DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu
|ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2019 str. 51 <-- 51 --> PDF|
Regarding the training for the preparation of domestic and international projects, the representatives of PA managers (PENP, Company with limited responsibility – CLR, PES2, PEPL and MA7) see the lack of personnel capacities as a problem for both proposals, while the representative of PEPL emphasizes the problem of insufficient knowledge of information systems. There is a similar situation with the representatives of the IF who think that training does not guarantee the quality of the implementation, while the representative of the WWF points out that there is a problem of people’s availability to be trained in continuity and the representative of the FUTURA who points to the problem of insufficient networking with other PAs in the region.
The representatives of CLR, SOC and PES2 state that there is a lack of agencies for the preparation of projects at international level, while the representative of PENP and PEPL stress the insufficient funds for such activities. A representative of the INC believes that managers show a lack of interest to hire these agencies, while the representative of the PINC state that international projects are most often reduced to training, equipment and salaries, without real activities in nature protection.
Regarding the last proposal for improvement which refers to the encouragement of fee collection, the representatives of PA managers (PENP, CLR, PES2 and PEPL) see the resistance of the area users to pay the fees and the payment through court cases as the main problems (PENP, CLR and PEPL). The representatives of the IF, PINC, PEV and ILF also recognize these problems and state that there is a risk of losing the credibility due to the unintended use of the funds. There is also a danger of reducing the number of visitors (WWF).
The mechanisms of the PA management system financing are a very important component of the PA management system because “…without regular investments in the PA, it is impossible to achieve active management of PA and processes, nor achieve the planned goal of preserving the natural heritage” (Puzović 2008). Through the provision of stable and diversified sources of financing, it is possible to provide long-term sustainable financing of PAs, which is a prerequisite for sustainable management of PAs. In Croatia, PA financing is implemented through allocations at republic, regional local levels, but tourism revenues account for 6-80% of the total revenues (Spurgeon et al. 2009). In Slovenia, in half of the cases, PA managers have a problem with the uncertainty about future funding by the state, while annual allocations are sufficient in most PAs (Veenviet and Sovinc 2008). The situation is the same in Croatia (Porej and Rajkovic, 2009). The World Bank funding survey for the developed and developing countries carried out in 1999 points to large differences in the mean values since it amounts to 20.6 US$•ha–1 in developed countries and 1.6US$•ha-1 in developing countries (James et al. 1999). Furthermore, the research carried out in developed countries shows that tourism revenues increase every year (Nevenić 2006). In Croatia, nature protection is mostly financed from the state budget and it accounts for 0.06% of the total state budget fund of the Republic of Croatia. The financing from local municipalises is much smaller (DZZP 2017).
With regard to the financing of PAs in Serbia, the average number of financing sources was found to be significantly higher with PEV than other MAs. The financing of PAs in Croatia is carried out through the Ministry of Environment and Energy, regional and local self-governments and EU funds (Martinić 2010). A previously conducted research in Serbia indicates that the revenues in national parks are mostly generated by the sale of goods and services, while the income from fees makes up only 12.4% of the total revenue (Đorđević et al. 2013/b). The research on the income generated by MAs of PAs has not been done, but some studies indicate that the tourism income in PAs is of increasing importance (Dahmaratne 2000, Eagles et al. 2002, Nevenić 2006, Eagles and Hillel 2008). In addition, one of the sources of PA financing can be the funds intended for the Natura 2000 network. Thus, there are several funds or programs used to finance this network in EU countries (Kettunen et al. 2014). In the future, these sources of funding can be used as a basis for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network, as well as additional financing sources for various activities in PAs, from research to education. However, they require partnership cooperation between different PAs. Looking at the case of Serbia, it is obvious that international grants are scarce. In the case of Croatia, financing from international sources, including grants and loans, are an increasingly important source of financing nature protection, while in the sector of nature protection, analyses show that significant number of institutions from nature protection did not use international funds at all (2017). Besides, the fund for environmental protection and energy efficiency has significant resources, but only 1.5% of this fund is spent on nature protection (2017). In Serbia, this kind of analysis has not been done yet. Therefore, it makes an important issue for further studies.
The representatives of PA managers, public administration and service, and organizations believe that the political will of decision-makers and the lack of understanding of the state for the needs of PA financing have the major impact on the improvement of the existing financing mechanisms. Besides, the representatives of all three groups believe that local governments are not sufficiently involved in the financing of PAs and there is insufficient interest of other