**1. Introduction**

Protected areas, as the most significant and representative areas with exceptional natural value, are predestined to become model defined natural areas, ensuring permanent harmony between biodiversity conservation objectives and the environment as a whole, while permitting the rational use of space and natural resources, and contributing to the prosperity of the local community in the area surrounding the protected area.

The management of protected areas in the Republic of Croatia largely achieves the targets defined in the Strategy and Action Plan for Nature Protection of the Republic of Croatia (NSAP) [1, 2], the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), the Aichi Biodiversity Targets,<sup>1</sup> and other relevant national and global programmes [3, 4, 5].

In abiding by the standard success benchmarks for managing protected areas, drafted by IUCN,<sup>2</sup> it can be stated that Croatia has achieved prominent results for most protected area functions [6].

Additionally, according to the assessments of WWF, the Croatian protected areas system has been confirmed as efficient in the sense of protecting biodiversity,<sup>3</sup> and its management success markedly surpasses that of other protected areas in the region [7].

On the other hand, certain recent analyses of the Croatian parks system [8–10] have indicated that the requirements for further development of the system have only been partially achieved, with the lack of an integral vision, non-standardised management, financing difficulties, sporadic sectoral policies, a backlog of property and legal issues, and so on, are

**Figure 1.** Celebration of "Burnumske ide" in Krka National Park—Celebrate full moon nights at the site of the Roman

structure, in which more than 70% of management costs go towards employee salaries and material costs, and less than 15% of revenues are invested into programmes, including proj-

tem, the fundamental barriers lie in the systematic weaknesses of the institutional framework, including inefficient management, and the issues of consistency, allocation and efficacy of financing national protected areas. The same report lists that there is not a comprehensive strategic plan for protected areas, only a limited number of standardised policies and procedures for directing the implementation of best management practices. As such, the 19 public institutions (8 national parks and 11 nature parks), currently function completely independent of one another, with limited accountability to the central government bodies for fulfilling

their ongoing revision at the national level [12]. Criteria need to be developed and priorities proposed to proclaim new protected areas, and also to determine priorities for the inclusion of Croatian protected areas into global networks, such as the UNESCO World Heritage List,

national and international obligations concerning nature conservation [11].

The system is also marked by a highly unfavourable expenditure

Development Vision of Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia: National Park "Krka" as…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72595

27

in order to improve management of the Croatian parks sys-

the further development of protected areas in Croatia will require

recognised as weaknesses.<sup>4</sup>

According to a UNDP report,<sup>6</sup>

According to Martinić,<sup>7</sup>

4

5

6

7

See Martinić [9].

See UNDP [11].

See Martinić [9].

See Martinić et al. [10].

ects to support the local community development.<sup>5</sup>

Amphitheatre Burnum from 76/77 AD. (Photo gallery NP Krka).

The strategic objectives of the development of a protected areas system in Croatia (hereinafter: Croatian parks system), are defined by the NSAP. The primary objectives are the integral validation of protected areas, improving quality and efficacy of their management, and ensuring active public involvement in the planning and management of protected areas [7].

An overview of the accomplishments achieved over the past 10 years in the management of protected areas in Croatia includes the following:


2 IUCN—International Union of Conservation of Nature.

<sup>1</sup> Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2011–2020; www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtml.

<sup>3</sup> According to a WWF analysis, a total of 133 biodiversity targets were identified in Croatia; 78 targets (58.6%) are adequately covered by protected areas, 52 (39.1%) have been identified as gaps, and 3 (2.3%) as complete gaps—in the project "Dinaric Arc Ecoregion Gap Analysis".

Development Vision of Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia: National Park "Krka" as… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72595 27

**Figure 1.** Celebration of "Burnumske ide" in Krka National Park—Celebrate full moon nights at the site of the Roman Amphitheatre Burnum from 76/77 AD. (Photo gallery NP Krka).

On the other hand, certain recent analyses of the Croatian parks system [8–10] have indicated that the requirements for further development of the system have only been partially achieved, with the lack of an integral vision, non-standardised management, financing difficulties, sporadic sectoral policies, a backlog of property and legal issues, and so on, are recognised as weaknesses.<sup>4</sup> The system is also marked by a highly unfavourable expenditure structure, in which more than 70% of management costs go towards employee salaries and material costs, and less than 15% of revenues are invested into programmes, including projects to support the local community development.<sup>5</sup>

According to a UNDP report,<sup>6</sup> in order to improve management of the Croatian parks system, the fundamental barriers lie in the systematic weaknesses of the institutional framework, including inefficient management, and the issues of consistency, allocation and efficacy of financing national protected areas. The same report lists that there is not a comprehensive strategic plan for protected areas, only a limited number of standardised policies and procedures for directing the implementation of best management practices. As such, the 19 public institutions (8 national parks and 11 nature parks), currently function completely independent of one another, with limited accountability to the central government bodies for fulfilling national and international obligations concerning nature conservation [11].

According to Martinić,<sup>7</sup> the further development of protected areas in Croatia will require their ongoing revision at the national level [12]. Criteria need to be developed and priorities proposed to proclaim new protected areas, and also to determine priorities for the inclusion of Croatian protected areas into global networks, such as the UNESCO World Heritage List,

**1. Introduction**

26 National Parks - Management and Conservation

IUCN,<sup>2</sup>

functions [6].

Protected areas, as the most significant and representative areas with exceptional natural value, are predestined to become model defined natural areas, ensuring permanent harmony between biodiversity conservation objectives and the environment as a whole, while permitting the rational use of space and natural resources, and contributing to the prosperity of the

The management of protected areas in the Republic of Croatia largely achieves the targets defined in the Strategy and Action Plan for Nature Protection of the Republic of Croatia (NSAP) [1, 2], the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), the Aichi Biodiversity Targets,<sup>1</sup>

In abiding by the standard success benchmarks for managing protected areas, drafted by

Additionally, according to the assessments of WWF, the Croatian protected areas system has

The strategic objectives of the development of a protected areas system in Croatia (hereinafter: Croatian parks system), are defined by the NSAP. The primary objectives are the integral validation of protected areas, improving quality and efficacy of their management, and ensuring active public involvement in the planning and management of protected areas [7].

An overview of the accomplishments achieved over the past 10 years in the management of

• Institutional strengthening of nature conservation at the national, county, and local levels, with a strong positioning of the Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature (HAOP), as the central expert institution for nature conservation, including the function of develop-

• Establishment of a common policy system in the operation of public institutions for manag-

• Accession, ratification and implementation of all international agreements in the field of nature conservation, and the establishment of a national legislative framework in the area of nature conservation that is aligned with the European Union, the *Acquis Communautaire*,

According to a WWF analysis, a total of 133 biodiversity targets were identified in Croatia; 78 targets (58.6%) are adequately covered by protected areas, 52 (39.1%) have been identified as gaps, and 3 (2.3%) as complete gaps—in the

• Successful implementation of a large number of international projects (**Figure 1**).

it can be stated that Croatia has achieved prominent results for most protected area

and

and its management suc-

local community in the area surrounding the protected area.

other relevant national and global programmes [3, 4, 5].

protected areas in Croatia includes the following:

ment and improving park system management,

Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2011–2020; www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtml.

IUCN—International Union of Conservation of Nature.

project "Dinaric Arc Ecoregion Gap Analysis".

ing protected areas,

1

2

3

been confirmed as efficient in the sense of protecting biodiversity,<sup>3</sup>

cess markedly surpasses that of other protected areas in the region [7].

5 See Martinić et al. [10].

<sup>4</sup> See Martinić [9].

<sup>6</sup> See UNDP [11].

<sup>7</sup> See Martinić [9].

the UNESCO Man and Biosphere (MaB) programme, the Ramsar list of internationally important wetlands, the Geoparks network, and so on.

The current operational objectives for the parks system pertain to improving the fundamental management documents, digitising boundaries, resolving property ownership issues and the like. A special objective of the NSAP is the establishment of a representative and functional network of protected areas, with the prior assessment of these protected areas according to the IUCN categories, and an analysis of their representativeness and functionality, in order to determine priorities and means of resolving outstanding issues.
