The ecological network Natura 2000 is one element of the common European Union policy regarding biodiversity protection. National implementation of Natura 2000 differs across the European Union. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often within private lands. The aim of this paper is to assess the implementation of the compensation mechanism developed through adapted management of private forests by using the Natura 2000 payments' measure of the European rural development programmes for the financing period 2007–2014. The econometric Heckman selection model was used to assess the drivers influencing the implementation of the payments measure. Data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge. The results show that the countries with the highest proportion of forest cover in Natura 2000 protected areas are the least paid for compensation, and the implementation apparently does not follow the needs of private forests (assuming from the share of private forests in the country). The state of progress in designating Natura 2000 sites can be an important driver for increasing the probability of Natura 2000 payments for those countries accessing the European Union after 1995. Other evidence includes that national economic development is not observed to be significant in explaining the implementation of Natura 2000 payments. The drivers affecting the implementation of Natura 2000 payments are more focused on increasing the competitiveness of the forest sector than supporting environmental sustainability.
The ecological network Natura 2000 is one element of the common European Union policy regarding biodiversity protection. National implementation of Natura 2000 differs across the European Union. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often within private lands. The aim of this paper is to assess the implementation of the compensation mechanism developed through adapted management of private forests by using the Natura 2000 payments' measure of the European rural development programmes for the financing period 2007–2014. The econometric Heckman selection model was used to assess the drivers influencing the implementation of the payments measure. Data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge. The results show that the countries with the highest proportion of forest cover in Natura 2000 protected areas are the least paid for compensation, and the implementation apparently does not follow the needs of private forests (assuming from the share of private forests in the country). The state of progress in designating Natura 2000 sites can be an important driver for increasing the probability of Natura 2000 payments for those countries accessing the European Union after 1995. Other evidence includes that national economic development is not observed to be significant in explaining the implementation of Natura 2000 payments. The drivers affecting the implementation of Natura 2000 payments are more focused on increasing the competitiveness of the forest sector than supporting environmental sustainability.
The financing of protected area (PA) management includes the interaction of different actors that are involved in the process of management and financing, i.e., from the management framework to the mechanisms of financing. The management framework sets the basic preconditions for PA management, while the mechanisms of financing represent the ways of financing PAs based on the long-term and sustainable conditions. The management of PAs in Serbia has mostly been done by public enterprises (PE). It was given to non-governmental organizations (NGO) for the first time in the late 1990s. Today, the management is carried out by different managers from the public sector (PS) to the private sector (PrS). This research deals with different financing mechanisms present in PAs in Serbia. Additionally, it deals with the differences in the financing between different management actors (MA) in order to establish the best financing practices in the PA management system in Serbia. The results indicate that public enterprise "Srbijašume" (PES) has the lowest average number of financial sources, unlike public enterprise "Vojvodinašume" (PEV). Regarding the average amount of financing, other managers from the public sector (OPS) have the largest amount of financing, while other public enterprises (OPE) record the smallest amount of their own financing. In order to improve the use of mechanisms for the PA management system financing, additional training for the use of funds is proposed at national and international level, as well as external, i.e., additional engagement of agencies that would prepare projects at international level. It is also proposed to establish a specific mechanism – a fund intended for nature protection. ; Financiranje upravljanja zaštićenim područjima (ZP) uključuje interakciju različitih dionika koji su uključeni u proces upravljanja i financiranja, tj. od okvira upravljanja do mehanizama financiranja. Upravljački okvir postavlja osnovne preduvjete za upravljanje ZP, dok mehanizmi financiranja predstavljaju načine financiranja ZP na temelju dugoročnih i održivih uvjeta. Upravljanje ZP može se delegirati organizaciji, pojedincu ili zajednici, koja funkcionira u skladu s nizom zakona, pravila i / ili tradicijom. Isto tako, upravitelji ZP mogu se podijeliti na temelju toga tko donosi odluke i može se smatrati odgovornim. Jedna od važnih komponenti upravljanja ZP predstavlja održivo financiranje, što predstavlja temelj za ostvarivanje zaštite prirode. Održivo financiranje definira se kao sposobnost pružanja dovoljnih, stabilnih i dugoročnih financijskih izvora. Upravljanje ZP u Srbiji uglavnom provode javna poduzeća, dok je krajem devedesetih godina u Srbiji upravljanje ZP po prvi put dodijeljeno nevladinim organizacijama. Danas upravljanje provode različiti upravitelji iz javnog sektora i privatnog sektora. Planirano povećanje ZP u Srbiji uključuje skoro dvostruko veću površinu od sadašnje pokrivenosti i ta će činjenica stvoriti dodatnu obavezu za postojeće i nove upravitelje u budućem razdoblju, jer je održivo upravljanje ZP postalo izazov, kako sa upravljačkog, tako i sa financijskog gledišta. Ovo istraživanje bavi se različitim mehanizmima financiranja koji su prisutni u ZP u Srbiji. Također, bavi se razlikama u financiranju između različitih grupa upravitelja, kako bi se uspostavile najbolje prakse financiranja u sustavu upravljanja ZP u Srbiji. U fazi prikupljanja podataka korištena je anketa od vrata do vrata. Istraživanje se provodilo u dvije faze. U prvoj fazi, populacija za istraživanje definirana je na temelju registra ZP, od čega su izdvojena 63 ZP. U drugoj fazi, uzorak za istraživanje definiran je na temelju primjera "dobre prakse" upravitelja ZP i predstavnika javne uprave i službi, kao i organizacija u sustavu upravljanja ZP. Za obradu podataka korištena je deskriptivna statistika, frekvencijska analiza, Kruskal-Wallis-ov test i Mann-Whitney-jev U test. Kruskal-Wallis-ov test korišten je za određivanje razlika između svih grupa upravitelja, dok je Mann-Whitney-jev U test korišten za određivanje razlika između pojedinih grupa upravitelja. Rezultati pokazuju da javno poduzeće "Srbijašume" ima najmanji prosječan broj izvora financiranja, za razliku od javnog poduzeća "Vojvodinašume" (tablica 1). Što se tiče prosječnih iznosa financiranja, najveći dio financiranja imaju ostali upravitelji iz javnog sektora, dok ostala javna poduzeća bilježe najmanji iznos vlastitog financiranja (tablica 2). Na temelju rezultata prve faze istraživanja predloženi su elementi unaprjeđenja sustava upravljanja ZP za mehanizme financiranja (tablica 3). Predstavnici upravitelja ZP, javne uprave i službi, kao i organizacija, smatraju da politička volja donositelja odluka, kao i nepostojanje razumijevanja države za potrebe financiranja ZP, ima velik utjecaj na unaprjeđenje postojećih mehanizama financiranja. Također, predstavnici sve tri skupine vjeruju da lokalne vlasti nisu ni uključene u financiranje ZP-a i da postoji nedovoljna zainteresiranost drugih institucija. Kao problem u unaprjeđenju korištenja domaćih i međunarodnih izvora financiranja, predstavnici upravitelja ZP vide potrebu za dodatnim istraživanjima i problemom nedovoljne izobrazbe upravitelja, za podnošenje projektnih ideja, koje su vezane uz nedovoljnu informatičku pismenost.
The role of Natura 2000 network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often owned or managed by private forest owners. Natura 2000 benefits communities by enhancing tourism, regional brands and marketing. In private forests, however, its restrictions imposed on land owners cause financial losses in comparison to the usual forest management. The paper compares the level at which the compensation mechanism within the European Rural Development Programmes (RDP) for the period 2007–2013 was implemented in seven European Union countries - Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. The research focuses on compensation and restrictions within Measure 224 - Natura 2000 Payments - imposed on forest owners in Natura 2000 sites. To obtain the data, a non-reactive research method was applied using a content analysis of the existing documentation. The data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge based on common terms of reference. The results show that due to substantial gaps in the implementation of Measure 224 across the EU, there are significant differences in compensation and restrictions for private forest owners in individual countries of the European Union (EU). As opposed to the initial expectations of the measure, the financial support reached less than a third of the forest holdings and less than half of the forest land. The member states (MSs) which implemented the measure spent 92% of their original budget on average. Moreover, rural development funds for private forest owners are very limited and the implementation of Measure 224 says nothing about the success of Natura 2000 with regard to biodiversity targets in private forests. One approach to financing Natura 2000 network is a comprehensive use of all existing EU funds, another would be to propose own Natura 2000 fund.
The role of Natura 2000 network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often owned or managed by private forest owners. Natura 2000 benefits communities by enhancing tourism, regional brands and marketing. In private forests, however, its restrictions imposed on land owners cause financial losses in comparison to the usual forest management. The paper compares the level at which the compensation mechanism within the European Rural Development Programmes (RDP) for the period 2007–2013 was implemented in seven European Union countries - Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. The research focuses on compensation and restrictions within Measure 224 - Natura 2000 Payments - imposed on forest owners in Natura 2000 sites. To obtain the data, a non-reactive research method was applied using a content analysis of the existing documentation. The data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge based on common terms of reference. The results show that due to substantial gaps in the implementation of Measure 224 across the EU, there are significant differences in compensation and restrictions for private forest owners in individual countries of the European Union (EU). As opposed to the initial expectations of the measure, the financial support reached less than a third of the forest holdings and less than half of the forest land. The member states (MSs) which implemented the measure spent 92% of their original budget on average. Moreover, rural development funds for private forest owners are very limited and the implementation of Measure 224 says nothing about the success of Natura 2000 with regard to biodiversity targets in private forests. One approach to financing Natura 2000 network is a comprehensive use of all existing EU funds, another would be to propose own Natura 2000 fund.
The complex policy decision-making situation around nature conservation requires examination of the operational environment. This study develops and tests a three-phase analytical framework for the evaluation of operational environment factors influencing nature conservation policy implementation. The four important operational environment factors (legal, policy, economic, and social) have been identified, to build up a framework. The framework was tested in selected countries and includes experts' opinions. Experts (n = 44) from five EU countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Slovakia, and Slovenia) and four non-EU countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia) defined and evaluated the factors and sub-factors that affect the operational environment related to nature conservation policy implementation. The results show policy changes arising from the new governance requirements introduced by changed political regime and Europeanization are key driving factors for changes in the nature conservation operational environment. For nature conservation, these wide-reaching changes have led to new political and legal frameworks, new institutional set-ups and multilevel governance frameworks, new establishment of protected areas and Natura 2000 network, and the re-allocation of financial resources and inclusion of non-state actors in policy decision-making. However, there are also some challenges and unsolved problems that need further attention from policy decision-makers and institutions, especially related to the institutional gap, sustainable financing of nature conservation, transposition of the EU Directives into legal systems, designation of sites or improving their implementation, implementation of innovative funding schemes, and a transparent participatory process. This analytical framework can be applied to various problems related to any environmental issues or other policy implementation or management, and other sectors where public decision-making is combined with stakeholders' engagement.
