DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu



ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2019 str. 44     <-- 44 -->        PDF

diversity” (2009), while the International Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN) defines these areas as “…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“ (Emerton et al. 2006). The system of PA management represents the interaction between managers, i.e., organizations that are entrusted management and its environment. The environment in which the PA managers are located includes strategic, legislative and institutional frameworks that set the basic prerequisites for the functioning of this system. Additionally, one of the most important prerequisites for PA management is the interaction between PA managers and the local community, which is carried out through public participation. This participation has become a widely accepted principle of work in PA management institutions (Martinić 2010). At state level, the system of PA management is regulated directly through the Law on Nature Protection and responsible institutions (competent ministry, Institute for Nature Conservation, etc.), while at the level of European Union (EU), Natura 2000 represents the basic program (regulated through the Habitat and Bird Directive), whose aim is to provide favourable conditions for endangered species and habitats through establishing an ecological network of the most important areas for their preservation (Posavec et al. 2011).
PA management can be delegated to an organization, individual or community which operates according to a set of laws, rules and/or traditions (Chape et al. 2008). Additionally, PA managers can be classified according to their authority to make decisions and the degree of their accountability (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013). According to the IUCN, governmental and non-governmental participants in PA management are distinguished. The governmental participants include local authorities, agencies, PEs, etc., while the non-governmental participants are individuals, local communities, NGOs, religious organizations, enterprises (privately-owned) and corporations (Đorđević et al. 2014, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013).
One of the important components of PA management is sustainable financing, which represents the basis for the realization of nature protection. Sustainable financing is defined as “… ability to provide sufficient, stable and long-term financial resources” (Emerton et al., 2006). It is necessary to provide adequate financial resources at the appropriate time and form, in order to “...cover the full PA costs, and ensure the effective and efficient management of the PA, in accordance with the objectives of protection and other objectives” (Worboys et al. 2010). Sustainable financing can be provided through the diversification of revenues (Philips 1998, Eagles et al. 2002, Bowarnick et al. 2010, Avramov et al. 2012), i.e., by introducing innovative mechanisms and continuous financing of activities in the PA.
If we compare the ways revenues are collected and used, three categories of funding mechanisms can be distinguished (Emerton et al. 2006, Sprugeon et al. 2009):
1. external financing mechanisms (including government and donor budgets);
2. mechanisms for raising funds to encourage nature protection activities (including cost-benefit sharing, investment and company funds, fiscal instruments and arrangements for private and joint management of PA resources);
3. mechanisms that include market revenues for goods and services of PAs (including fees for using PAs and revenues from tourism and payment of ecosystem services).
Protected area management in Serbia – Upravljanje zaštićenim područjima u Srbiji
The planned increase in the PA in Serbia envisages a double larger area than the current coverage (Đorđević et al. 2017). This fact will create an additional obligation for existing and new managers in the forthcoming period because the sustainable PA management has become a challenge, not only for the nature protection sector but for other sectors (Grujičić et al. 2008). Sustainable management also means sustainable financing mechanisms, which need to be improved, given the planned increase in the PA.
In the late ‘90s of the 20th century, PS was present as the main type of PA manager in Serbia. However, by adopting the Law on Environmental Protection (1991) the process of decentralization was started. It  moved the focus of PA management to PrS. At the time, the management of PAs in Serbia was for the first time given to NGOs, i.e., PrS (Đorđević et al. 2014, Nonić et al. 2015). The research conducted so far point out the fact that besides the two types of PA managers (PS and PrS), there are numerous categories and subcategories of managers[1] in Serbia (Đorđević et al. 2014, Nonić et al. 2015, Đorđević et al. 2017, Đorđević, 2018).
PA financing in Serbia is directly defined by the Law on Nature Protection (2009) and includes three sources (Đorđević et al. 2013/b): the budget of the Republic of Serbia, the revenues obtained by the organization that manages the PA, and donations. One of the main problems in financing PAs in Serbia is related to the unresolved issue of PA financing, since the funds are most often devoted to the basic functions (ranger service, marking, preparation of planning documents, etc.), while the financing of concrete activities of protection and monitoring is almost completely ignored in practice (Puzović 2008). It must be also emphasized that