prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 9-10/2019 str. 77     <-- 77 -->        PDF

III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: 1001–1082, Cambridge and New York
Thynne, I. 2008: Climate change, governance and environmental services: instituional perspectives, issues and challenges, Public Administration and Development 28: 327-333, Hoboken
Živojinović, I., B. Wolfslehner, J. Tomićević-Dubljević, 2015: Social and PolicyAspects of Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Forests of Belgrade, SEEFOR 6 (2): 219-235, Jastrebarsko
World Bank 2005: Forest institutions in transition: Experiences and Lessons in Eastern Europe. WorldBank, 96 p., Washington DC
Global environmental and ecological problems such as climate change and other related issues (e.g. biodiversity losses) do not recognize state boundaries. Therefore, intentions to address these problems require a multi-actor, multi-sector and multilevel approach. The concept that enables joint effort against these problems implies an active participation of all stakeholders, establishes the rules for shared responsibilities and strives to make efficient and effective procedures for addressing these issues is known as “governance” (Mutabdžija, 2012).
Climate change and occurance of extreme events are presenting a threat to the natural resources, exposing the vulnerabilities of current resource governance regimes, including also forestry and nature conservation. The occurance of extreme events in last several years thretened the natural resources and impacted the forestry sector in all four selected countries of Southeast Europe (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia). This has provided a further arguments for understanding the institutional framework for climate change governance in forestry and nature conservation as important element in dealing with uncertanties posed by the climate change challenges on natural resources.
Hence, the aim of the paper is to examine the institutional frameworks of forestry and nature conservation, as well as the attitudes of respondents about the competences of the relevant institutions and organizations, to identify the need to improve the existing framework and to evaluate their interests and impacts in climate change governance.
In this research were used individual, structured interviews as a research technique in collecting the primary data. The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions, divided into 5 groups. For the purposes of this paper, responses to questions related to institutional frameworks for climate change governance in forestry and nature conservation are analyzed. The sample consisted of 29 representatives (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina – 8, Croatia – 6, Serbia – 10, Slovenia – 5) from public administrations and services in forestry and nature conservation, enterprises and organization for forest and protected area management, educational and research organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The respondents were selected by judgemental sampling.
Current institutional framework for climate change governance comprises of various institutions and organizations in all analyzed countries (Table 1). In selected countries, there is a clear division of responsibilities between public administration institutions in forestry and nature conservation (these institutions are directly or indirectly are related to forestry). There is a number of common primary objectives within the given competencies common to the same organizational category (Table 2), in all four countries. Despite current institutional and organizational variaty and competency alignment between different institutions and organizations, there is a need for further improvement of institutional framework for climate change governance through cooperation and coordination, accross different sectors, institutions and organizations, as stated by the respondents attittudes (Table 3 and 4). Respondents attitudes towards the interest and influence of institutions/organizations on climate change governance are mostly showing a visible interest but indicating challenges in providing suitable inflluence (Table 5). Also, visible discrepancy in assessment of the interest and influence of institutions and organizations on climate change governance is between the respondents from Slovenia and Croatia at one side and respondents from Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia at the other side, indicates differences in inclusion of climate change challenges accross different competency levels. Regardless of the category of institutions and organizations, the respondents recognized the importance of the investigated issues and they assessed its interest as “high” and “very high” (Table 6).
Further development of suitable institutional frameworks for climate change governance in forestry and nature conservation needs additional attention especially in the field of multilevel coordination between different actors and their activities, as well as the acknowledgment of potentially significant influence forestry sector might have in climate change governance.
Key words: institutional framework, climate change governance, forestry, nature conservation, Southeast Europe