Protected areas are the foundation of biodiversity conservation – they protect nature and the services it provides, improve lives, and promote sustainable development.
“A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.”
IUCN (World Conservation Congress), 2008
According to the Nature Protection Act, in Croatia, protected parts of nature include protected areas, protected minerals and fossils, as well as strictly protected species. As an additional protection mechanism, the ecological network Natura 2000 has also been established. Protected areas are further divided into nine categories: strict reserve, national park, special reserve, nature park, regional park, natural monument, significant landscape, forest park, and monument of park architecture. Ecological networks are divided into areas significant for bird conservation (SPAs) and areas significant for species and habitat types conservation (SACs).
However, the fact that a terrestrial or marine area is placed under protection is not a victory in itself but merely the first step. For nature within the boundaries of these areas to be truly preserved, it is necessary to establish quality, responsible, and professional management.
For the past year and a half, we have been intensively advocating for this as part of the EFFICIENTN2K project (Interreg Italy – Croatia). Our goal was to improve the cooperation of institutions involved in the control and surveillance of protected coastal and marine Natura 2000 areas to ensure the protection of key natural resources. Since various institutions have jurisdiction over the sea and coastal areas, coastal and marine protected zones are particularly challenging to manage, while the situation on land is somewhat easier to regulate.
The initial project activity included a comprehensive analysis of the institutional and legal framework of existing capacities for controlling priority pressures arising from human activities in coastal and marine Natura 2000 areas. The analysis encompassed:
- existing pressures resulting from daily human activities,
- relevant regulations for their control,
- competent authorities responsible for surveillance and enforcement (and their capacities),
- identified weaknesses and barriers to more effective protection in the field.
During the analysis, available data and documents were used, including management plans, laws, regulations, reports, statistical data on surveillance activities and protection enforcement, as well as the results of stakeholder interviews conducted through semi-structured questionnaires.
Below is a summary of the main weaknesses of the system.
1. Inconsistent judicial practice and lenient penalties
Despite the successful transposition of European Union legal standards in nature protection into national legislation and the established institutional framework for combating environmental crimes, there is room for improvement in the current regulations and better cooperation between competent authorities. Although regulations are generally aligned with European and international obligations, handling individual cases presents a challenge for enforcement and prosecution authorities.
Judicial practices related to environmental crimes are complex, inconsistent, and lack transparency, while the penalty policy is lenient. In criminal cases, conditional sentences are typically imposed, except in cases of repeated offenses, while in misdemeanour cases, extremely low fines are most often imposed.
In misdemeanour and criminal legislation, guidelines for interpreting legal terms and determining penalties are also missing. The Regulation on Compensation for Damage to Protected Animal Species is outdated and inconsistent with current laws.
2. Incomplete plans and regulations
Spatial plans and strategic documents often do not consider natural values. Anchoring and mooring regulations are inconsistent, while there is a lack of facilities for the reception of ship waste in ports and anchorages. Inspections poorly monitor pollution from boats, despite the growth of nautical tourism, and nautical infrastructure is often built in environmentally unsuitable locations. County plans rarely take the Natura 2000 network into account, and fishery plans do not integrate nature protection conditions.
The regulation of moorings and anchorages in protected areas is not systematic, while inconsistent anchoring rules damage sensitive habitats, such as seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica). The lack of appropriate ship waste reception facilities and ambiguities in wastewater regulations further complicate the situation, especially in nautical tourism, which is continuously growing. Fisheries management plans often bypass impact assessment mechanisms on the Natura 2000 ecological network. Activities such as anchoring, changes in spatial plans, and poor regulation of nautical tourism negatively affect sensitive ecosystems.
3. Low awareness and concern for environmental crimes
It is assumed that there is a discrepancy between the number of committed and detected and prosecuted cases of environmental crimes, which is the result of low awareness of this type of crime and a lack of understanding of its significance and consequences among both – the public and the competent authorities (police, customs, judiciary).
In general, regular specific education is lacking in all segments of the process of combating environmental crimes.
4. Insufficient capacities and coordination
The services responsible for monitoring and identifying environmental crimes are understaffed (inspection and rangers), resulting in reduced capability to immediately detect punishable acts. For example, the State Inspectorate (DIRH) was established to reduce overlapping jurisdictions, but there are still numerous areas not covered by inspection oversight, including marine protected areas. Additionally, inspections are poorly equipped and face staffing shortages, their work is not organized outside working hours, and rangers do not have the status of official persons, which further complicates their work.
Despite the large number of involved stakeholders, information and experiences are rarely exchanged, and there is no centralized database of best practices. Furthermore, coordination is not formally established, and clear procedures and legal support are lacking when dealing with such crimes. Insufficient coordination, combined with the slow action of institutions, often results in the loss of key evidence.
Significant changes are needed in the system
The analysis of the weaknesses in the nature protection system has shown that, while the legal and institutional framework is well-established, significant changes are needed to address the challenges of modern protected area management. Incomplete regulation, a lack of resources and coordination among competent authorities, poor monitoring of key pressures from human activities, and insufficient awareness of protected marine and coastal areas highlight the need for major changes.
In the next article, we will discuss specific recommendations for improving on-the-ground protection effectiveness, derived from this analysis. Stay with us!
More details on this issue can be found in the document:
Špika, M., Rajković, Ž., Zrnčić, V., Miletić, A., Jakl, Z., & Dokoza, F. (2024). Analiza institucionalnog i pravnog okvira postojećih kapaciteta u zaštićenim područjima u Hrvatskoj. Sunce. Interreg Italy – Croatia EFFICIENTN2K Project, 220 pages.
