao i razne institucije na regionalnoj i lokalnoj razini za upravljanje zaštićenim prirodnim vrijednostima na njihovu teritoriju na kojemu su i područja ekoloških mreža.
Kako bi se postigli ciljevi Direktiva, nezavisna regulatorna tijela, primjerice inspekcija za zaštitu prirode, trebala bi osigurati monitoring, nadzor i učinkovitu provedbu. Ne treba zaboraviti da i druge administracije, poput lova, ribolova, poljoprivrede iili šumarstva, trebaju biti usklađene s odredbama njihovih administrativnih procedura za zaštitu prirode.
Slučajevi povreda zakona koje propisuju Direktive usmjereni su na sud.
Andrea Štefan

Studijska poseta u Brisel: Uspostavljanje Natura 2000 na zapadnom Balkanu i u Turskoj

Studijska poseta "Uspostavljanje Natura 2000 na zapadnom Balkanu i u Turskoj - uloga organizacija civilnog društva" bit će održana u Briselu, od 13. do 16. septembra 2010. godine, kao deo programa People to People.
Program ''People to People'' je deo podrške organizacijama civilnog društva koju, kroz Generalni direktorat za proširenje, obezbeđuje Evropska komisija. Program je usmeren na pojedince i organizacije iz korisničkih zemalja i pruža mogućnost posete institucijama EU kao i relevantnim organizacijama sa ciljem boljeg upoznavanja strukture EU, procesa izrade politika, programa itd.
Oko 40 predstavnika organizacija civilnog društva iz zemalja zapadnog Balkana i Turske će tokom studijske posete, koja u fokusu ima Natura 2000, imati priliku da dobije informacije od eksperata i predstavnika EC o Natura 2000 ali i politici biodiverziteta. Takođe, studijska poseta je prilika za međusobno povezivanja, razmenu informacija i planiranje saradnje.
Program je organizovan u saradnji sa WWF-om.
Tanja Petrović

Wolfgang Suske: NGOs are Watchdogs for the Correct Implementation of Natura 2000

One of the best Natura 2000 experts, Viennese Wolfgang Suske, is currently working on several projects in Serbia, Romania, Croatia and Austria, through his firm Suske Consulting. He works on the rural development and social aspects of Natura 2000 projects as well as financing tools of Natura 2000 and the process of appropriate assessment of the most important articles of Birds and Habitats Directives. As a communication expert Suske has worked on projects in Romania and Malta, he was a team leader of the project “Implementation of Natura 2000 in Croatia”, and today he is an expert of a Twinning project in Serbia. Suske also lectures at the University of Natural Resources in Vienna, and the Klagenfurt University.

How many countries have you worked in as an expert for Natura 2000?
In the last 5 years I have worked in 15 countries, mostly in training courses and seminars for authorities or NGOs, but also for freelance offices and experts.

What can you say about your experience with the implementation of Natura 2000 – whether in Austria or other countries?
In Austria we were unable to start a professional participation process in time. We waited for the moment that farmers, foresters and other stakeholders asked for better and clear information. And we tried to use tactics in the designation process. It was interesting that big investors forced us to stop that because infringement procedures caused legal uncertainty – and for investors that is the biggest problem.

Do you have any brilliant advice for the countries that will implement Natura 2000 in the near future?
It might sound strange – but the brilliant idea is to sit together and develop this Natura 2000 network. To discuss together the importance of our nature, the added value of protected rivers, grasslands and forests but also the challenges for the social and economic sectors within regions. This is the key: to learn from each other and to build up the network on this cooperation.

What do you see as the biggest obstacles in the phase of implementation?
In many countries it is the deficit of human resources – for organization and administration of the designation, participation, management, development of financing tools, etc. If the implementers are weak – mostly because they are understaffed – you spend time with infringement procedures or complaints from the European Commission or investors. If the implementors are strong, Natura 2000 can become a great success story.

How important is the role of NGOs in Natura 2000?
I think in the area of nature conservation NGOs have never had a bigger role than with Natura 2000. They are watchdogs for its correct implementation and they can help a lot in management. In nearly all funding programs NGOs are potential applicants.The European Commission definitely counts on NGOs and are ready to listen to critical comments and constructive proposals.

Both Serbia and Montenegro have their own NGO networks – in Serbia more than 50 NGOs are involved, in Montenegro about 30. But communication seems to be their biggest problem up to now. As an expert for communication, do you have any advice for them? In general, what might be the best way to communicate when discussing Natura 2000?
Communication is no miracle. Each day we learn what kind of communication works and fails. The task of an expert might help to make those experiences visible. For the NGO network I have to start with a compliment: their organisation so far has been great. For Natura 2000 they should more and more clarify their own role. For each separate NGO. What can they support and what not. Where can they help – and where they need help. This should be exchanged face to face, especially during this phase.

You are an expert on a Twinning project in Serbia. Do you see any progress in work with institutions?
I see progress – of course. The Ministry and NGOs have had some very good meetings and outcomes with the team of the Twinning Project. It is nevertheless a process which demands patience from each side. We as a team have to learn to deal with the specific situation in Serbia. That makes us to experts: to start with listening. And the authorities have to deal with a lot of additional work – and, as I mentioned before limited resources. I admire the good will and the commitment of the institutions here.

What does the public in Austria think about Natura 2000?
Last year we started an evaluation project, a survey. We asked farmers and authorities “what they think now about Natura 2000”. The result was unexpected: more than 80% of those interviewed see Natura 2000 in a positive or neutral light.
Petra Boic Petrac

Building Natura 2000 in the western Balkans and Turkey - the role of civil society

The study tour Building Natura 2000 in the western Balkans and Turkey - the role of civil society will take place in Brussels, 13-16 September 2010.
This study tour takes place as part of the People 2 People Programme (P2P) run by the European Commission. It gives participants the opportunity to familiarise themselves with Natura 2000 and with EU environment and biodiversity policy in general. It offers participants exchange and networking opportunities in a respectful atmosphere among themselves and with European-level as well as Member State-based civil society organisations active in this field. About 40 participants from western Balkan countries and Turkey will attend this event, which is organized in cooperation with WWF.
The P2P is one of the three strands of the Civil Society Facility of the Directorate General Enlargement of the European Commission.
Tanja Petrovic

NGOs begin to work on Water Framework Directive

July 2010 saw the start of implementation of the project ‘’Preparation of Serbian Public for Participation in Water Protection”, which runs until July 2011. The project team, led by Young Researchers of Serbia, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme and Environmental Engineering Group, will work on strengthening the capacity of environmental NGOs for the monitoring of EU laws on the water framework in Serbia, with particular attention on the Water Framework Directive.There will be many training courses and meetings, as well as educational materials for NGOs published during the project. How to use the Water Framework Directive, and its connection with the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive are everyday questions in the EU. NGO network “Natura 2000 Resource Center of Serbia” will form a working group that will work only on water issues. The importance of Water Framework Directive in the biodiversity protection is huge and we hope that this project will run many activities in the sector.
Milka Gvozdenovic

Trening o komunikacijskim vještinama u Natura 2000

Komunikacija je ključna u svim poslovima, pa tako i u onima nevladinih organizacija. Uzmemo li u obzir da se projekt „Partnerske akcije za zaštitu biodiverziteta na zapadnom Balkanu“ temelji na pripremi za provedbu ekološke mreže Natura 2000 u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori, naglasak na komunikaciji još je veći. Mnogi, naime, za ekološku mrežu Natura 2000 nisu još čuli. Stoga će nevladinim organizacijama, kao priznatim nezaviznim „kontrolorima“ odabira potencijalnih Natura 2000 područja i stvoriteljima „shadow liste“, itekako biti potrebne komunikacijske vještine da što bolje pregovaraju s institucijama i dionicima (stakeholderima).
U novembru će u Podgorici u Crnoj Gori biti održan trening o komunikaciji kada je riječ o ekološkoj mreži Natura 2000. Svrha tog trodnevnog treninga, koji će voditi stručnjaci iz WWF Mediteranskog programa Christoph Stein (izgradnja kapaciteta) i Petra Boić Petrač (komunikacija), bit će naobrazba nevladinih organizacija iz Srbije i iz Crne Gore da što bolje komuniciraju s dionicima (stakeholderima), državnim institucijama te lokalnim stanovništvom. Poradit će se i na što boljoj suradnji s medijima, a trening će biti interaktivan i omogućit će sudionicima da podijele među sobom iskustva te da zajedničkim snagama potraže najbrža i najbolja moguća rješenja za potencijalne probleme koji mogu iskrsnuti kada je komunikacija u pitanju.
Petra Boić Petrač

Biogeographic Seminars in Western Balkans

The Council of Europe is considering starting a process to evaluate the Emerald network through Biogeographic Seminars (similarly to the EU Natura 2000 process). They have scheduled a "pilot discussion" for the South Eastern Countries (AL, BiH, HR, MK, RS, ME) for November this year, and they expect to have the first real seminar by October 2011. Switzerland will attend as an observer to the discussion in November. They would like to complete the process within the next 2-3 years (I assume that for all Bern Convention signatories). There will be a capacity building meeting for NGOs in September in Brussels on Natura 2000. Please turn to Alberto Arroyo Schnell for more information

Essential Principles and Conditions for Habitat Banking

Habitat Banking, as one form of biodiversity offsetting* is a practice that has been around for a number of years in some countries (e.g USA, Australia, Germany) and defined in the Eftec report as “a market for the supply of biodiversity credits and demand for those credits to offset damage to biodiversity (debits). Credits can be produced in advance of, and without ex-ante links to, the debits they compensate for, and stored over time“.
Habitat Banking presents both threats as well as opportunities for biodiversity and is a potentially controversial and divisive issue. The EC has commissioned a consultancy (Eftec) to assess the potential for developing EU policy in this area which implies that the EC is considering a role for habitat banking in a new EU biodiversity policy post 2010. The purpose of this paper is to provide to members of the European Habitats Forum a series of basic principles to be advocated by NGO’s when debating this issue and to allow for a common approach. It does not however present a full and detailed analysis of and position on habitat banking. The draft report by the European Commission’s consultants already provides such an analysis and can be downloaded from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/Harmful%20Subsidies%20Report.pdf

Opportunities of using habitat banking:
• It becomes more easily possible to compensate for loss of biodiversity.
• Habitat banking can take advantage of economies of scale and markets.
• If effective, it would generate significant funding for habitat restoration and creation and also potentially for enhancing species populations or habitats.
• Achieving set ecological objectives in a more cost-effective way.
• Trading between equivalent habitat types is relatively straightforward.

Threats connected to habitat banking:
• Studies on ecological effectiveness, especially in the long term, are lacking but experience in the USA with wetland mitigation banking has shown that in 99.9% of the cases a permit is delivered while in only 20% of the cases mitigation has been successful .
• Habitat restoration or creation is in most cases extremely expensive compared to protecting biodiversity where it occurs.
• Need for sufficient ‘market activities’ (ie sufficient demand from destructive projects) before delivery of benefits at a sufficient scale.
• Trading between non-equivalent habitat types is less straightforward and requires a value judgment.
• It only works for habitats which develop in a short time period and for species which have high reproductive capacities and dispersal abilities, ie early succession habitats and species. Even in these circumstances, the species composition and quality of habitat offered by habitat banking will not be equivalent to those of the habitat lost and may be of lesser importance to biodiversity.
• It doesn’t work for the most valuable habitat types which take decades or even hundreds of years to develop such as old growth forest or peatlands or for habitats of the most highly threatened species as these should be “no-go” areas for development in the first place.

Basic principles relevant to habitat banking:
Although habitat banking has some important attractions and advantages, implementing it in practice will carry very significant risks. Successful habitat banking therefore requires a number of conditions to be met first:
• First of all it should be part of a legally binding EU policy framework that aims to ensure no-net-loss (NNL) or net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity to underpin the delivery of a new biodiversity target. In particular, impact assessment and planning processes should be strengthened to consistently require, at a minimum, no net loss through biodiversity compensation and offsets should achieve conservation outcomes that are genuinely additional to what would have occurred without the offset.
• A rigorous application of the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, restore, offset) as it is for example legally arranged in the EU in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive should be ensured.
• Any potential weakening of the legally binding offset system outlined in Art 6 of the Habitats Directive or national wildlife protection/conservation legislation through the introduction of a wider habitat banking system must be avoided.
• A system should be limited to an exhaustive list of species and habitats whose characteristics (e.g. high dispersal and reproduction rates, early succession habitat types) make them suitable for habitat banking, also taking into consideration previous restoration efforts. Research into which habitats are suitable targets for HB should be carried out first.
• In addition a list of EU Directive species for which offsets are not permitted (because there is doubt that the habitat for the species can be successfully recreated in a reasonable time period) should be defined. Member States should be encouraged to include additional nationally endangered species on such a list where they match the criteria.
• Offsets should be in place and fully functioning before the damaging activities go ahead.
• Compensation activities should be carried out in the same region and be concerned with the same habitat which is able to provide similar functions and services as the habitat lost.
• Sufficient monitoring and data collection by authorities and independent experts need to take place in order to identify baselines, set qualitative and quantitative targets for compensation and to assess the success or failure of the compensation measures.
• Sufficient administrative capacities are necessary to manage the habitat banking schemes, oversee the issuance of debits and credits, trading, auditing, verification, and for enforcement and ensuring long-term compliance.
• Full transparency and openness is needed in the system to allow for public scrutiny.
As a final point it should be stressed that ALL of the above conditions are necessary to be fulfilled in their totality for there to be any chance for habitat banking to be a success.


Final draft from March 30, 2010, prepared by Pieter de Pous, EEB and Helen Byron and Zoltan Waliczky, RSPB.


*offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity. (BBOP definition available from http://bbop.forest-trends.org/)
"From ten Kate, K, Bishop J, & Bayon, R (2004). Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK, quoting Julie Sibbing from the National Wildlife Federation.

Jasminka Radovic, SINP Croatia: Start with preparations ASAP!

Seven years ago, just upon establishment of the State Institute for Nature Protection, Croatia started with preparations for Natura 2000. Detailed preparation, the process of implementation, possible problems and the best advice were the main topics of our interview with Jasminka Radovic, Head of the Department for Nature Impact Assessment in SINP.

With the precious experience you have thanks to the preparations for implementation of Natura 2000 in Croatia, what would be your advice for the countries in the neighbourhood?
My main advice is: start ASAP! Natura 2000 is the biggest and most demanding obligation of nature protection in the process of accession to the EU. Therefore it is crucial in that period to focus all efforts on preparation of the best available proposals of this network. It is important to include all scientific and expert capacities in the country to collect existing data about endangered species and habitats. New data should be collected with field work, and all this should be the basis for determination of Natura 2000 sites. My advice is to invite NGOs from the very beginning. Later on, they will have great importance in future negotiations and evaluation of Natura 2000 proposals together with the European Commission.

Ms. Radovic answered the following questions:
- How can a country prepare best for implementation of Natura 2000
- In what phase is implementation of Natura 2000 in Croatia
- Did you have any problems during PHARE project “Implementation of Natura 2000 in Croatia”
- What is most important in the process of implementation of Natura 2000
- Why is Natura 2000 so important in nature protection
- Do you already know the percentage of Croatia that would be proposed for Natura 2000

The whole interview is available in local language.

Jesu li Srbija i Crna Gora sa svojim projektima na dobrom putu?

Predstavnici nevladinih organizacija iz centralno istočne Evrope kažu da smo u zavidnom položaju. Za razliku od njihovih zemalja, gde su nevladine organizacije kasnije počele da rade aktivno na Natura 2000, mi u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori imamo sve preduslove da se obučimo, pripremimo, radimo i postignemo dobre rezultate.
I zaista, Natura 2000 je cilj, podcilj ili jedna od aktivnosti na brojnih projektima. Šta se sve dešava trenutno?
WWF Mediteranski program, u saradnji sa Mladim istraživačima Srbije i organizacijom Green Home iz Podgorice, već drugu godinu radi na projektu ''Strengthening the Capacity Of Governments And Civil Sector in Serbia and in Montenegro to Adapt to EU Nature Protection Aquis ‘’
Isti tim radi i na projektu ‘’Partnership Actions for Biodiversity Protection in Western Balkan’’.
Ministarstvo životne sredine i prostornog planiranja Republike Srbije, u saradnji sa stranim ekspertima od januara 2010. godine sprovodi projekat ‘’Strengthening Administrative Capacities for Protected Areas in Serbia (NATURA 2000)".
IUCN će tokom projekta ‘’EU Environmental Policies and Strategies in South Eastern Europe: Capacity Building for the Implementation of EU Environmental Policies and Strategies in the F.Y.R. of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia’’ takođe raditi sa nevladinim organizacijama u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori. Sve to na kraju upotpunjava BirdLife International sa projektom ‘’Wings across the Balkans: Preparing countries in the Western Balkans for implementing the EU Wild Birds Directive’’.
O rezultatima, aktivnostima i preporukama ovih projekata obaveštavaćemo vas u narednim izdanjima e-newslettera “Natura 2000 u zapadnom Balkanu” i na našem blogu.
Milka Gvozdenović

O projektu “Jačanje kapaciteta vladinog i civilnog sektora u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori za preuzimanje pravne stečevine EU iz područja zaštite prirode“

Projekt “Jačanje kapaciteta vladinog i civilnog sektora u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori za preuzimanje pravne stečevine EU iz područja zaštite prirode“ počeo je 2009. godine a završit će krajem 2011. Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova Norveške financira projekt koji zajedno provode Mediteranski ured WWF-a, Mladi istraživači Srbije i Green Home iz Crne Gore.
Glavni je cilj projekta ojačati kapacitete vladinog sektora, stručnih institucija te NVO-a u Crnoj Gori i u Srbiji, što se radi kroz četiri aktivnosti – tehničku podršku za implementaciju Direktive o staništima u Crnoj Gori; pomaganje NVO-ima da stvore i održe mrežu koja će podržavati aktivnosti Natura 2000 u obje zemlje; pomaganje vladinom sektoru u obje zemlje da razumiju politiku Europske unije o zaštiti prirode; donošenje informacija i znanja iz Bruxellesa u regiju i obratno te širenje informacija o zaštiti prirode unutar same regije. Do sada je projektni tim pomogao u osnivanju dviju NVO mreža koje su već uspiješno aplicirale i dobile sufinanciranje novih projekata u okviru IPA fondova.
Stručnjaci za ekološku mrežu Natura 2000 iz Ministarstava i Zavoda za zaštitu prirode iz Slovenije i Hrvatske,bili su u posjetu i Srbiji i Crnoj Gori te su svoje znanje pokušali prenijeti na partnere projekta kao i na buduće sudionike u procesu implementacije EU standarda u području zaštite prirode i same mreže Natura 2000. Oko 120 ljudi iz različitih sektora, koji će biti uključeni u sam proces implementacije Natura 2000 u bližoj budućnosti, sudjelovalo je u tim razmjenama stručnjaka u kojima im je projektni tim pomogao da razumiju potrebe i obveze koje dolaze u razdoblju pridruživanja EU. Kako Slovenija već ima mrežu Natura 2000, a Hrvatska je prošla pripremnu fazu, iskustva Slovenije i Hrvatske nedvojbeno će doprinijeti njihovim kolegama u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori, relevantnim ministarstvima, stručnim institucijama te nevladinim udrugama.
Kako doći do vladajućih struktura, zadobiti njihovo povjerenje te postati odgovoran partner jedan je od najvećih izazova koji stoji pred projektnim timom, kao i činjenica da obje zemlje treba pripremiti na brojne poteškoće pred kojima se mogu naći zbog mogućih infrastrukturalnih ili sličnih zahvata na eventualnim Natura 2000 područjima.
U sljedećem periodu radit će se na jačanju kapaciteta ključnih sektora, kao što su vodoprivreda, šumarstvo, poljoprivreda i dr., koji će uz zaštitu prirode biti odgovorni za provedbu Direktive o staništima i Direktive o pricama kroz upravljanje ekološkom mrežom Natura 2000.
Andrea Štefan