effectiveness of protected area management in...

Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia

Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology

Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia Final report of the RAPPAM analysis Authors: Deni Porej and Željka Rajković Recommended citation format: Porej, D. & Rajković, Ž., 2009, Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia. A project implemented in collaboration between the Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture and the WWF Mediterranean Programme. When summarizing information from this report, please use the above form of citation. However, for the use of detailed results of the analysis, a written agreement should be obtained from both authors.

Context

Executive summary 5 1. Introduction and context 7 1.1. Biological diversity in Croatia 7 1.2. Nature protection system in Croatia 8 2. Application of the methodology 13 2.1. Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity 13 2.2. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology) 14 2.3. Application of the RAPPAM Methodology in Croatia 16 3. Results and analysis 17 3.1. Pressures and threats in protected areas 17 3.1.1. System‐wide threats 18 3.1.1.1. Threats and pressures in different types of protected areas 18 3.1.2. Threat ranking 21 3.1.2.1. Forest management 21 3.1.2.2. Hunting and fishing 22 3.1.2.3. Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights 22 3.1.2.4. Conversion of land use 23 3.1.2.5. Water management 24 3.1.2.6. Wastewater management 24 3.1.2.7. Tourism 25 3.1.2.8. Vegetation sucession 26 3.1.2.9. Fire management 26 3.1.2.10. Other pressures and threats 27 3.1.3. Trends 29

3.2. Protected management design and planning (Questions 6‐8) 30 3.2.1. Objectives (Question 6) 30 3.2.2. Legal security (Question 7) 31 3.2.3. Site planning and design (Question 8) 32

3.3. Protected area inputs (Questions 9‐12) 34 3.3.1. Staffing 34 3.3.2. Communication and information (Question 10) 36 3.3.3. Infrastructure (Question 11) 36 3.3.4. Financies (Question 12) 37

3.4. Management processes (Questions 13‐15) 38 3.4.1. Management planning (Question 13) 39 3.4.2. Management decision making (Question 14) 40 3.4.3. Research, evaluation and monitoring (Question 15) 41

3.5. Outputs (Question 16) 42 4. Recomendations 43 5. Acknowledgements 46

List of Tables Table 1. Protected Areas (Including Areas under Preventive Protection) 10 Table 2. National and Nature Parks in Croatia 11 Table 3. Assessment Elements in WWF's Rapid Assessment Questionnaire 14 Table 4. Summary of Recommendations Derived from the Application of the RAPPAM Methodology 45

List of Figures Figure 1. Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia 12 Figure 2. Assessment and the Management Cycle (adapted from Hockings et al. 2000) 14 Figure 3. System‐Wide Pressures and Threats 18 Figure 4. Threats in Terrestrial Protected Areas 19 Figure 5. Threats in Marine Protected Areas 19 Figure 6. Threats in Freshwater Protected Areas 20 Figure 7. Forest Management 21 Figure 8. Hunting and fishing 22 Figure 9. Unsettled Disputes Regarding Land Tenure and Use Rights 23 Figure 10. Conversion of Land Use 23 Figure 11. Water management 24 Figure 12. Wastewater management 24 Figure 13. Tourism and Recreation 25 Figure 14. Vegetation Succession 26 Figure 15. Fire Management 26 Figure 16. Comparing Pressures and Threats System‐Wide 29 Figure 17. Protected Area Design and Planning (Aggregate) 30 Figure 18. Protected Area Design and Planning – Objectives 30 Figure 19. Protected Area Design and Planning – Legal Security 31 Figure 20. Protected Area Design and Planning – Site Planning and Design 32 Figure 21. Protected Area Inputs (Aggregate) 34 Figure 22. Protected Area Inputs – Staffing 34 Figure 23. Protected Area Inputs – Communication and Information 36 Figure 24. Protected Area Inputs – Infrastructure 36 Figure 25. Protected Area Inputs – Finances 37 Figure 26. Management Processes (Aggregate) 38 Figure 27. Management Processes – Management Planning 39 Figure 28. Management Processes – Management Decision Making 40 Figure 29. Management Processes – Research, evaluation and monitoring 41 Figure 30. Outputs 42

ANNEXES ANNEX 1. RAPPAM Questionnaire 47 ANNEX 2. RAPPAM Workshop agenda 54 ANNEX 3. List of contact details of workshop participants 56 ANNEX 4. Acronyms used 57

Porej, D. & Rajković, Ž., 2009, Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2004, at the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 188 members (including Croatia) agreed on the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) as one of the most ambitious nature protection strategies ever. The overall purpose of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas is to support the establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas. As one of their commitments, the Parties to the Convention are required to adopt and implement frameworks for monitoring, evaluation and reporting protected areas management at sites, national and regional

systems and trans‐boundary protected area levels by 2010. In October 2008, the management effectiveness of protected areas in Croatia was assessed by using the RAPPAM Methodology. The project was carried out in collaboration between the Ministry of Culture’s Nature Protection Directorate, the State Institute for Nature Protection and WWF’s Mediterranean Office, involving participation of all 9 National Parks and 10 Nature Parks. The analysis and results of the application of the RAPPAM Methodology reflect the assessment made by national and nature park managers and/or administrators. The major findings of research made on the basis of the aforementioned analysis are the following.

Pressures and threats Key pressures/threats in terrestrial protected areas include unsettled disputes regarding

land tenure and use rights, the conversion of land use and uncontrolled vegetation succession.

Key pressures/threats in marine protected areas include fire management issues, unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights and uncontrolled vegetation succession.

Key pressures/threats in freshwater protected areas include water management issues, invasive species and wastewater management issues. It is worth noting that freshwater protected area managers expect these pressures to increase in the future.

Marine and freshwater protected areas are exposed to a number of pressures and threats that are of a much higher degree than those in terrestrial protected areas. In particular, none of the terrestrial pressures/threats reaches the scores determined for fire management and unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights (marine protected areas) and for water management and invasive species (freshwater protected areas).

The workshop participants believe that the issues of forest management, hunting and fishing, land‐use conversion and land‐mine contamination will lose some of their weight in the future. However, as for other threats – especially the five “big” ones, including invasive species, unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights, water management, vegetation succession and fire management – the participants do not foresee any significant decrease in their degree. This is a serious indication that these issues deserve special attention in the near future.


Objectives, legal security and protected area site design At the level of Croatia's protected areas system as a whole, we may say that legal security and clearly defined objectives concerning biodiversity protection constitute the strengths of the management system. Disputes regarding land use and a lack of law enforcement resources are two areas highlighted by workshop participants as involving somewhat heavier challenges. Protected area inputs At the level of Croatia’s protected areas system as a whole, we may say that communication, information and infrastructure inputs are fully or mostly sufficient to perform critical management activities in most of the protected areas (major exceptions pertain to certain marine protected areas). The workshop participants have highlighted staffing levels, staff training and development as well as conditions for high‐quality staff employment and retention as areas involving somewhat heavier challenges. In their opinion, funding in the past five years has been mostly adequate to conduct critical management activities in most of the parks. However, no less than one third of the parks believe that funding for the next five years will mostly be not adequate to conduct critical management activities. A positive finding of the analysis is that most of the parks believe that the long‐term financial outlook for the protected areas is mostly stable (subject to a diversification of funding sources). Protected area management processes At a system‐wide level, the participants have given a generally positive assessment of management planning and decision‐making processes as well as research and monitoring efforts in the protected areas. The marine protected areas are only just developing their management plans and have greater needs for enhancing their knowledge of the status of marine systems and species. Research on key ecological issues is fully or mostly consistent with the needs of the protected areas. Some problems may occur in the co‐ordination of priority research efforts at the national level, communication between researchers and the protected areas in certain parks (work supervision, research feedback) and, in some cases, due to a lack of external researchers required to conduct key research projects. Efforts are being made to find a systematic solution to this problem and the co‐ordination between the Ministry of Culture on one hand and national and nature parks as public institutions on the other is, for the time being, relatively successful. The same is not true of research on key social issues, which is mostly not consistent with the needs of the protected areas (especially those of the national parks and marine protected areas). Recommendations Based on the outcomes of the RAPPAM analysis, major recommendations have been developed, updated and aligned with the Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity (as published in Narodne novine, Croatia’s official journal, no 143/08). The recommendations have been classified into five categories. 1. Water management 2. Agriculture and vegetation succession 3. Land tenure and use rights 4. Fire management 5. Capacity building The Ministry of Culture will incorporate the outcomes of the application of the RAPPAM Methodology in its regular report to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The


Ministry of Culture will use RAPPAM as a tool for the systematic assessment of management effectiveness to be carried out every four to five years.

1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1.1. Biological diversity in Croatia The Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity (hereinafter, the “Strategy”; as published in Narodne novine, no. 143/08) of 2008 is a basic nature protection document that systematically defines and comprehensively plans nature protection activities in the Republic of Croatia. The Strategy was prepared on the basis of the Report on the Status of Nature and Nature Protection in the Republic of Croatia for the Period 2000‐2007, which was drafted by the State Institute for Nature Protection (SINP), approved by the Ministry of Culture and submitted to Croatia’s Parliament for adoption. The first National Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity (NSAP) was adopted in 1999. The overview of the status of biological and landscape diversity in Croatia, which served as a basis for the preparation of the NSAP, constitutes an expert document which, for the first time ever, consolidated all data on the status of biological and landscape diversity and their protection in the Republic of Croatia. The 1999 NSAP Implementation Assessment suggests partial or full implementation of 168 action plans (i.e. 53%). The greatest advance has been made in the field of legislation. The creation of a legislative framework is the most important effort when it comes to landscapes. In 2001, the Croatian Parliament ratified the European Landscape Convention, which is aimed at promoting landscape protection, management and planning, and organizing European co‐operation on landscape issues. Croatia’s habitats were for the first time classified and mapped. According to the Habitat Map of 2004, forest habitats and grasslands are the most widespread habitats in Croatia. Habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss are the major causes of threat to biological diversity. Wildlife species have been partly inventoried, with the greatest advance being made in assessing their threat status. Nearly 38,000 species have been registered in Croatia, but their number is assumed to be much higher – at least 50,000. Freshwater fish and, among invertebrates, dragonflies belong to the highest threat categories. As to specific action plans for the protection of particular species, only the Large Carnivore Management Plans have been prepared. Invasive species are among the five major causes of threat worldwide. One of the greatest problems in Croatia is the spread of invasive green algae species of the Caulerpa genus (in particular, C. taxifolia and C. racemosa) and species such as Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Amorpha fruticosa. Other specific issues include wild boar populations on islands and stocking freshwater resources with alien fish species. The extent of problems caused by other invasive species is still being established. Indigenous domesticated species are yet another element of Croatia’s biodiversity. Domesticated breeds are – unlike cultivars – registered and their threat status is assessed. Critically endangered


breeds include the Murinsulaner horse, Slavonian‐Podolian cattle, the Turopolje pig and the Hrvatica hen. Croatia’s protected areas cover 8.54% of the country’s total territory. 40 new protected areas (i.e. 1.35% of the national territory) were designated in the period from 2000 to 2007, including the eleventh nature park – the Lastovo Archipelago. The Papuk Nature Park was granted international protection status as a part of the UNESCO Geopark Network. The first generation of protected area management plans has been adopted for the Risnjak, Northern Velebit, Plitvice Lakes and Paklenica National Parks and the Velebit Nature Park. The preparation of management plans for the aforementioned Parks was one of the major activities under the Karst Ecosystem Conservation (KEC) Project. The Regulation on Proclamation of the Ecological Network (as published in Narodne novine, no. 109/07) was adopted, establishing a network of ecologically important sites for the conservation of habitat types and endangered species in Croatia. It reflects the abundance of Croatia’s biodiversity and, as such, covers 47% of its land and 38% of its sea. All plans, programmes or projects that may significantly affect the conservation objectives and integrity of ecological network sites are subject to appropriate assessment. Before its accession to the European Union, the Republic of Croatia must transpose into its legislation and implement the Birds Directive and, before or at the time of its accession to the EU, the Habitats Directive. The provisions of these Directives have been transposed into the Nature Protection Act (as published in Narodne novine, no. 70/2005 and 139/2008). For the ecological network NATURA 2000, Croatia will propose sites important for the conservation of more than 250 species and 70 habitat types which are present in its territory and considered important for the European Community. As a part of preparations, the State Institute for Nature Protection co‐ordinated a detailed inventory of species and habitats in Croatia, identifying about 1,000 sites that may be proposed for the ecological network NATURA 2000. The sites were selected on the basis of scientific criteria applied in all countries of the European Community. Upon the completion of a consultation process, to be carried out over 2008 and 2009, a final revised proposal for NATURA 2000 sites will be submitted to Croatia's Government for adoption and sent to the European Commission in Brussels. 1.2. Nature protection system in Croatia The Nature Protection Act (as published in Narodne novine, no. 70/2005 and 139/2008) ensures specific protection for particularly valuable organic and inorganic components of nature. The Act regulates the methods of protection designation, the administration, management and control of particular protection categories, and the revocation of protection if the characteristics that led to the designation of a protected cease to exist. The instrument of preventive protection has been introduced to ensure expeditious protection for endangered and especially valuable sites. During the period of preventive protection, which may last for a maximum of three years, the area under preventive protection is subject to all provisions of the Nature Protection Act. The Act provides for nine categories of protected areas. strict reserves, national parks, special reserves, nature parks, regional parks, natural monuments, important landscapes, forest parks and monuments of park architecture. Each of the national categories corresponds, to the greatest


extent possible, to one of the internationally recognised IUCN protected area categories. The regional park category was introduced in Croatia by the Nature Protection Act of 2003. National and nature parks are designated by the Croatian Parliament, strict and special reserves by the Croatian Government, and other categories by county assemblies and the City of Zagreb Assembly. The Nature Protection Act provides for public participation and access to designation acts. If the characteristics leading to the designation of a protected area cease to exist, the designating body may pass an act on the cessation of protection, subject to prior approval from the Ministry of Culture. All protected areas (including those under preventive protection) are entered in the Register of Protected Natural Assets, maintained by the Ministry of Culture’s Nature Protection Directorate. According to the provisions of the Nature Protection Act, strict reserves, national parks, special reserves, nature parks, regional parks and important landscapes are managed on the basis of Management Plans adopted for a period of ten years. Such Management Plans already exist for the Paklenica, Plitvice Lakes, Risnjak and Northern Velebit National Parks, and the Velebit and Lonjsko Polje (Lonja River Flood Plain) Nature Parks, whereas those for the Kopački Rit (Kopačevo Reeds), Učka and Žumbak‐Samoborsko Gorje (Žumberak‐Samobor Highlands) Nature Parks are about to be adopted. Management Plans for other national and nature parks are supposed to be adopted by the end of 2010. Management plans also serve as a basis for Annual Protected Areas Protection, Maintenance, Conservation, Promotion and Utilization Programmes adopted by the relevant public institutions, subject to a prior opinion of the State Institute for Nature Protection and approval from the Ministry of Culture. Internal Organization Rules regulate and lay down in more detail the issues of and measures for the protection, conservation, enhancement and utilization of protected areas. The organization of space in national and nature parks and the methods of its utilization, development and protection are governed by physical plans for areas with special characteristics, adopted by the Croatian Parliament. Such plans have already been adopted for the Brijuni, Kornati, Mljet, Paklenica and Risnjak National Parks, and the Kopački Rit and Učka Nature Parks. Physical plans for the National Parks of Krka and Plitvice Lakes have been adopted and are in force, but new plans are being prepared due to identified deficiencies. The preparation of physical plans for other national and nature parks is underway. Before July 2009, all counties – except the City of Zagreb1 ‐ established public institutions for the management of protected areas and/or other protected natural assets, and most of them have already become operational. In February 2009, the protected areas – including the areas under preventive protection – covered a total of 7,487.47 km2, including 11.37% of Croatia’s land and 3.40% of its territorial sea, i.e. 8.54% of its total territory (Table 1). The highest share (4.82%) was held by nature parks.

1 The City of Zagreb has established Maksimir Public Institution, which manages Maksimir Park as a monument of park architecture and which became operational in 2000.


Table 1. Protected Areas (Including Areas under Preventive Protection)

Number Category

PA AuPP TPA

Land (km2)

Sea (km2)

Total (km2)

Strict reserve 2 0 2 23,95 0 23,95

National park 8 0 8 742,60 218,75 961,35

Special reserve 79 4 83 317,49 535,85 853,34

Nature park 11 0 11 4.063,15 179,00 4.242,15

Regional park 0 2 2 1.599,91 0 1.599,91

Natural monument 115 1 116 3,76 0 3,76

Important landscape 77 3 80 909,57 0 909,57

Forest park 36 2 38 89,08 0 89,08

Monument of park architecture

121 1 122 9,56 0 9,56

TOTAL 449 13 462 7.637,61 1.055,07 8.692,68

Districts within protected areas

1.205,21 1.205,21

TOTAL 6.432,40 1.055,07 7.487,47

Percentage shares of protected areas in Croatia's territory

11,37 % 3,40 % 8,54 %

Source. Register of Protected Natural Assets, status as of 20 February 2009; PA – protected areas, AuPP – areas under preventive protection, TPA – total protected areas.

Each of the Croatian counties has at least one protected area within its territory. Vukovar‐Srijem County has the lowest share of protected areas in its total territory (less than 1%), with the highest share of protected areas being reported for Lika‐Senj County (30.08 % of its territory). Major protected areas are located in each of the four biogeographic regions of Croatia (Alpine, Continental, Mediterranean and Pannonian). Both strict reserves are situated in the mountain area. All national parks lie in Croatia’s karst area. Nature parks are distributed in all biogeographic regions. Owing to their exceptional biological and landscape diversity, certain areas of Croatia also enjoy international legal protection. Plitvice Lakes National Park was registered in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1979, with another two sites on the Tentative List, namely, Kornati National Park and Lonjsko Polje Nature Park. Kopački Rit and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks, the Crna Mlaka Ornithological Reserve and Fishponds, and the Neretva River Delta have been included in the Ramsar List as wetlands of international importance, while Velebit Mountain has been added to the UNESCO’s World Network of Biosphere Reserves under its scientific programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). As a European geopark, Papuk Nature Park was included in the UNESCO Geoparks Network in 2007. The preparation of documents and the submission of a proposal for the nomination of Lonjsko Polje Nature Park for inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List as a mixed site of global natural and cultural significance were completed in 2007. The development of a study for the designation of yet anther biosphere reserve – namely, the wider area of the Mura and Drava Rivers – is underway as well. Due to a lack of sufficiently accurate and complete digital spatial data, the State Institute for Nature Protection took the initiative to update and digitalize the boundaries of all protected areas within the GIS. The effort commenced in late 2006 and, in collaboration with the Ministry of


Culture’s Nature Protection Directorate and public institutions established to manage the protected areas managers, the boundaries of all national and nature parks and another 30 or so protected areas have been fully digitalized on the basis of a 1.25.000 topographic map. The efforts to standardize the management of protected areas were intensified in 2005 in order to define minimum protected area management standards. To that effect, the Ministry of Culture’s Nature Protection Directorate set the following priorities. 1) To improve management planning; 2) to define visual identity for the parks; and 3) to establish a GIS database. Standardization has also covered a system for charging tickets and fees in national and nature parks. Through promotional materials and uniforms designed for nature protection staff, a common visual identity has been developed for Croatia’s national and nature parks. Table 2. National and Nature Parks in Croatia

Park Year of

ProclamationArea (ha)

NATIONAL PARKS

Brijuni National Park 1983 3.395

Kornati National Park 1980 21.700

Krka National Park 1985 10.900

Mljet National Park 1960 5.375

Northern Velebit National Park 1999 10.900

Paklenica National Park 1949 9.600

Plitvice Lakes National Park 1949 29.685

Risnjak National Park 1953 6.400

NATURE PARKS

Biokovo Nature Park 1981 19.550

Kopački Rit Nature Park 1967 17.700

Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park 2006 19.583

Lonjsko Polje Nature Park 1990 50.600

Medvednica Nature Park 1981 17.938

Papuk Nature Park 1999 33.600

Telašćica Nature Park 1988 7.050

Učka Nature Park 1999 16.000

Velebit Nature Park 1981 200.000

Vransko Lake Nature Park 1999 5.700

Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Park 1999 33.300


Figure 1. Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia (Source. GIS database of the State Institute for Nature Protection.)


2. APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY 2.1. Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity

At the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2004, 188 Parties (including Croatia) agreed to a Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA), one of the most ambitious environmental strategies in history. The overall purpose of the Programme of Work on protected areas is to support the establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas that collectively, inter alia through a global network contribute to achieving the three objectives of the Convention and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional, national and sub‐national levels and contribute to poverty reduction and the pursuit of sustainable development, thereby supporting the objectives of the Strategic Plan of the Convention2, the World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation3 and the Millennium Development Goals4. Objective 4.2 of the CBD PoWPA states that. “By 2010, frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting protected areas management effectiveness at sites, national and regional systems, and transboundary protected area levels adopted and implemented by Parties.” With the following specific activities. 4.2.1 Develop and adopt assessment standards 4.2.2 Assess PA management effectiveness in 30% of sites and across system 4.2.3 Include assessment results in CBD reports 4.2.4 Implement key results

2 http://www.cbd.int/sp/ (access made on 20 April 2009) 3 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf (access made on 20 April 2009) 4 In September 2000, the world leaders of 189 United Nations member states adopted the Millennium Declaration, committing their states to intensify global efforts to reduce poverty, improve health care and promote peace, human rights and environmental sustainability. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – i.e. eight specific, measurable and time‐bound goals forming the Declaration and stemming therefrom – commit State Parties to struggle more effectively against inadequate income levels, world hunger, gender inequality, environmental degradation and lack of education, and to improve health‐care systems and preserve/secure supplies of safe drinking water. For further information on the Millennium Goals, please visit http://www.undp.org/mdg/ (access made on 20 April 2009).


2.2. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology) WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology draws on an evaluation framework developed by the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The WCPA Framework is based on the management cycle. It includes six main assessment elements. context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes.

Figure 2. Assessment and the Management Cycle (adapted from Hockings et al. 2000)

WWF’s Rapid Assessment Questionnaire covers each of these elements, and is organized in accordance with the WCPA framework, as illustrated below. Table 3. Assessment Elements in WWF's Rapid Assessment Questionnaire

As such, RAPPAM offers policy makers a tool for achieving goal 4.2 of the CBD PoWPA by enabling a rapid assessment of the overall management effectiveness of protected areas.


The RAPPAM Methodology can. identify management strengths and weaknesses analyze the scope, severity, prevalence, and distribution of a variety of threats and

pressures identify areas of high ecological and social importance and vulnerability indicate the urgency and conservation priority for individual protected areas help to develop and prioritize appropriate policy interventions and follow‐up steps to

improve protected area management effectiveness. The RAPPAM Methodology includes five steps. STEP 1 Determining the scope of the assessment STEP 2 Assessing existing information for each protected area STEP 3 Administering the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire STEP 4 Analyzing the findings STEP 5 Identifying next steps and recommendations.

While analyzing the results, scoring is as follows. Scoring for pressures and threats (question 2 of the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire).

Extent

Throughout = 4

Widespread = 3

Scattered = 2

Localized =1

Impact

Severe = 4

High = 3

Moderate = 2

Mild = 1

Permanence

Permanent = 4

Long term = 3

Medium term = 2

Short term = 1

The degree of each threat and pressure is the factor of all three elements. For example, a pressure that is widespread (3), has a moderate impact (2), and has a short‐term recovery period (1), would have a degree of 6 (3 x 2 x 1). Each threat and pressure will have a degree of between 1 and 64. Scoring for questions 3–16 of the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire. Yes = 5 Mostly yes = 3 Mostly no = 1 No = 0


2.3. Application of the RAPPAM Methodology in Croatia

RAPPAM questionnaire consists of more than 100 questions (Annex I). The most thorough and effective approach to implementing this methodology is to hold an interactive workshop workshops in which protected area managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders participate fully in evaluating the protected areas, analysing the results, and identifying subsequent next steps and priorities. As a prepration for the workshop, the RAPPAM questionaire was translated, and questions adapted to Croatia. A list of pressures and threats was prepared by the staff of the Ministry of Culture, State Insitute for Nature Protection and WWF. Data‐management system was set up and roles defined for the workshop. Questionnaire was sent to the workshop participants several weeks prior to the workshop. The following threats and pressures were suggested as relevant to Croatia and, during the workshop, the participants were given the opportunity to add any pressures and threats they considered relevant although they were not included in the proposed list. Forest management – includes logging, pest problems (e.g. bark beetles) and other forest

management issues Invasive alien species – includes plant and animal species purposefully or inadvertently

introduced by humans Hunting and fishing – includes legally sanctioned hunting and fishing practices in protected

areas, as well as poaching Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights – includes ownership and illegal

building issues Conversion of land use – includes the expansion of housing settlements and the conversion

of protected land to building, agriculture and other uses Water management – includes watercourse management and dam building for recreation,

fishing, drinking water and hydro‐electricity generation Wastewaters – includes uncontrolled discharges of municipal wastewaters, human‐caused

eutrophication, etc. Tourism and recreation – includes visitor pressures, e.g. hiking, mountain‐climbing,

camping, skiing, boating, motorized vehicle use and other types of recreation Mining – includes all forms of mineral resources exploitation as well as exploration for the

purposes of exploitation and waste produced by such activities Vegetation succession – includes the problem of insufficient grazing and mowing, which

are essential for the biological diversity of pastures and meadows Waterway management – includes waterway management issues as well as anchoring

outside designated anchorage areas Fire management – includes fires and fire prevention

The RAPPAM Workshop was held in Risnjak National Park from 27 to 29 October 2008, involving the participation of public institution representatives from all of the 8 National and 11 Nature Parks (Annex III). The Workshop was structured in a way to allow for plenty of time to review and discuss the questions, have group discussions and jointly review all the results. The Workshop Agenda is contained in Annex II.


While conducting the workshop, we came to the conclusion that the answers to certain questions from the RAPPAM Questionnaire were not appropriate for discussion within this Report. The questions pertaining to the context of protected areas – i.e. their relative biological and socio‐economic importance and vulnerability (questions 3‐5) – require a multitude of data and a detailed analysis that has already been made in other strategic documents of the Republic of Croatia. Therefore, they are not discussed in this Report. The workshop participants also agreed that the protected area system‐level questions (17‐19) should be answered by policy makers at a national level. Accordingly, these questions are not discussed in this Report either.

3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The analysis and results of the application of the RAPPAM Methodology reflect the assessment made by national and nature park managers and/or administrators. Following the RAPPAM Methodology, the results and analyses are presented through five categories. A. Pressures and threats in protected areas B. Protected area design and planning C. Protected area inputs D. Management processes E. Outputs

3.1. Pressures and threats in protected areas

For the purposes of this analysis, “pressures” were defined as activities that have already had a detrimental impact on the park, and “threats” as activities whereby a detrimental impact on the park is likely to occur or continue to occur in the future. Pressures and threats are relative to the objectives of protected areas and are scored on the basis of their extent, impact and permanence (Annex I – the RAPPAM Questionnaire). A list of pressures and threats most relevant for Croatia’s system of protected areas was developed by the staff of the Ministry of Culture’s Nature Protection Directorate, the State Institute for Nature Protection, and WWF. The list was presented to all participants before and during the workshop.


3.1.1. System‐wide threats At the system level, three threats were highlighted as the most important fire management, vegetation succession and unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

ForestManagement

Non-nativeInvasiveSpecies

Hunting andFishing

Land Tenureand UseRights

Conversionof Land Use

WaterManagement

WastewaterManagement

Tourism andRecreation

MiningIndustry

VegetationSuccession

WaterwayIssues

FireManagement

sc

ore

Threat

Pressure

Figure 3. System‐Wide Pressures and Threats However, this chart fails to reveal significant differences in both types and levels of threats and pressures for different types of protected areas. 3.1.1.1 Threats and pressures in different types of protected areas Croatia’s protected areas system is exceptionally diverse and includes marine, forest and water‐dependent ecosystems (rivers, lakes and wetlands). Therefore, it is actually more advisable to analyze the relative importance of different threats and pressures for different types of protected areas. For the purposes of this analysis, protected areas were divided into three groups. 1. Terrestrial. Paklenica, Risnjak and Northern Velebit National Parks, and Biokovo, Medvednica, Papuk, Učka, Velebit, Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Parks 2. Marine. Brijuni, Kornati and Mljet National Parks, and Lastovo Archipelago and Telašćica Nature Parks 3. Freshwater. Krka and Plitvice Lakes National Parks, and Kopački Rit, Lonjsko Polje and Vransko Lake Nature Parks


0

288

576

864

1152

ForestManagement


Hunting andFishing



WaterManagement



MiningIndustry


WaterwayIssues

FireManagement

sc

ore

Pressure ThreatTerrestrial PAs

Figure 4. Threats in Terrestrial Protected Areas

0

155

310

465

620

ForestManagement


Hunting andFishing



WaterManagement



MiningIndustry


WaterwayIssues

FireManagement

sco

re

Pressure ThreatMarine PAs

Figure 5. Threats in Marine Protected Areas


0

155

310

465

620

ForestManagement


Hunting andFishing



WaterManagement



MiningIndustry


WaterwayIssues

FireManagement

sco

re

Pressure ThreatFreshwater PAs

Figure 6. Threats in Freshwater Protected Areas Note on charts. In order to allow for a direct comparison threat levels for different groups of protected areas, in this section, the Y‐axis was calibrated to a maximum value that could be attributed to a particular pressure/threat with respect to all protected areas within that group, taken together. For example, with a maximum pressure score value of 64 = 4 (extent) × 4 (impact) × 4 (permanence) and 9 terrestrial protected areas, the maximum Y‐axis value for that chart would be set at 64 (maximum) × 2 (pressure/threat) × 9 (number of PAs) = 1152. Key findings on system‐wide threats. Key pressures/threats in terrestrial protected areas include unsettled disputes regarding

land tenure and use rights, the conversion of land use and uncontrolled vegetation succession.

Key pressures/threats in marine protected areas include fire management issues, unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights and uncontrolled vegetation succession.

Key pressures/threats in freshwater protected areas include water management issues, invasive species and wastewaters. It is worth noting that freshwater protected area managers expect these pressures to increase in the future.

The charts clearly show that marine and freshwater protected areas are exposed to a number of pressures and threats that are of a much higher degree than those in terrestrial protected areas. In particular, none of the terrestrial pressures/threats reaches the scores determined for fire management and unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights (marine protected areas) and for water management and invasive species (freshwater protected areas).


3.1.2. Threat ranking 3.1.2.1 Forest management Includes legal and illegal logging, including other forest management issues.

Forest Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 7. Forest Management

Generally, forest management issues do not rank among the most important threats either system‐wide (see the chart showing cumulative threats) or for any particular protected area. In cases where issues exist, their extent and impact do not significantly Nature parks are exposed to stronger pressures, but in general, there is a sense of improvement in the relationship with Croatian Forests Management Company, which is obliged to include protection measures in its forest management plans/documents. Issues pertaining to forest management are few and managers generally believe they can or will be dealt with or overcome in the near future. Examples include the need to revise the categories of special reserves within Medvednica Nature Park; the afforestation of grazing lands in Učka Nature Park with the alien Aleppo pine, as provided by outdated but still effective forest management documents; efforts that are currently made by Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, a recently designated protected area, to establish better communication with Croatian Forests Management Company, including a forest management advisory service for private forests, in order to address the spread of the Aleppo pine, which is in most cases ripe for logging but is not managed; the spread of the Aleppo pine in Kornati National Park and issues related to its management; the ongoing revision of the forest management plan for Papuk Nature Park; the need to respond to changes in forest composition due to changing water levels in Kopački Rit Nature Park; efforts to align Croatian Forests Management Company’s Forest Management Plan with the objectives of Lonjsko Polje Nature Park; and certain issues existing in Plitvice Lakes and Krka National Parks, but kept under control in both cases.


3.1.2.2 Hunting and fishing

Includes legally sanctioned hunting and fishing practices as well as poaching in protected areas.

Hunting and Fishing

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sc

ore THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 8. Hunting and fishing Overall, hunting and fishing do not pose a significant threat to protected area objectives at either the local or system level. While almost all protected areas report hunting and fishing as relatively widespread threats, there is a sense among protected area managers that these threats are either being dealt with effectively, or will be reduced in the future through positive and improving interaction with hunters and Croatian Forests Management Company (see the section on Trends). Regarding this issue, there are some major differences among protected areas (national parks vs. nature parks and terrestrial vs. freshwater and marine protected areas), of which the following are worth mentioning. Where threats exist in terrestrial protected areas, they are either widespread but low in impact in some cases, or sporadic in others, and protected area managers feel they can effectively deal with them. More serious are issues in freshwater and wetland protected areas such as Vransko Lake and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks, where hunting and fishing constitute important activities. Problems ensue from non‐existent physical plans and/or internal organization rules. In the marine protected areas, the impact of fishing is widespread and, in some cases, quite significant. Lower aggregate scores reflect the opinion of protected area managers that the impacts will be reversible if appropriate measures are taken in the future. Therefore, the issue of hunting and fishing in marine protected areas is one of the key challenges to be tackled in due time. 3.1.2.3 Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights In the opinion of protected area managers, one of the top three threats to effective protected area management in Croatia, but one that is unlikely to continue in the future (see the sections on “Trends” and “System‐Wide Threats”). Note that the Y‐axis scale goes up to 140 rather than 100 like for other pressures/threats.


Unsettled Disputes Regarding Land Tenure and Use Rights

020406080

100120140

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sc

ore THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 9. Unsettled Disputes Regarding Land Tenure and Use Rights The failure to adopt physical plans aligned with the objectives of protected areas was highlighted as a root cause of unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights in many protected areas. The management of public land is an issue in some protected areas (mostly in nature parks such as Lonjsko Polje), though not in others (mostly in national parks such as Krka, Brijuni and Plitvice Lakes.) Other exemplary issues include. a.) Lack of cadastres (Krka and Paklenica National Parks, the latter having recently lost its cadastre in a fire). b.) Problems stemming from differences in the definition of protected area boundaries defined by watercourses (Water Act vs. Nature Protection Act). 3.1.2.4. Conversion of land use As expected, this threat and pressure weighs heavier on nature parks than national parks, where there is less private land and economic activities are restricted (although some examples do exist, e.g. the impact of olive‐growing in Krka National Park).

Conversion of Land Use

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 10. Conversion of Land Use


3.1.2.5 Water management

It is very important to note that all protected areas protecting freshwater ecosystems highlighted this threat as having a major impact, and that, in the opinion of protected area managers, this situation is not likely to improve in the future.

Water Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sc

ore

THREAT

PRESSUR

Figure 11. Water management

This threat is manifested in different ways, ranging from potential overdrawing of spring water during the tourist season (Plitvice Lakes), through the operation of hydro‐electric dams that disturb natural flooding regimes (Kopački Rit Nature Park) or reducing the quantity of water available for waterfalls (Krka National Parks), to the threat of constructing such facilities and expanding/deepening waterways (Lonjsko Polje Nature Park). Another reason for particular concern is the case of Vransko Lake Nature Park, where a decrease in freshwater inputs and the intrusion of saltwater threaten the very existence of the system. Although not a direct threat, the issue of excessive water charges to protected areas was brought up by numerous participants as an issue needed to be resolved. 3.1.2.6 Wastewater management Wastewaters are mostly a challenge for freshwater protected areas, though somewhat less pressing than the water management issue (see above). Issues range from uncontrolled/illegal cess pools to municipal and agricultural waste. Monitoring and mitigation measures against potential long‐term contamination by heavy metals warrant attention.

Wastewater Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 12. Wastewater management


3.1.2.7 Tourism

These findings should be interpreted with some caution because the discussion groups focused on discussing tourism management issues rather than tourism as a threat to resources, including unknown carrying capacity in practically all parks, difficulties in charging entrance fees (most of the marine areas, Učka and Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Parks), and high visitation rates in some of the most popular park areas during a brief season (Skradinski buk in Krka National Park). Plitvice Lakes National Park also reported high visitation levels for some of its sites, but without seeing the protection of natural assets as an issue. Plitvice Lakes and Krka Nature Parks account for as many as 77% of visitors. Plitvice Lakes reported 948,891 visitors, Krka 696,699, Paklenica 115,943, Brijuni 180,276, Kornati 71,780, Mljet 91,788, Risnjak 21,738 and Northern Velebit 13,6445.

Tourism and Recreation

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sc

ore THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 13. Tourism and Recreation

5 Vjesnik, 30 May 2009, p. 7


3.1.2.8 Vegetation succession Vegetation succession is one of the key threats across the Croatian protected areas system. Land abandonment and/or decrease in the intensity of grazing are leading to succession in many protected areas, threatening grassland and meadow ecosystems (Lonjsko Polje and Kopački Rit Nature Parks – Amorpha fruticosa, Učka and Velebit Nature Parks, Northern Velebit National Park and terrestrial components of many marine protected areas).

Vegetation Succession

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sc

ore THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 14. Vegetation Succession

Managers are well aware that increased attention will need to be attached to this issue in the future. In addition to intense protection efforts, this will require new management and monitoring approaches, including increased investment in habitat management. Uncontrolled succession is also often linked to changes in the fire regime (see below). 3.1.2.9 Fire management

Fire Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re THREAT

PRESSURE

Figure 15. Fire Management

Fire management is a challenge for protected area managers in the Mediterranean zone of Croatia. In the opinion of marine protected area managers, it is a particularly serious issue (except for the Brijuni National Park), receiving maximum scores (please note that in this chart, the Y‐axis goes up to 140 rather than 100 as in other charts). Succession, access, regulatory framework and capacity all together contribute to a sense that fire management goes beyond the capabilities of marine protected area managers. Other protected area managers in this zone recognize fire as a constant threat, especially in Paklenica and Northern Velebit National Parks and Biokovo and


Velebit Nature Parks, which have already experienced some catastrophic mountain fires on the southern slopes (in some cases, exacerbated by succession in abandoned agricultural land). 3.1.2.10 Other pressures and threats The workshop participants also discussed the following pressures and threats. invasive alien species, mining, waterway issues, depopulation, bulk waste (beach debris), land‐mine contamination and illegal plant collection. The issue of invasive alien species is present in almost all parks, but this pressure and threat weighs heaviest on Vransko Lake, Kopački Rit, Telašćica and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks, followed by Mljet, Plitvice Lakes and Krka National Parks. The pressure and/or threat of invasive alien species is lower in Kornati National Park (pressure and threat), Lastovo Archipelago and Biokovo Nature Parks (pressure) and Risnjak National Park, and the lowest in Medvednica (threat), Papuk and Učka Nature Parks. Examples of issues related to invasive alien species include problems with the chub and char in the Plitvice Lakes, because of which the local trout population is present but in traces; the issue of uncontrolled fish stocking in Krka National Park (the local fishing club has agreed to stock the area with indigenous species); problems with the pine processionary (Croatian Forests Management Company spray and protect parts for the Vransko Lake Nature Park); problems with the chiton (Vransko Lake and Kopački Rit Nature Parks) and brown bullhead (Kopački Rit Nature Park); problems with Amorfa fruticosa (a shrub species present in Kopački Rit and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks), which may, after all, be eliminated; problems with Xanathium spp.,. i.e. the cocklebur present in pastures within Lonjsko Polje Nature Park (and eliminated by grazing and mowing in areas used by the local population and cattle), etc. The threat and pressure of invasive alien marine species are highest in Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, followed by Kornati and Mljet National Parks, and Telašćica Nature Park and Brijuni National Park as the least exposed areas. All these examples suggest poor knowledge of the extent of the spread of invasive alien species, their ecological and economic impact, and their impact on human health. Insights into pressures are relatively few or sporadic, and threats are present in each of the protected areas due to an ever increasing number of different ways of introducing alien species as a result of growing trade, transport, tourism, etc. Mining constitutes a pressure and threat in 63% of the nature parks, the most exposed being Papuk, Učka and Medvednica, to some extent Velebit and Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje, and to the least extent Biokovo and Lonjsko Polje. Lonjsko Polje Nature Park includes the Vrbak natural gas field, where INA naftaplin (the national oil and gas company) holds a five‐year concession. Thereafter natural gas reserves are expected to be exhausted, the well will be closed and INA plans to convert the facility into a bird watching site. Waterway issues exist in five parks. They are most evident in Kornati National park, somewhat lesser in Mljet National Park and Lonjsko Polje Nature Park, and least in Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park and Brijuni National Park. Other parks are not exposed to this problem. Lonjsko Polje Nature Park currently faces no waterway‐related pressures, but Croatia’s Development Strategy calls for an increase in the Sava River’s navigability, which is a threat that will be widespread and have a high and permanent impact.


As a pressure and threat, depopulation is present in four parks. Its presence is highest in Učka Nature Park, somewhat lower in Papuk and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks (the public institutions and government incentives may help reduce depopulation), and lowest in Risnjak National Park, whereas others report no occurrence of this issue. Bulk waste (beach debris) constitutes a pressure and threat in marine parks. It weighs heaviest on Mljet and Kornati National Park and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, and to some extent on Telašćica Nature Park. Bulk waste constitutes a pressure and threat in five parks. Its presence is evident to some extent in Učka and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks, while this issue exists but its presence is the lowest in Biokovo, Velebit and Vransko Lake Nature Parks. Lonjsko Polje Nature Park faces a solid waste issue, specifically, a phosphogypsum disposal site (a by‐product of INA – Petrokemija), which is located within the park’s boundaries. Land‐mine contamination is a pressure and threat in five parks, with the highest occurrence in Kopački Rit Nature Park, then in Paklenica National Park, and Nature Parks of Velebit, Lonjsko Polje (where 2.4% of the park area is strewn with land‐mines, with a ten‐year time‐frame to complete mine clearance) and Papuk. Illegal herbal plant collection represents a pressure and threat in the Northern Velebit National Park.


3.1.3 Trends Which pressures can be decreased, and which ones are likely to remain a problem in the future? We may gain some insight into this issue by directly comparing the ranking of pressures (current status) and threats (future) across the system.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

ForestManagement


Hunting andFishing



WaterManagement



MiningIndustry


WaterwayIssues

FireManagement

sc

ore

Pressure

Threat

Figure 16. Comparing Pressures and Threats System‐Wide Based on the answers presented in the above chart, protected area managers feel that the issues of forest management, hunting and fishing, the conversion of land use and land‐mine contamination will lose some of their weight in the future. This view relies on ongoing improvements in the legislative framework (including implementation and supervision), capacity‐building efforts, improved relationship with Croatian Forests Management Company, and more intense collaboration with local communities. However, as for other threats – especially the five “big” ones, including invasive species, unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights, water management, vegetation succession and fire management – the protected area managers do not foresee any significant decrease in their degree. These issues deserve special attention in the near future.


3.2. Protected management design and planning (Questions 6‐8) This section discusses the participants’ answers to the group of questions pertaining to the definition of objectives, legal security and protected area sites.

OVERALL PLANNING

0

25

50

75

100

OBJECTIVES

Biodiversity p

rotection

Management plan

Consistency

Understanding

Community support

LEGAL SECURITY

Legal protection

No land use conflic

ts

Boundaries

Resources

conflicts re

solved

PA DESIGNSitin

gLayout

Zoning

Land use

Linkages

sco

re

Figure 17. Protected Area Design and Planning (Aggregate) At the system‐wide level (see the chart), we may say that legal protection and clearly defined objectives regarding the protection of biological diversity represent the strengths of the system (most of the participants answered “yes”, with a total score of over 75 out of a maximum of 95). Disputes regarding land tenure and use rights and a lack of law enforcement resources were highlighted by workshop participants as two areas where certain issues exist. A more detailed discussion of these issues is presented in the following sections. 3.2.1 Objectives (Question 6)

Planning -- PA Objectives

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJET

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVICE L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI RIT

RISNJAK

N. VELEBIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNICA

ZUMBERAK-SG

sco

re

Biodiversity protection Management plan Consistency Understanding Community support Figure 18. Protected Area Design and Planning – Objectives Protected area objectives fully or mostly provide for the protection and maintenance of biodiversity in all parks. Specific biodiversity‐related objectives are fully or mostly clearly stated in all management plans, whether adopted or in the pipeline. Management policies and plans are fully or mostly consistent with protected areas objectives in all parks. Park employees and administrators fully or mostly understand their protected area objectives and policies. In marine marks, there is a significant need for staff training and, in some cases, local community education. Local communities support the overall protected area objectives in most of the parks, except the Kornati, Krka and Mljet National Parks, where local communities mostly do not support the overall protected area objectives.


3.2.2. Legal security (Question 7)

Planning -- Legal Security

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJET

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVICE L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI RIT

RISNJAK

N. VELEBIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNICA

ZUMBERAK-SG

sco

re

Legal protection No land use conflicts Boundaries Resources conflicts resolved Figure 19. Protected Area Design and Planning – Legal Security Practically all parks have long‐term legally binding protection. In almost 50% of the parks, there are unsettled disputes regarding land tenure or use rights, such as problems with cadastres and/or property‐rights relations. Mljet National Park has a dispute over Church land (the Church is seeking compensation), including a related local community building legalization issue, and Lonjsko Polje Nature Park has a dispute with Croatian Waters Management Company over the right to register flooding areas located on state‐owned land within the park. Boundary demarcation is fully or mostly adequate and allows for meeting the protected area objectives in 80% of the parks, with four nature parks facing major boundary demarcation issues (Papuk, Telašćica, Učka and Vransko Lake). Boundary demarcation in Učka Nature Park does not correspond to the actual situation, nor does it allow for meeting the protected area objectives. Papuk Nature Park needs to clarify some minor jurisdiction issues with Croatian Forests and Croatian Waters management companies, and its boundaries are neither clear nor well‐defined. A proposal for new boundaries and amendments to the Papuk Nature Park Designation Act are being drafted. In Lonjsko Polje Nature Park, the demarcation line on the left bank of the Sava River (the national border) has divergent interpretations under the Water Act and the Nature Protection Act. Mljet National Park faces a maritime boundary issue because there is no buffer zone. All participants but one stressed that financial resources were, to a certain extent, inadequate to conduct critical law enforcement activities. Generally, there are no major conflicts with the local community and, where they exist, they are mostly resolved fairly and effectively in all of the parks.


3.2.3 Site planning and design (Question 8)

Planning -- PA Site Design

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJ

ET

LASTOVO

ARCH.

TELASCIC

A

PLITV

ICE L

.

KRKA

VRANSKO J.

LONJS

KO P.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENIC

A

VELEBIT

BIOKO

VO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

Siting Layout Zoning Land use Linkages

Figure 20. Protected Area Design and Planning – Site Planning and Design The sitting of the protected areas is fully or mostly consistent with the protected area objectives in all of the parks. To meet its protection objection, Lonjsko Polje Nature Park needs to include a zone of traditional settlements (Plesmo, Stara Subocka) and resolve the issue of the Sava River bank. The sitting of Mljet National Park failed to cover a wetland area near the park boundary, with the sea belt being covered in 1997. The area of the Plitvice Lakes National Park was expanded to protect the Plitvice Lakes basin. Paklenica National Park extended its boundaries in 1997 to ensure better protection of its species and habitats. The source and the mouth of the Krka River do not lie within the boundaries of Krka National Park, but these areas are currently protected at the county level. The boundaries of Northern Velebit National Park have been drawn inadequately. Some areas crucial for large carnivores have been left out of the boundaries of Risnjak National Park as a result of commercial activities in these areas (commercially exploited forests). Also, the park boundaries include but a minor section of the catchment area of the Kupa River’s source. The boundaries of Papuk Nature Park have been recently altered to include grasslands that were previously ignored, as well as a valuable geological heritage. The layout and configuration of the protected area fully or mostly optimizes the conservation of biodiversity in all parks, although, for example, the northern boundary of Učka Nature Park is arbitrary from a nature protection standpoint, while the configuration of the protected area in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park fails to optimize the cultural landscape. The protected area zoning system is fully or mostly adequate to achieve the protected area objectives in most of the parks. The parks lacking an adequate zoning system (Kornati, Krka and Mljet National Parks, and Lastovo Archipelago, Učka and Biokovo Nature Parks) plan to develop it as a part of their management plans or already have it in the pipeline. Land use in the surrounding area fully or mostly enables effective protected area management in most of the parks. In Risnjak National Park and Biokovo, Papuk, Telašćica and Vransko Lake Nature Parks, land use mostly fails to enable effective protected area management. In Risnjak National Park there is a lack of respect for buffer zones when it comes to hunting, with a failure to cultivate farmland in the vicinity of the park boundary and its succession as yet another issue. Much of the land in Biokovo Nature Park is neglected, which causes succession. In Papuk Nature Park, the southern boundary is subject to intensive use by the local population (roads, settlements, intensive farming), while the northern side is being depopulated depopulation and the land use is more adequate. The northern boundaries of Učka Nature Park are exposed to high population pressures from the neighbouring settlements; otherwise, the situation is adequate. Land use in


the northern part of Lonjsko Polje Nature Park poses a threat to effective management. The surrounding area of Kopački Rit Nature Park still lacks a sewer system but relies on septic tanks, which – to some extent – impedes effective protected area management. Mljet National Park faces the problem of sea use due to high trawling pressures. Most of the protected areas are linked to other areas of conserved or protected land. The parks lacking such links are the three marine parks (Brijuni and Mljet National Parks, and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park), as well as Risnjak National Park and Vransko Lake Nature Park. Velebit Nature Park is linked to two national parks – Northern Velebit and Paklenica. Kornati National Park and Telašćica Nature Park are linked to each other, with yet another protected area (the Žut‐Sit Island group) being in a close proximity to the former. Ćićarija mountain lies north of Učka Nature Park, providing an animal movement corridor and, thus, linking the park to other areas of conserved or protected land. The boundaries of Plitvice Lakes National Parks are surrounded by conserved forests. Three parks (Medvednica and Lonjsko Nature Parks and Krka National Parks) have good co‐operation with nature protection institutions at the county level. In Lonjsko Polje Nature Park, joint efforts are made to monitor the status of nature protection, including co‐operation between the cultural landscape and cultural heritage conservation sectors, although there is room for improvement in this collaboration. Papuk Nature Park is partially linked to some sites defined under the National Ecological Network and the future NATURA 2000 ecological network.


3.3. Protected area inputs (Questions 9‐12)

This section discusses the participants’ answers to the group of questions pertaining to protected area staffing, communication, infrastructure and finances.

INPUTS

0

25

50

75

100

STAFFING

Level

Skills

Train

ing

Staff

revi

ews

Emplo

ymen

t conditi

ons

COM

MUNIC

ATION

Mea

ns Dat

a

Data

colle

ctio

n

Data

proce

ssin

g

Local c

omm

unicat

ion

INFRASTRUCTU

RE

Transp

ortatio

n

Field

equi

pmen

t

Staff

facili

ties

Mai

ntenan

ce

Visito

r fac

ilitie

s

FINANCIN

G

Past f

unding

Future

fundi

ng

Finan

cial p

ract

ices

Alloca

tion

Stabili

ty

sco

re

Figure 21. Protected Area Inputs (Aggregate) At the system‐wide level (see the chart), we may say that communication and the existing infrastructure represent the strengths of the system. Staffing levels, development and training, employment conditions and future finances were highlighted by workshop participants as areas involving certain problems. A more detailed discussion of these issues is presented in the following sections. 3.3.1 Staffing (Question 9)

Inputs -- Staffing

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJET

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVICE L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J.

LONJSKO P.

KOPACKI RIT

RISNJAK

N. VELEBIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNICA

ZUMBERAK-SG

sco

re

Level Skills Training Staff reviews Employment conditions

Figure 22. Protected Area Inputs – Staffing In most of the parks, the level of staffing is mostly insufficient to effectively manage their area. Exceptions include two large parks (Krka and Plitvice Lakes National Parks) and Vransko Lake and Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Parks, where the level of staffing is mostly adequate to effectively manage the area. As many as 10 parks lack administrative and professional service staff (Brijuni, Mljet, Paklenica and Risnjak National Parks, and Lonjsko Polje, Medvednica, Papuk, Učka, Velebit, Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Park), while 6 parks lack rangers (Paklenica and Risnjak National Parks, and Medvednica, Učka, Velebit and Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Parks). In addition, Medvednica Nature Park and Paklenica National Park lack guides, the latter being also in need of professionals in charge of presentation and information. Velebit Nature Park has insufficient staffing levels in its technical service, and the technical field staff in Krka National


Park are mostly low‐skilled and require further training. Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Park also lacks a legal officer, and Papuk Nature Park tourism professional. Kornati National Park lacks a safety‐at‐work and fire prevention professional as well as fire‐fighters. The examples of insufficient staffing levels are also reflected in job classification gaps. while its internal rules provide for 48 employees, Biokovo Nature Park has 10 full‐time employees; Risnjak National Park is supposed to have 10 staff service members, but there is only one full‐time employee; Papuk Nature Park is supposed to have 30 employees, but currently employs only 15; while 30 employees are planned for Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, which presently has a staff of 7. Staff members have or mostly have adequate skills to conduct critical management activities in most of the parks. The staff of Brijuni, Kornati and Mljet National Parks mostly lacks adequate skills. Training and development opportunities are fully or mostly appropriate to the needs of the staff in two thirds of the parks. In Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, training and development opportunities are mostly inappropriate to the needs of the staff due to its remoteness from the mainland. In Brijuni National Park, staff members have the opportunity to attend numerous courses and training programmes in the field of nature protection, including a workshop organized to discuss their management plan. Krka, Mljet, Paklenica, Plitvice Lakes and Risnjak National Parks and Papuk Nature Park stressed the need for systematic staff training through the development of a staff training strategy. In Paklenica National Park, function‐specific workshops are still too few, and Papuk National Park requires more training for its rangers. It was also stressed that organized seminars had to be effective, which could not be said of the organization of a GIS seminar. Examples of courses attended by park staff members include. Medvednica Nature Park – interpretation, a communication skill seminar, foreign language courses, GIS courses, Young Rangers (together with a county institution); Telašćica Nature Park – fire‐fighting courses, foreign languages, vessel and vehicle operation, tour guide certification, a hunting course for rangers; Kopački Rit Nature Park – interpreter licensing; Biokovo Nature Park – a course for hunters; etc. As a part of the Nature Protection Inspection Directorate, a Ranger Service Enhancement Department has been established to ensure the development of ranger staff members in line with their needs. Through a training and professional certification programme, the ranger service has been qualified for the effective implementation of legal instruments, supervision and sanctioning, for which it is authorized under the Nature Protection Act. In 2008, the training and certification programme covered a total of 132 rangers from all public institutions. Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically reviewed in all parks. Most of the parks monitor their staff performance and progress on targets through reports (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual) and meetings (staff conferences). Staff employment conditions are mostly insufficient to retain high‐quality staff in 60% of the parks. The issue of low salary levels was highlighted by almost 50% of the parks (Brijuni, Kornati, Krka and Risnjak National Parks, and Biokovo, Medvednica, Papuk and Učka Nature Parks), with the salaries of similar professionals working around the parks being 50 to 100% higher. The impossibility of providing incentives and motivation was highlighted as an issue by five national parks – Kornati, Krka, Mljet, Paklenica and Risnjak – and the problem of housing provision by three national parks – Mljet, Paklenica and Risnjak. Mljet National Park also faces the problem of living on an island. Učka Nature Park stressed that the problem of retaining high‐quality staff also stems from a lack of development and advancement opportunities.


3.3.2 Communication and information (Question 10)

Inputs -- Communication and Information

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJET

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVICE L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J.

LONJSKO P.

KOPACKI RIT

RISNJAK

N. VELEBIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNICA

ZUMBERAK-SG

sco

re

Means Data Data collection Data processing Local communication

Figure 23. Protected Area Inputs – Communication and Information In the opinion of participants, communication and information inputs are fully or mostly adequate in almost all parks. Some exceptions include insufficient communication between office and field staff (Risnjak National Park), a lack of ecological and socio‐economic data in three marine parks (Kornati and Mljet National Parks and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park), a lack of adequate means of collecting new data (Kornati National Park and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park), the lack of an adequate system for processing and analyzing data in Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park (which has been established only recently and, consequently, lacks practically all equipment, such as a video camera, GPS, underwater still camera, off‐road vehicle, etc.). 3.3.3 Infrastructure (Question 11)

Inputs -- Infrastructure

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

Transportation Field equipment Staff facilities Maintenance Visitor facilities

Figure 24. Protected Area Inputs – Infrastructure Transportation infrastructure is fully or mostly adequate to perform critical management activities in most of the parks. Kornati National Park and Lonjsko Polje and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Parks reported mostly inadequate transportation infrastructure. Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park has too few vehicles and lacks any powerboats, off‐road vehicles, equipment or mooring buoys for pleasure boaters. The existing infrastructure in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park cannot keep up with management objectives, but the plan is to develop infrastructure in parallel with management activities. While it has some vehicles and boats, Kornati National Park lacks quays and buoys, which makes its transportation infrastructure inadequate to perform critical management activities. Telašćica Nature Park requires mooring berths and buoys, but has 7 to 8 vessels. Risnjak National Parks lacks a sufficient number of off‐road vehicles. In Kopački Rit Nature Part, transportation infrastructure is inadequate only in its land‐mine zone, where there are no roads in any case. Medvednica Nature Park is congested with transportation infrastructure. In Papuk


Nature Park, State Road D49 is sometimes inadequate for the passage of buses into Jankovac – a tourist‐dedicated park area. Field equipment and staff facilities are fully or mostly adequate to perform critical management activities in most of the parks (exceptions include Kornati National Park and Lonjsko Polje and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Parks for field equipment, and Kornati, Mljet and Risnjak National Parks for staff facilities). Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park has only a new office building and requires premises for a promotional and education centre. Adequate maintenance and care of equipment ensure long‐term use in almost all parks (the only exception is Mljet National Park, specifically, a garage for vehicles). Visitor facilities are mostly inappropriate to the level of visitor use in one third of the parks. Biokovo Nature Park does not own any such facilities. Kornati National Park lacks an adequate office building. In the Lastovo Archipelago, there are no visitor facilities whatsoever, save for trails. Medvednica Nature Park has prepared for its visitors the Zrinski Mine and the Veternica Cave, educational trails and a trail for persons with disability, but it lacks a visitor centre. Lonjsko Polje Nature Park lacks appropriate facilities to accommodate group visits when the weather is poor, as well as designated rest areas and a sufficient number of toilet blocks. Office premises in Risnjak National Park are inadequate (a lack of offices), there is no research station nor any education facilities (centres). This park also lacks a sufficient number of visitor facilities and those that do exist fail to adhere to environmental principles. 3.3.4 Finances (Question 12)

Inputs -- Finances

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sc

ore

Past funding Future funding Financial practices Allocation Stability

Figure 25. Protected Area Inputs – Finances Funding in the past five years has been mostly adequate to conduct critical management activities in most of the parks. In Kornati National Park, past funding was mostly inadequate, whereas in the Lastovo Archipelago it was not fully adequate (the park was established in 2006). Mljet National Park lacks funding for new capital investment. Učka Nature Park has successfully used funding provided under the EU's INTERREG programme, and plans to propose further projects for financing from the EU pre‐accession funds. As an example of diverse funding sources used by the parks, we can mention Lonjsko Polje Nature park, which is financed from the budget, under the EU's LIFE III programme, through incentives from the Ministry of Agriculture, by submitting project proposals invited by of the Ministry of Culture, through funding provided by the Ministry of Tourism, the counties and an INA sponsorship, and under the Marketing Products project of the


Ministry of Agriculture. Velebit Nature Park derived benefits from the KEC project, including a new building, three cars and management plan development. In addition to budget appropriations and their own revenues, the parks can use the following funding sources. EU pre‐accession funds, private corporate grants, local self‐government, land users (e.g. Viadukt in Medvednica Nature Park), the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund, the Ministry of Tourism, county grants received through the Tourism Board (Kopački Rit Nature Park), donor initiatives, e.g. for land‐mine clearance (concerts, etc.), and so forth. As many as one third of the parks feel that funding will be mostly inadequate to conduct critical management activities, stating the lack of funds (Lastovo Archipelago, Papuk and Velebit Nature Parks), insufficient staffing levels (Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park) and funding uncertainty (Lonjsko Polje Nature Park) as major reasons. As for appropriations at the county level, they differ from one county to another, but a general feeling is that counties should increase their participation in park financing. Financial management practices and the allocation of expenditures to protected area priorities fully or mostly enable efficient and effective protected area management in all parks (Lastovo Archipelago and Žumberak Nature Parks report a lack of finance experts as a shortcoming). A positive finding is that most of the parks feel that the long‐term financial outlook for the protected areas is mostly stable, save for Kornati National Park and Lastovo Archipelago and Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks. However, more diverse funding sources can be expected as a result of the latter’s nomination for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List. 3.4. Management processes (Questions 13‐15) This section discusses the participants’ answers to the group of questions pertaining to management planning, management decision‐making, and research evaluation and monitoring.

PROCESSES

0

25

50

75

100

MANAGEMENT PLANNIN

G

Managem

ent plan

Inve

ntory

Threa

ts stra

tegy

Work

plan

Monitorin

g

DECISIO

N MAKIN

G

Inte

rnal o

rganis

ation

Transpar

ency

Collabora

tion

Local c

ommuni

ties

Communicat

ion

RESEARCH/MONIT

ORING

Monitorin

g

Ecolo

gical r

esear

ch

Social res

earch

Resear

ch acc

ess

Needs id

entified

sco

re

Figure 26. Management Processes (Aggregate) At the system‐wide level (see the chart), we may say that management decision‐making constitutes a strength of the system, with some minor departures regarding the participation of local communities in decision‐making. The non‐existence of research on key social issues or its inconsistence with the needs of the protected areas constitutes the key weakness. The lack of management plans and the related strategies for addressing threats constitutes a challenge that will soon be overcome, because the parks that have not adopted their management plans work on their preparation. A more detailed discussion of these issues is presented in the following sections.


3.4.1 Management planning (Question 13)

Processes -- Management Planning

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

Management plan Inventory Threats strategy Work plan Monitoring

Figure 27. Management Processes – Management Planning

In somewhat less than two thirds of the parks, there exists or mostly exists a comprehensive, relatively recent written management plan. Management plans have been adopted for six parks (Paklenica, Plitvice Lakes, Risnjak and Northern Velebit National Parks, and Lonjsko Polje and Velebit Nature Parks), three parks are about to adopt them (Kopački Rit, Učka and Žumberak‐Samoborsko Gorje Nature Parks), while the others have them under preparation (Brijuni, Kornati, Krka and Mljet National Parks, and Biokovo, Lastovo Archipelago, Medvednica, Papuk, Telašćica and Vransko Lake Nature Parks). Five marine parks (Brijuni, Kornati and Mljet National Parks, and Lastovo Archipelago and Telašćica Nature Parks) are preparing their management plans using assistance under WWF’s MedPAN South project, which commenced in 2009 and will be completed by 2012, while Brijuni and Kornati National Parks have begun preparing their management plans before the commencement of the project. In the opinion of participants, a comprehensive inventory of natural and cultural resources exists in almost all parks, as does or mostly does an analysis of, and strategy for addressing, protected area threats and pressures, mainly as a part of management plans. Major expectations in this regard include four marine parks (Kornati and Mljet National Parks, and Lastovo Archipelago and Telašćica Nature Parks). The participants also have a positive opinion on work plans identifying specific targets for achieving management objectives, as well as the incorporation of research and monitoring results into planning.


3.4.2 Management decision making (Question 14) The participants (mostly park managers or administrators) see no major problems in the protected area management decision‐making process.

Processes -- Management Decision Making

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

Internal organisation Transparency Collaboration Local communities Communication

Figure 28. Management Processes – Management Decision Making Clear internal organization exists or mostly exists in all of the parks. Mljet and Risnjak National Parks need to revise their Internal Organization Rules and align them with their actual requirements. Management decision‐making is transparent or mostly transparent in almost of the parks. Staffs fully or mostly regularly collaborate with partners, local communities and other organizations in all parks. As an example of such collaborative efforts, Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park mostly regularly collaborates with Komunalac (the local utility), the Lastovo Agricultural Cooperative, the Ministry of the Interior, the municipality, the school, hunters, etc. Medvednica Nature Park regularly collaborates with forest managers, hunters, hikers, quarry concessionaires, sportsmen, etc. Učka Nature Park regularly collaborates with higher education institutions, institutes, educational institutions, local authorities, local organizations, sports societies, etc. Lonjsko Polje Nature Parks has a Collaborative Council of the Lonjsko Polje Nature Park and a Collaborative Council for Central Posavina (Sava River Basin). It also regularly collaborates with nature protection and building inspection authorities, associations (cattle‐raising, fishing and hunting), a volunteer fire department, scientific institutions, etc. In most of the parks, local communities participate in decisions that affect them. In Paklenica and Risnjak National Parks and the Telašćica Nature Park, local communities mostly do not participate in such decisions. Local communities participate in decisions that affect them mostly through workshops (Biokovo, Lastovo Archipelago, Papuk and Učka Nature Parks), lectures (Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park), regular meetings (Učka Nature Park), etc. In Lonjsko Polje Nature Park, local communities participate in decisions affecting them mostly through working groups and annual meetings. In Medvednica Nature Park, local communities participate in the adoption of internal regulations, which is also required by its Internal Organization Rules. In Risnjak National Park, local communities do not have their representatives in the governing council, but they were involved in the preparation of the management plan. Effective communication between all levels of protected area staff and administration exists or mostly exists in all parks.


3.4.3 Research, evaluation and monitoring (Question 15)

Processes - Research, Evaluation and Monitoring

0

5

10

15

20

25

BRIJUNI

KORNATI

MLJE

T

LASTOVO ARCH.

TELASCICA

PLITVIC

E L.

KRKA

VRANSKO J

.

LONJSKO P

.

KOPACKI R

IT

RISNJA

K

N. VELE

BIT

PAKLENICA

VELEBIT

BIOKOVO

UCKA

PAPUK

MEDVEDNIC

A

ZUMBERAK-S

G

sco

re

Monitoring Ecological research Social research Research access Needs identified

Figure 29. Management Processes – Research, evaluation and monitoring The impact of legal and illegal uses of the protected area is fully or mostly accurately monitored and recorded in all parks, except Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, which lacks the required resources. Examples of monitoring and recording land uses in parks include. monitoring the status of species, monitoring the number of wooden houses, and monitoring economic activities (Lonjsko Polje Nature Park), recording building projects, assessing their legality and reporting irregularities (Učka Nature Park), etc. Research on key ecological issues is fully or mostly consistent with the needs of the protected area in all parks. Research priorities have been defined and include the habitats and species listed in the Strategy (based on the national criteria), and all species and habitats under the Habitats and Birds Directives as well as international conventions. Some problems may occur in the co‐ordination of priority research efforts at a national level, the communication between researchers and parks (work supervision, research feedback) and, in some cases, due to a lack of external researchers required to conduct key ecological research projects (e.g. experts in specific taxonomic categories). Efforts are being made to find a systematic solution to this problem and the co‐ordination between the Ministry of Culture on one hand and national and nature parks as public institutions on the other is, for the time being, relatively successful. Misunderstandings usually occur through the fault of researchers who fail to comply with regulations and codes of conduct for researchers. The same is not true of research on key social issues, which is mostly not consistent with the needs of the protected area. As shown by the chart, these issues are dealt with much more intensely by nature parks, whereas – in the participants’ opinion, national parks and protected marine areas fail to accord proper attention to them. As an explanation for such a situation, the participants offered their perception of the relationship between national parks and local communities and a lack of staff in protected marine areas. The participants assessed access to recent scientific research and the identification and prioritization of critical research and monitoring needs as satisfactory.


3.5. Outputs (Question 16)

Asked to assess whether the management outputs in the last two years had been consistent with the threats and pressures, protected area objectives and annual work plan, the participants generally offered exceptionally positive responses. We should recall that the maximum score for each question could be 95 (19 “Yes” answers).

OUTPUTS

0

25

50

75

100

OUTPUTS

Threats prevention

Restoration

Wildlife management

Outreach/educatio

n

Visitor management

Infrastru

cture

Management planning

Staff management

Training

Research outputs

sco

re

Figure 30. Outputs In the last two years, the following management outputs have been consistent with the threats and pressures, protected area objectives and annual work plan.

Threat prevention, detection and law enforcement in all parks.

Site restoration and mitigation efforts in all parks.

Wildlife and habitat management in two thirds of the parks. The “No” answer was given by Kornati and Mljet National Parks and Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park, and the “Mostly no” answer by Krka and Paklenica National Parks and Učka Nature Park.

Community outreach and education efforts in most of the parks. The “No” answer was given by Brijuni National Park, and the “Mostly no” answer by Mljet, Paklenica and Risnjak National Parks.

Visitor and tourist management in all parks.

Infrastructure development in most of the parks. The “Mostly no” answer was given by Brijuni and Kornati National Parks and Lonjsko Polje Nature Park.

Management planning and inventorying in all parks.

Staff monitoring, supervision and evaluation in most of the parks. The “No” answer was given by Medvednica Nature Parks and Paklenica National Park, and the “Mostly no” answer by Plitvice Lakes National Park and the Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park.

Staff training and development in all parks.

Research and monitoring outputs in almost all parks. The “Mostly no” answer was given by Lastovo Archipelago and Telašćica Nature Parks.


4. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the outcomes of the RAPPAM analysis, recommendations have been developed, updated and aligned with the Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity (as published in Narodne novine, no 143/08). The recommendations have been classified into five categories. 1. Water management 2. Agriculture and vegetation succession 3. Land tenure and use rights 4. Fire management 5. Capacity building Water management In resolving outstanding water management issues, efforts should be made to improve co‐operation between public institutions, the Ministry of Culture and the water management sector, in particular, Croatian Waters Management Company. Nature protection requirements and measures as well as ecological network conservation guidelines should be incorporated in drafting management plans for water areas and preparing and implementing water management projects and actions. In addition, all plans, programmes and projects that may significantly affect the conservation objectives and integrity of ecological network sites should be subject to appropriate assessment procedures under the Nature Protection Act. The recommendation is to implement the following actions plans as laid down in the Strategy. ‐ Develop water area management plans and conceptual designs for the development of drainage basins, and incorporate nature protection measures and requirements therein. ‐ Promote the development and implementation of joint annual work programmes of public institutions for protected area management and of Croatian Waters Management Company in protected areas. Agriculture and vegetation succession In order to improve agricultural land management and prevent vegetation succession, especially in grazing areas, meadows and grasslands, efforts should be made to continue collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development and local and regional self‐government units. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Agricultural Land Act (as published in Narodne novine, no. 152/08), state‐owned grazing lands and meadows located within protected areas are managed by public institutions protecting the areas where such lands or meadows are located. In order to prevent vegetation succession, public institutions are recommended to commence maintaining grazing lands and meadows or to make them available for use under concessions or management contracts.


Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights The issue of unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights stems from protected area designation acts (adopted pursuant to the legislation in force at that time), which mostly do not include a list of cadastral plots falling within a particular protected area, preventing their registration into land registers. The solution to this problem should be agreed through co‐operation between the Ministry of Culture, the National Survey Agency and the Ministry of Justice. The recommendation is to implement the following action plans as laid down in the Strategy. ‐ Carry out consultation with the competent authorities and other stakeholders in the respective areas, and commence with the resolution of unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights in national and nature parks. ‐ Draw up a list of priorities and commence with the acquisition of land in strict reserves, national parks, special reserves and nature parks. Fire management To resolve the issue of fire management, discussions should be continued with the Ministry of the Interior and the National Protection and Rescue Agency. It is also recommended to secure the required funding to recruit firemen and/or provide additional training for the staff of national and nature parks. The recommendation is to implement the following action plan as laid down in the Strategy. ‐ Proceed with the implementation of the National Programme to Establish an Integral Fire Control System in national and nature parks. Capacity building The completed analysis clearly shows that, in most of the parks, staffing levels are inadequate for effective protected area management, which partly ensues from insufficient funding for new employment initiatives, both at the central budget level and in terms of revenues generated by public institutions themselves. Public institutions are recommended to conduct an analysis of their actual needs and situation regarding the required staffing levels. Based on the findings of such an analysis, and should this prove necessary, it is recommended to make a new job classification and draft new Internal Organization Rules in order to ensure higher management effectiveness. Based on the foregoing, the employment of new staff would be continued by using both own funding sources and central budget appropriations.


Table 4. Summary of Recommendations Derived from the Application of the RAPPAM Methodology

No. Recommendations Responsible

agency

Potential implementing

agencies

Time frame

1. Water management

1.1 Develop water area management plans and conceptual designs for the development of drainage basins, and incorporate nature protection measures and requirements therein

MoRDFWM CW, MoRDFWM, MoC

ST

1.2 Promote the development and implementation of joint annual work programmes of public institutions for protected area management and of Croatian Waters Management Company in protected areas

CW, PI MoC, MoRDFWM, PI, CW, SINP

PR!

2. Agriculture and vegetation succession

2.1 Commence maintenance of grazing lands and meadows or make them available for use under concessions or management contracts

NLP/NRP PI MoC, MoAFRD PR!

3 Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights

3.1 Consult with the competent authorities and other stakeholders in the respective areas, and commence with the resolution of unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights in national and nature parks

NLP/NRP PI NLP/NRP PI, GAB, MoC

ST

3.2 Draw up a list of priorities and commence with the acquisition of land in national and nature parks

MoC MoC, SINP, NLP/NRP PI

ST

4. Fire management

4.1 Proceed with the implementation of the National Programme to Establish an Integral Fire Control System in national and nature parks

MoC NLP/NRP PI, MoC, LSG, FBA

PR!

5. Capacity building

5.1 Analyze the actual needs and situation NLP/NRP PI NLP/NRP PI, MoC, SINP

ST

5.2 Make a new job classification (as required) NLP/NRP PI NLP/NRP PI, MoC, SINP

ST

5.3 Draft new Internal Organization Rules (as required) NLP/NRP PI, MoC

NLP/NRP PI, MoC, SINP

ST

The Ministry of Culture will incorporate the outcomes of the application of the RAPPAM Methodology in its regular report to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Ministry of Culture will use RAPPAM as a tool for the systematic assessment of management effectiveness to be carried out every four to five years


5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and the State Institute for Nature Protection for their assistance in the organization of the RAPPAM workshop and, in particular, Kornelija Pintarić for her workshop opening address, Vesna Zlatar for her presentation and Andrea Štefan for her comments. We would like to thank Maja Popović for her assistance in workshop preparation and organization and her confidence in the usefulness of assessing the effectiveness of protected area management. We would also like to thank all participants of the RAPPAM workshop for their active participation and constructive and challenging proposals and comments. We would like to thank WWF's Stella Šatalić for her assistance in workshop implementation and suggestions in drafting recommendations. Of course, we would also like to thank the staff of the Risnjak National Park for ensuring our pleasant stay and working environment and, in particular, Silvija Barbarić for organizing the workshop and Miljenko Gašparac for guidance along the Leska Learning Trail. Finally, we would like to express special appreciation to Loris Elez from the Ministry of Culture's Nature Protection Directorate for her comments and efforts to draft recommendations derived from the RAPPAM Methodology


ANNEXES ANNEX 1.

RAPPAM QUESTIONNAIRE

WWF

RAPID ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

(RAPPAM) METHODOLOGY

RAPID ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

a) Name of protected area..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………...……..

b) Date established. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………...…..

c) Size of protected area. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....……….

d) Name of respondent. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....……

e) Date survey completed.………………………………………………………………………………………………………......……………..

f) Annual budget. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….........……..………..

g) Specific management objectives. ……………………………………………………………………………….......…………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......................……………………..

h) Critical protected area (PA) activities).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................…………


PRESSURES AND THREATS

2. PRESSURES AND THREATS

Pressure.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...............…

○ Has ○ Has not been a pressure in the last 5 years

In the past 5 years this activity has. The overall severity of this pressure over the past 5 years has been.

○ Increased sharply

○ Increased slightly

○ Remained constant

○ Decreased slightly

○ Decreased sharply

Extent

○ Throughout (>50%)

○ Widespread (15-50%)

○ Scattered (5-15%)

○ Localized (<5%)

Impact

○ Severe

○ High

○ Moderate

○ Mild

Permanence

○ Permanent (>100 years)

○ Long term (20-100 years)

○ Medium term (5-20 years)

○ Short term (<5 years)

Threat.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...............…………

○ Will ○ Will not be a threat in the next 5 years

The probability of the threat occurring is. The overall severity of this threat over the next 5 years is likely to be.

○ Very high

○ High

○ Medium

○ Low

○ Very low

Extent

○ Throughout (>50%)

○ Widespread (15-50%)

○ Scattered (5-15%)

○ Localized (<5%)

Impact

○ Severe

○ High

○ Moderate

○ Mild

Permanence

○ Permanent (>100 years)

○ Long term (20-100 years)

○ Medium term (5-20 years)

○ Short term (<5 years)

1. Forest management 2. Invasive alien species 3. Hunting and fishing 4. Unsettled disputes regarding land tenure and use rights 5. Conversion of land use 6. Water management 7. Wastewaters 8. Tourism and recreation 9. Mining 10. Vegetation succession 11. Waterway management 12. Fire management


CONTEXT 3. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The PA contains a relatively high number of rare, threatened, or endangered species.

� � � � b) The PA has relatively high levels of biodiversity.

� � � � c) The PA has a relatively high degree of endemism.

� � � � d) The PA provides a critical landscape function.

� � � � e) The PA contains the full range of plant and animal diversity.

� � � � f) The PA significantly contributes to the representativeness of the PA system.

� � � � g) The PA sustains minimum viable populations of key species.

� � � � h) The structural diversity of the PA is consistent with historic norms.

� � � � i) The PA includes ecosystems whose historic range has been greatly diminished.

� � � � j) The PA maintains the full range of natural processes and disturbance regimes.

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The PA is an important source of employment for local communities.

� � � � b) Local communities depend upon the PA resources for their subsistence.

� � � � c) The PA provides community development opportunities through sustainable resource use.

� � � � d) The PA has religious or spiritual significance.

� � � � e) The PA has unusual features of aesthetic importance.

� � � � f) The PA contains plant species of high social, cultural, or economic importance.

� � � � g) The PA contains animal species of high social, cultural, or economic importance.

� � � � h) The PA has a high recreational value.

� � � � i) The PA contributes significant ecosystem services and benefits to communities.

� � � � j) The PA has a high educational and/or scientific value.


5. VULNERABILITY

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) Illegal activities within the PA are difficult to monitor.

� � � � b) Law enforcement is low in the region.

� � � � c) Bribery and corruption is common throughout the region.

� � � � d) The area is experiencing civil unrest and/or political instability.

� � � � e) Cultural practices, beliefs, and traditional uses conflict with the PA objectives.

� � � � f) The market value of the PA resources is high.

� � � � g) The area is easily accessible for illegal activities.

� � � � h) There is a strong demand for vulnerable PA resources.

� � � � i) The PA manager is under pressure to unduly exploit the PA resources.

� � � � j) Recruitment and retention of employees is difficult.

PLANNING

6. OBJECTIVES

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) PA objectives provide for the protection and maintenance of biodiversity.

� � � � b) Specific biodiversity-related objectives are clearly stated in the management plan.

� � � � c) Management policies and plans are consistent with the PA objectives.

� � � � d) PA employees and administrators understand the PA objectives and policies.

� � � � e) Local communities support the overall objectives of the PA.

7. LEGAL SECURITY

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The PA has long-term legally binding protection.

� � � � b) There are no unsettled disputes regarding land tenure or use rights.

� � � � c) Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet the PA objectives.

� � � � d) Staff and financial resources are adequate to conduct critical law enforcement activities.

� � � � e) Conflicts with the local community are resolved fairly and effectively.

8. SITE DESIGN AND PLANNING

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The siting of the PA is consistent with the PA objectives.

� � � � b) The layout and configuration of the PA optimizes the conservation of biodiversity.

� � � � c) The PA zoning system is adequate to achieve the PA objectives.

� � � � d) The land use in the surrounding area enables effective PA management.

� � � � e) The PA is linked to another area of conserved or protected land.


INPUTS

9. STAFFING

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area.

� � � � b) Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical management activities.

� � � � c) Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the staff.

� � � � d) Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically reviewed.

� � � � e) Staff employment conditions are sufficient to retain high-quality staff.

10. COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) There are adequate means of communication between field and office staff.

� � � � b) Existing ecological and socio-economic data are adequate for management planning.

� � � � c) There are adequate means of collecting new data.

� � � � d) There are adequate systems for processing and analysing data.

� � � � e) There is effective communication with local communities.

11. INFRASTRUCTURE

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical management activities.

� � � � b) Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management activities.

� � � � c) Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management activities.

� � � � d) Maintenance and care of equipment is adequate to ensure long-term use.

� � � � e) Visitor facilities are appropriate to the level of visitor use.

12. FINANCES

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) Funding in the past 5 years has been adequate to conduct critical management activities.

� � � � b) Funding for the next 5 years is adequate to conduct critical management activities.

� � � � c) Financial management practices enable efficient and effective PA management.

� � � � d) The allocation of expenditures is appropriate to PA priorities and objectives.

� � � � e) The long-term financial outlook for the PA is stable.


PROCESSES

13. MANAGEMENT PLANNING

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) There is a comprehensive, relatively recent written management plan.

� � � � b) There is a comprehensive inventory of natural and cultural resources.

� � � � c) There is an analysis of, and strategy for addressing, PA threats and pressures.

� � � � d) A detailed work plan identifies specific targets for achieving management objectives.

� � � � e) The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into planning.

14. MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) There is clear internal organization.

� � � � b) Management decision making is transparent.

� � � � c) PA staff regularly collaborate with partners, local communities, and other organizations.

� � � � d) Local communities participate in decisions that affect them.

� � � � e) There is effective communication between all levels of PA staff and administration.

15. RESEARCH, EVALUATION, AND MONITORING

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The impact of legal and illegal uses of the PA are accurately monitored and recorded.

� � � � b) Research on key ecological issues is consistent with the needs of the PA.

� � � � c) Research on key social issues is consistent with the needs of the PA.

� � � � d) PA staff members have regular access to recent scientific research and advice.

� � � � e) Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and prioritized.

OUTPUTS

16. OUTPUTS

In the last 2 years, the following outputs have been consistent with the threats and pressures, PA objectives, and annual workplan.

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) Threat prevention, detection and law enforcement.

� � � � b) Site restoration and mitigation efforts.

� � � � c) Wildlife or habitat management.

� � � � d) Community outreach and education efforts.

� � � � e) Visitor and tourist management.

� � � � f) Infrastructure development.

� � � � g) Management planning and inventorying.

� � � � h) Staff monitoring, supervision, and evaluation.

� � � � i) Staff training and development.

� � � � j) Research and monitoring outputs.


PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM-LEVEL

17. PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM-LEVEL DESIGN

y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) The PA system adequately represents the full diversity of ecosystems within the region.

� � � � b) The PA system adequately protects against the extinction or extirpation of any species.

� � � � c) The PA system consists primarily of exemplary and intact ecosystems.

� � � � d) Sites of high conservation value for key species are systematically protected.

� � � � e) The PA system maintains natural processes at a landscape level.

� � � � f) The PA system includes the protection of transition areas between ecosystems.

� � � � g) The PA system includes the full range of successional diversity.

� � � � h) Sites of high biodiversity are systematically protected.

� � � � i) Sites of high endemism are systematically protected.

� � � � j) The layout and configuration of the PA system optimizes the conservation of biodiversity.

PROTECTED AREA POLICIES

18. PROTECTED AREA POLICIES y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) National PA policies clearly articulate a vision, goals, and objectives for the PA system.

� � � � b) The area of land protected is adequate to maintain natural processes at a landscape level.

� � � � c) There is a demonstrated commitment to protecting a viable and representative PA network.

� � � � d) There is a comprehensive inventory of the biological diversity throughout the region.

� � � � e) There is an assessment of the historical range of variability of ecosystem types in the region.

� � � � f) There are restoration targets for under-represented and/or greatly diminished ecosystems.

� � � � g) There is ongoing research on critical PA-related issues.

� � � � h) The PA system is periodically reviewed for gaps and weaknesses (e.g. gap analyses).

� � � � i) There is an effective training and capacity-building programme for PA staff.

� � � � j) PA management, including management effectiveness, is routinely evaluated.

POLICY ENVIRONMENT

19. POLICY ENVIRONMENT y m/y m/n n Notes

� � � � a) PA-related laws complement PA objectives and promote management effectiveness.

� � � � b) There is sufficient commitment and funding to effectively administer the PA system.

� � � � c) Environmental protection goals are incorporated into all aspects of policy development.

� � � � d) There is a high degree of communication between natural resource departments.

� � � � e) There is effective enforcement of PA-related laws and ordinances at all levels.

� � � � f) National policies promote widespread environmental education at all levels.

� � � � g) National policies promote sustainable land management.

� � � � h) National policies promote an array of land conservation mechanisms.

� � � � i) There is adequate environmental training for governmental employees at all levels.

� � � � j) National policies foster dialogue and participation with civic and environmental NGOs.


ANNEX 2.

RAPPAM WORKSHOP AGENDA

National Park Risnjak, October 27th‐29th 2008

DAY 1 – Monday, October 27th 2008 Participants arrive during the morning 14.00 Welcome by the Ministry – Kornelija Pintarić, Director of the Directorate for Nature Protection at the Ministry of Culture 14.20 RAPPAM intro presentation 15.00 Coffee Break 15.30 Introduction to Pressures and Threats section 16.00 Working groups to complete question 2 for each threat 17.30 Coffee Break 19.00 Wrap‐up and adjourn 20.00 Dinner

DAY 2 – Tuesday, October 28th 2008 8.30 Presentations of day 1 results 9.00 Introduction to answering questions 6‐16 9.20 Workgroups. Questions 6‐8 (Planning) 10.30 Coffee Break 10.50 Workgroups. Questions 9‐12 (Inputs) 12.20 Lunch 13.30 Workgroups. Questions 13‐16 (Processes and Outputs) 15.00 Coffee break


15.15 Presentation & suggestions from experts on biological importance (Q3) 15.45 Workgroups. Questions 3‐5 (Context) 18.00 Wrap up and adjourn Dinner

DAY 3 – Wednesday, October 29th 2008 8.30 Presentation and discussion of Day 2 results 10.00 Coffee break 10.20 System‐level questions (17‐19) 12.20 Discussion of next steps 13.00 Workshop closing (evaluation) 13.30 Lunch Participants leave


ANNEX 3. LIST AND CONTACT DETAILS OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS No. Institution Name Phone E‐mail

NATIONAL PARKS

1. Brijuni National Park Eduard Kolić 052/525‐800 [email protected]

2. Kornati National Park Neven Baus 022/435‐740 [email protected]

3. Krka National Park Gordana Goreta 022/201‐757 [email protected]

4. Mljet National Park Osvin Pećar 020/744‐041 osvin.pecar@np‐mljet.hr

5. Northern Velebit National Park

Milan Nekić 053/665‐380 npsv@np‐sjeverni‐velebit.hr

6. Paklenica National Park Josipa Marasović

/ [email protected]

7. Paklenica National Park Gordan Lukač 023/369‐155 sluzba‐[email protected]

8. Plitvice Lakes National Park

Antonija Dujmović

053/751‐671 antonija.dujmovic@np‐plitvicka‐jezera.hr

9. Risnjak National Park Miljenko Gašparac

051/836‐133 np‐[email protected]‐com.hr

NATURE PARKS

10. Biokovo Nature Park Ante Cvitanović 021/616‐924 park‐prirode‐[email protected]

11. Biokovo Nature Park Ante Bulić 021/616‐924 [email protected]

12. Kopački Rit Nature Park Biserka Vištica 031/285‐370 ravnateljica@kopacki‐rit.com pp‐kopacki‐[email protected]

13. Kopački Rit Nature Park Damir Opačić 031/285‐373 [email protected]

14. Lastovo Archipelago Nature Park

Gojko Antica 020/801‐250 [email protected]‐com.hr strucni.voditelj@pp‐lastovo.hr

15. Lonjsko Polje Nature Park Valerija Hima 044/672‐080 bio@pp‐lonjsko‐polje.hr

16. Medvednica Nature Park Nives Farkaš Topolnik

01/4586‐317 [email protected]‐com.hr

17. Medvednica Nature Park Snježana Malić‐Limari

01/4586‐317 strucnivoditelj@pp‐medvednica.hr

18. Papuk Nature Park Goran Radonić 034/313‐030 kontakt@pp‐papuk.hr

19. Telašćica Nature Park Božidar Puhov 023/377‐096 [email protected]‐com.hr

20. Učka Nature Park Grga Frangeš 051/293‐753 gfranges@pp‐ucka.hr

21. Velebit Nature Park Ivan Tomljenović

053/560‐450 ivan.tomljenovic@pp‐velebit.hr

22. Vransko Lake Nature Park Ivica Prtenjača 023/383‐181 pp‐vransko‐[email protected]‐com.hr

23. Žumberak – Samoborsko Gorje Nature Park

Stjepan Gregorić

01/332‐7660 ravnatelj@pp‐zumberak‐samoborsko‐gorje.hr

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

24. Ministry of Culture Kornelija Pintarić

01/4866‐102 kornelija.pintaric@min‐kulture.hr

25. Ministry of Culture Lucija Urli 01/4866‐132 lucija.urli@min‐kulture.hr

26. Ministry of Culture Željka Rajković 092/2044‐100

[email protected]

STATE INSTITUTE FOR NATURE PROTECTION

27. State Institute for Nature Protection

Karla Fabrio 01/5502‐939 [email protected]

28. State Institute for Nature Vesna Zlatar 01/5502‐942 [email protected]


No. Institution Name Phone E‐mail

Protection

WWF

29. WWF Deni Porej +381/63 105‐2050

[email protected]

30. WWF Stella Šatalić 01/2361‐653 [email protected]

ANNEX 4.

ACRONYMS USED

SINP State Institute for Nature Protection CV Croatian Waters Management Company NLP PI National Park Public Institutions NRP PI Nature Park Public Institutions ST Short‐term LSG Local‐Self Government MoC Ministry of Culture MoAFRD Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development MoRDFWM Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management NLP National Parks NRP Nature Parks PR! Priority GAB Government Administration Bodies FBA Fire Brigades Associations PA Protected Areas

effectiveness of protected area management in...

Documents