In the context of nature protected areas – geographically defined spaces designated for the protection of nature and managed to ensure the long-term preservation of natural ecosystems and their accompanying services – greater emphasis is often placed on land, while aquatic environments are usually given secondary importance. This is quite unusual, considering that more than 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by seas and oceans, that these ecosystems are vital to human society, health, and economy, and that life without them would not be possible. On the other hand, life in the seas and oceans could continue without issue if humans disappeared – and that is something we must always keep in mind: seas and oceans do not depend on us, we depend on them.
According to the World database on protected areas, coverage of protected land and freshwater areas amounts to about 16% (286,810 areas), while the share of marine protected areas is half that – just over 8% (16,502 areas). For comparison, Croatia’s ecological network currently covers 25,956 km², accounting for 36.8% of the country’s land area and 9.3% of its marine territory under national jurisdiction. Let us recall that by 2030, under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, we have committed to legally protecting 30% of both terrestrial and marine areas under national jurisdiction. This protection is essential if we are to have any chance of halting the dual crises currently underway: biodiversity loss and climate change.
This figure needs to be increased because the establishment of marine protected areas ensures the preservation of natural values and marine biodiversity, as well as the sustainable use of resources –especially important in coastal and marine protected areas where there are many potential pressures such as fishing and tourism. These pressures have led to declines in the populations of many fish species, marine mammals, seagrasses (e.g., Posidonia), and other marine species.
By establishing protection for a particular area, we create the conditions for preserving, restoring, and strengthening its biodiversity. Over time, this protected area becomes more resilient to a range of external threats, such as wildfires, pollution, and even climate change.
These areas are also often centers of research and scientific progress because they allow for in-depth study of species populations, ecosystem dynamics, and interactions between humans and wildlife over long periods. This is extremely useful, as the more we know about nature, the better we can protect it!
However, to respond to the growing threats to nature and lay a positive foundation for achieving the Sustainable development goals, we need more than just percentages and hectares on a map. A legal and institutional framework analysis conducted as part of the EFFICIENTN2K project (Interreg Italy – Croatia) highlighted numerous opportunities to improve the protection system, both in Croatia and at the international level. Key recommendations for improving the protection of these areas are outlined below.
1. Strengthening institutional coordination and transparency
Shared responsibility among various bodies involved in monitoring and law enforcement often leads to overlap, inefficiency, and a lack of a holistic approach to nature conservation. To overcome this, a unified protocol for cooperation among all relevant bodies (inspectors, rangers, police, judiciary, and others) should be established. This would expedite case resolution and increase transparency.
It is also recommended to improve information sharing among institutions by developing joint databases and standardized procedures for handling cases, which would enable faster and more efficient responses to violations.
These measures would facilitate collaboration between sectors such as nature conservation, spatial planning, fisheries, and maritime affairs, while reducing the likelihood of implementation gaps in law enforcement.
2. Development of a national strategy and action plan
The absence of a long-term strategic framework limits the capacity to effectively combat environmental crime. We propose the creation of a national strategy and action plan to combat environmental crimes, including clear goals, timelines, and the allocation of responsibilities.
It is also important to standardize judicial practice to ensure consistency in punishing offenders. To implement the strategy and improve monitoring capacities, sufficient financial, technological, and human resources should be provided.
The strategy should be based on preventive measures and supported by regular evaluations to ensure it remains adaptable to new challenges.
3. Education and awareness raising
A lack of awareness about the consequences of environmental crimes among key stakeholders and the general public often leads to underestimation of the issue. It is recommended to educate key actors, including inspectors, rangers, police officers, judges, and public prosecutors, with a particular focus on the importance and impacts of environmental crimes. Regular training programs would ensure better preparedness for handling complex cases.
Raising public awareness through campaigns and educational programs is also of great importance. These should emphasize the significance of preserving natural resources and the consequences of their destruction on the environment and society. A higher level of awareness could have a preventive effect, reducing the number of offenses and encouraging more responsible behavior.
4. Improving data collection and monitoring systems
Effective monitoring of protected areas requires accurate and reliable data, but we are currently facing inconsistencies in data collection and reporting. A key recommendation from the project is to standardize procedures for collecting and reporting on the status of protected areas, which would ensure data comparability across different sectors and institutions. Improved monitoring systems would enable better tracking of conditions in protected areas and more precise evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented measures.
It is also necessary to ensure data accessibility across sectors – including nature conservation, spatial planning, maritime affairs, and fisheries – as this would facilitate better planning and more efficient use of resources.
5. Proactive monitoring and prevention measures
Current monitoring practices are often reactive, meaning interventions occur only after a law has been violated. Therefore, it is necessary to shift from reactive to proactive monitoring measures, such as regular patrols and preventive inspections, to prevent offenses before they occur.
It is also recommended to provide specialized equipment and training for field monitoring and inspections, including the use of advanced technologies such as drones and sensors to track activities in hard-to-reach areas.
A proactive approach would reduce pressure on the judicial system and enable more effective management of protected areas.
International cooperation: the example of Croatia and Italy
An analysis of the management of Natura 2000 areas in Croatia and Italy revealed that the two countries share some common challenges, such as fragmented coordination and management, limited resources, inconsistencies in data collection and reporting, and reactive monitoring practices.
This was confirmed by joint workshops, capacity-building programs, and collaborative demonstration surveillance activities in Natura 2000 areas organized as part of the project. However, these events also demonstrated how cooperation can contribute to more effective monitoring and implementation of protection measures in marine protected areas. Strengthening cooperation between the two countries through knowledge exchange and the development of a joint strategy could significantly improve nature conservation in both states. With better coordination, education, and transparency, Croatia and Italy can lay the foundation for a more effective protection system capable of responding to current and future challenges.
The project’s recommendations will serve as a foundation for developing new project ideas and as a key reference for understanding priority areas in future advocacy efforts aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network in marine and coastal areas.
