establishment of natura 2000 network in montenegro

Selected models of

Natura 2000

developments in

Balkan countries and

Natura 2000 concept

for Montenegro

Establishment of Natura 2000

network in Montenegro

June 2017

This document is funded by the European Commission. The paper

is the result of an independent review and does not necessarily

reflect the views and opinions of the European Commission.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS

Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

Agency for Environmental Protection and Nature Protection

2 /

46

Document control

Project data

Project Title Establishment of NATURA 2000 network – Montenegro

Contract Number 374-589

Country of fulfilment Montenegro

Beneficiary Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MoSDT)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Contractor AAM Management Information Consulting Ltd. (AAM)

Authors

Prepared by Peter Skoberne

Quality assurance Sissi Samec

Status of document

Submitted on June 2017

Version 2.0

Status Draft

For approval

Approved

Change History

Version Date Created by Version description

1.0 February 2017 AAM Consulting Draft version sent to SC members

for comments

2.0 June 2017 AAM Consulting Final version

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



3 /

46

Table of Contents

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

3. INTRODUCTION 9

4. DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT IN SELECTED BALKAN

COUNTRIES 10

4.1 Slovenia 10

4.1.1 Accession phase – First steps (1997 – 2003) 10

4.1.2 Accession phase – Natura 2000 project (2003 – 2004) 10

4.1.3 Member state phase (from 2004) 13

4.1.4 Slovenia: Concept and Lessons learned 14

4.2 Croatia 15

4.2.1 1st step (2001 – 2008): Collection and interpretation of available literature and/or field data 15

4.2.2 2nd step (2006 – 2011): Focused research and data gathering, establishment of the National

ecological network 17

4.2.3 3rd step (2008 – 2009): Consultation process with relevant stakeholders 18

4.2.4 4th step (2010 – 2013): Fine tuning, closing gaps, technical adaptations 18

4.2.5 5th step (2013): Accession to the EU and adoption of the Natura 2000 network 18

4.2.6 Croatia: Concept and Lessons learned 19

4.3 Bulgaria 19

4.3.1 Stage 1: Transposition of the EU legislation 20

4.3.2 Stage 2: Inventory of potential Natura 2000 sites 20

4.3.3 Stage 3: Review and approval of proposed list of Natura 2000 sites 21

4.3.4 Stage 4: Supplementary and follow-up actions 23

4.3.5 Bulgaria: Concepts and Lessons Learned 24

4.4 Serbia 24

4.5 IPA Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina 25

4.5.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina: Lessons learned 28

5. NATURA 2000 CONCEPT FOR MONTENEGRO 29

5.1 Natura 2000 concept and national ecological network 29

5.2 Technical background 30 5.2.1 Reference lists 30

5.2.2 Biogeographical regions 31

5.2.3 Verification of sufficiency of the Natura 2000 proposed sites (Biogeographical seminar) 32

5.2.4 Expert teams and data availability 35

5.2.5 Emerald network 37

5.2.6 Important Plant Areas project 38

5.2.7 Natura 2000 and areas designated by international treaties 39

5.2.8 Natura 2000 and protected areas 39

5.2.9 Work on pre-selected areas 40

5.2.10 Designing site boundaries and central data base 41

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



4 /

46

5.3 Organisational and legal matters 41

5.4 Communication 42

6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43

7. REFERENCES 45

Figures:

Figure 1: Illustration of the result of review of distribution data of all habitat types and species from

reference lists (different colours and patterns refer to different habitat types/species)

Figure 2: Ecologically important areas (Governmental Decree) – National ecological network

Figure 3: Technical proposal for the Natura 2000 network (2004). Pink areas are SPAs, green areas are

pSCIs (overlapping of both areas is not visible)

Figure 4: Adopted Natura 2000 network (SPA and pSCI) by the Government (2004)

Figure 5: Obligations before and after entering the EU

Figure 6: Emerald network in Croatia (Jelenić, I., 2014) – Blue areas (A): important for birds, green areas (B):

important for habitat types and non-bird species, dots: ‘point’ localities for habitat types and non-

bird species, orange areas (C): areas important for birds, habitat types and non-bird species

Figure 7: National ecological network (NEN) in Croatia (Jelenić, I., 2014) – Green areas: habitat types and

non-bird species, Blue areas: bird species

Figure 8: Natura 2000 network in Croatia (Jelenić, I., 2014) – Green areas: pSCI proposal, Blue areas: SPA

sites

Figure 9: Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria

Figure 10: Selected potential Natura 2000 sites in BiH

Figure 11: Biogeographical regions in Montenegro

Figure 12: Composition of biogeographical seminar

Figure 13: Step-by-step completion of the Natura 2000 obligations in Slovenia. It can be clearly seen that

the proportion of the national territory is not crucial for meeting obligations

Figure 14: IPA areas in Montenegro (Source: http://www.plantlifeipa.org/Reports.asp?v=vRepCty&i=236)

Tables

Table 1: List of Emerald sites, adopted in 2015 by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. The sites

that correspond to the pre-selected areas of the project are shadowed.

Boxes

Box 1: Structure of sub-activity 1.3.1 under the ToR of the project

Box 2: Time line of preparation of proposal for Natura 2000 in Bulgaria

Box 3: Possible conclusions for each species/habitat type within particular biogeographical region ad-

dressed at the biogeographical seminar

Box 4: Formula for calculating MS sufficiency index (how complete the Natura 2000 network is!)

http://www.plantlifeipa.org/Reports.asp?v=vRepCty&i=236

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



5 /

46

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA Appropriate Assessment

ARSO Environmental Agency (Slovenia)

Art. Article

BD Birds Directive

BDA Biological Diversity Act (Bulgaria)

BGS

BiH

Biogeographical seminar

Bosnia and Herzegovina

CEIE

CoM

DANCEE

Centre for Environmental Information and Education (Bulgaria)

Council of Ministers (Bulgaria)

Danish Environmental Assistance to Eastern Europe

DOPPS Društvo za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic Slovenije (national BirdLife partner)

EC

ECJ

European Commission

European Court of Justice

EEA European Environmental Agency

EEC European Economic Community

EIONET European Environment Information and Observation Network (EEA)

EMEPA Entity for Enforcement of Environmental Protection Activities (Bulgaria)

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPO Ekološko pomembno območje (Ecologically Important Area) – Slovenia

ETC European Topic Centre on Biodiversity

EU European Union

GEF Global Environmental Facility

HD Habitats Directive

IBA Important Bird Area

IUCN International Union for Nature Conservation

IPA

IPA

Important Plant Area

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

KBA

LIFE

Key Biodiversity Area

EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental, nature conservation and

climate action project

LoNP Law on Nature Protection

MNE Montenegro

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



6 /

46

MoEW Ministry of Environment and Water (Bulgaria)

MoSDT Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

MS

NBDC

Member State

National Biological Diversity Council (Bulgaria)

NEN National ecological network (Croatia)

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PHARE Former programme assisting Central and Eastern European countries in their

preparations for joining the European Union

PSC Project Steering Committee

pSCI Proposed Site of Community Importance

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SCI Site of Community Importance

SDF Standard Data Form

SPA Special Protection Area

ToR

UNESCO

UNESCO MAB

Terms of Reference

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_and_Eastern_Europe

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



7 /

46

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The document was elaborated within the IPA Project ’Establishment of NATURA 2000 network’, providing

technical assistance to Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MoSDT) and Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (EPA) with the purpose to carry out necessary activities for laying the foundations of the fu-

ture Natura 2000 network in Montenegro, in full agreement with the requirements of the EU Birds and Habi-

tats Directives.

Some approaches from different accession periods for developing national Natura 2000 networks in select-

ed Balkan countries are presented in the first part of the document. Slovenia is chosen as the country of the

first round from the Balkan region that entered the European Union (2004), Bulgaria as the next one (2007)

and Croatia as the last one (2013). Some of IPA’s experiences of Serbia (candidate country) and Bosnia &

Herzegovina (potential candidate country), which are relevant to Montenegro, are presented as well.

For Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria specific circumstances, as well as the summary of the process, are pre-

sented, including conclusions on Natura 2000 concept and lessons learned.

Regarding legal and technical aspects, there are no differences in the obligations in all cases. There are

certain similarities in all mentioned countries: there is rich biodiversity, low scientific, technical and adminis-

trative capacity and relatively low political support, especially in the early phase of the process. Since the

transposition of the EU Nature Directives and Natura 2000 network is a condition for approximation, political

interest for Natura 2000 consequently rises.

Meeting the obligations of the EU Nature Directives requires highly technical work, good knowledge about

local and regional biodiversity, established cooperation with specialised data providers, an operational cen-

tral data base, and sufficient capacities (experienced man power and finances). The majority of work comes

only after accession, but its quality and credibility lies upon the framework build in the past. Thus, it is ex-

tremely important not to underestimate the consequences of not having good implementation structure and

solid knowledge about species and habitat types from the reference lists.

The network of specialists and potential data providers was organised in the early phase in all cases. In this

phase, a common understanding of the Nature Directives and their specific goals is important to be reached.

The next step is drafting the reference lists of species and habitat types of the Nature Directives annexes,

which must be present in the country and divided into biogeographical regions.

Usually the collection of existing data follows. A common temptation is that some existing concepts and ex-

periences from the past are more or less directly used, such as national protected areas, different types of

important biodiversity areas, Emerald sites, etc. It is important to emphasize that sooner or later it becomes

clear that the Natura 2000 approach is very specific and that only selected data could be used in the pro-

cess. In most cases, there is a need to re-evaluate data, especially if they were collected by desktop exercis-

es, only. All information must be verified against Natura 2000 criteria and a gap analysis should be done

against the reference lists. For each of listed species/habitat types (per biogeographical region) must be

established whether the data on distribution are available, are they missing and where precisely and where

are those species/habitat types likely to occur.

There are some positive experiences regarding public availability of collected data. This makes the whole

process more transparent; it raises the quality of the data gathering, prevents ‘disappearing’ of data to pri-

vate collections and promotes common use.

Another important aspect is related to the political circumstances of the approximation process. For Monte-

negro the closest and most comparable situation is the case of Croatia. The day of accession was in some

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



8 /

46

undefined future, but the political decision to harmonise legal and implementation systems to the ‘acquis’

was already taken. So, all national processes were streamlined into this direction. Internal investment in the

process (allocation of state budget for capacity building) was very successfully supplemented by external

project opportunities.

The second part of the document is dedicated to the Natura 2000 concept in Montenegro. As it is already

defined by the Montenegrin Law on Nature Protection (LoNP), the emphasis of the paper is moved from the

concept development towards the implementation. The main focus is to build up capacities to implement

the legal requirements.

For an effective legal framework it is essential to establish the national ecological network based on princi-

ples of the EU Nature Directives (following the example of Croatia) on the basis of the Art 41 of the LoNP. In

parallel, technical work on the proposal for national ecological network should be intensified (reference lists,

collection and validation of available data, gap analysis, training for field research, field research, central

data base, etc.), which is partially covered by the IPA project, but much more has to be done in future. The

national ecological network should take into account all Natura 2000 requirements. In principle, it could be

broader and consider national priorities, as well. This technical work is a prerequisite for all following steps

and if the quality of it is on a high level, there will be fewer problems in future, which can smoothen the way

of the EU accession.

When are the obligations of the EU Nature Directives regarding Natura 2000 establishment completed is a

very common question. The answer is not a simple number or a percentage of the country, but is related to a

specific verification process named biogeographical seminar. This is a very important step in the process,

not only for its understanding, but for it obligatory consequences affecting the Member State (MS). For that

reason, biogegraphical seminar is explained in more details. Furthermore, underestimating of this exercise is

likely to lead into future problems, which is an additional argument for its importance.

Following are explanations and guidelines for setting up a Natura 2000 compatible national ecological net-

work taking into account current situation in Montenegro.

Main topics are related to the correction of the existing boundaries of the biogeographical regions, the organ-

isation and training of the expert teams and the coordination body which should be positioned in EPA (that

includes proposal for gradually increasing of staff), principles and work on preselected areas and their rela-

tion to the completion of the network, the relation of designing Natura 2000 sites towards other national

and international designations (i.e.: Ramsar sites, Emerald sites, World Heritage sites, UNESCO MAB, etc.),

as well as results of different initiatives (i. e.: Important Plant Areas – IPAs, Key Biodiversity Areas – KBAs),

management and relation to the management authorities of protected areas at national level.

Regarding finances it is of utmost importance to gradually increase national financing in order to establish a

stable national implementation structure, including capacities to be able to apply and run projects at all

scales. Relying only on international project funding is not sustainable.

The important role of communication and transparent involvement of stakeholders is stressed, as well as

the need for political and technical leadership, supported by political will at highest level.

Only parts of these recommendations will be realized within this project, as the project’s objective is not to

prepare a complete proposal for Natura 2000 in Montenegro. However, developed methods and established

organisational framework should be used with complementary projects to finish the proposal.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



9 /

46

3. INTRODUCTION

The IPA Project ’Establishment of NATURA 2000 network’, hereinafter referred to as ‘project’, provides tech-

nical assistance to Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MoSDT) and Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) with the purpose to carry out necessary activities for laying the foundations of the future Natu-

ra 2000 network in Montenegro, in full agreement with the requirements of the EU Birds and Habitats Direc-

tives.

In the ToR of this project (Activity 1.3), a process to develop an agreement on the concept of Natura 2000 in

Montenegro was planned. It was based on following steps:

Sub-activity 1.3.1. Conceptual modelling analyses of the Western Balkans ecological networks

The following main steps are identified for successful implementation of this sub-activity:

Step 1: Draft conceptual modelling analyses of Natura 2000 as part of national ecological network applied

in the region of the Western Balkans,

Step 2: Final conceptual modelling analyses of Natura 2000 as part of national ecological network applied in

the region of the Western Balkans – reflecting the Beneficiary comments.

Sub-activity 1.3.2. Natura 2000 concept model for Montenegro

The following main steps are identified for successful implementation of this sub-activity:

Step 1: Analysis of existing models of Natura 2000 developed in the region of the Western Balkans; trans-

position gaps and recommendations of legislative solutions with appropriate justifications,

Step 2: Series of consultations with relevant stakeholders, i.e., the Beneficiary (MoSDT, EPA), Public Enter-

prise National Parks of Montenegro; any other interested parties (NGOs, sectoral/branch organisations)

aimed at final clarification of the concept of future Natura 2000 network in Montenegro,

Step 3: Preparing minutes being submitted for checking to all participants,

Step 4: Preparing a draft summary report (including the analysis, minutes from the particular consultations,

as well as final agreement on the definitive model) describing the final model for Montenegro agreed on the

basis of informal consultations,

Step 5: Summary report will be submitted to PSC for approval,

Step 6: Final summary report will be made available on the project web site.

Box 1: Structure of sub-activity 1.3.1 under the ToR of the project

In 2016, the Government of Montenegro adopted a new Law on Nature Protection (LoNP), which is defining

the establishment of the national ecological network. This network should be designed in such way that it

forms the basis for the Natura 2000 network.

Therefore, there is no need for an agreement on a concept any more, but it is essential to agree on how to

implement legal requirements of the national LoNP in a proper way, fulfilling all EU obligations.

In this sense two planned outputs from the project ToR are merged to one document:

Analyses of the Western Balkans ecological networks are presenting a brief overlook of experiences

made in the region: accession in 2004 (Slovenia), 2007 (Bulgaria), 2013 (Croatia), candidate country

Serbia and ‘potential candidate country’ Bosnia and Herzegovina.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



10

/ 4

6

Lessons learned from experiences made in these countries are used to suggest some guidance on

further work in Montenegro. It can be called Natura 2000 concept model, but in fact this is a more giving

outline for the draft of an implementation plan of the LoNP towards Natura 2000 network. The relations

to other network concepts as well as to international obligations are considered.

4. DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISH-

MENT IN SELECTED BALKAN COUNTRIES

4.1 SLOVENIA

4.1.1 ACCESSION PHASE – FIRST STEPS (1997 – 2003)

Slovenia was invited to start negotiations for the accession to the European Community at the Luxembourg

European Council in December 1997. In 1999, bilateral screening of the national legislation against the

Acquis communautaire was carried out, followed by technical adaptations of the Directives’ annexes.

In 1999, Slovenia participated as a pilot country in the first round of Emerald projects. As it was already de-

cided for Slovenia to accede to the EU, the Emerald exercise was used to prepare the data structure for the

Standards Data Forms (SDF), where only one pilot site (Julian Alps) was defined. The rest of the work was

done through a Natura 2000 project, mostly financed by the State budget. One of the main results of that

project was a Natura 2000 network that later became the Slovenian formal contribution to the Emerald net-

work.

The first targeted collection of data, needed for Natura 2000 site definition, started in 2001. The national

BirdLife partner DOPPS was tendered to prepare a SPA (Special Protection Area) proposal based on IBA (Im-

portant Bird Area). In 2003, this report was amended.

In the same year, the Ministry of Environment tendered another project, dedicated to collect existing data for

species from the preliminary reference list. This exercise was combined with a gap analysis. It was carried

out by a broad consortium of experts from all scientific institutions and relevant NGO’s with expert

knowledge and data. The leading partner was Prirodoslovni muzej Slovenije (Slovenian Museum of Natural

History). http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/porocilo.pdf.

In these years, the process of national habitat mapping was ongoing. Due to limited resources, mapping was

focused on lowland, non-forested areas. For mapping purposes, a group of national habitat specialists pre-

pared a list of habitat types. Later, a special key was developed to translate national mapping categories to

the Annex I habitat types.

4.1.2 ACCESSION PHASE – NATURA 2000 PROJECT (2003 – 2004)

The decision of the Minister on the national project was of crucial importance for Natura 2000 preparation.

That happened in January 2003. As the priority in 2001 and 2002 was to finish the National Strategy for

Biodiversity, all the involved experts, organizational structures and communication patterns were directly

oriented to the Natura 2000 project.

The core project team of the national Natura 2000 project was co-ordinated by the Ministry of Environment

and Spatial Planning together with 2 key partners, the Environmental Agency (ARSO) and Zavod RS za

http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/porocilo.pdf

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



11

/ 4

6

varstvo narave (Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation). The project was based on 2

pillars: designing of the Natura 2000 network and communication.

Within the 1st pillar a method was defined (according to the Habitats Directive – Skoberne, 2003) and all key

data-providers, such as scientific institutions (Universities, Academy of Sciences and Arts, National Institute

of Biology, etc.), public institutions (Slovenia Forest Service, Fisheries Research Institute, etc.), private insti-

tutions (e.g. Centre for Cartography of Fauna and Flora), and NGOs were involved. The gap analysis from the

previous project was used to focus on further investigations and to collect additional information.

Equal emphasis was given to the 2nd pillar. Information, gathered in the first pillar, was used for general and

targeted communication in the second one. Skills and experience learned through the PIN Matra project,

assisted by Edward Idle and Frits Hesselink (IUCN, Commission on Education and Communication) were

used.

In March 2003, a technical board was established by the Minister of Environment. The main task of that

body was the technical verification of the results of the 1st pillar of the project. The board consisted of

representatives of all key scientific institutions, covering all groups of Natura 2000 species and habitat

types. The role of this body was entirely advisory.

Available data of species and habitat types from reference lists were collected. Each species/habitat type

was presented in a seperate layer. By overlapping of layers, Slovenia designed the national ecological

network (Ekološko pomembna območja), adopted by a Governmental Decree on ecologically important areas

(Official Gazette, No. 48/04, 33/13 in 99/13). The provisions for ecologically important areas are at the

level of recommendations.

The next phase was highlighting key areas for species/habitat types as a base for designing Natura 2000

sites. As regards to dynamic habitat types (e.g. river systems, grassland succession phases) or mobile

species (e. g. large carnivores, birds), by the rule, larger areas were designed.

A very intensive public discussion followed. As it was very close to the accession date, it was not possible to

get more information, neither could communication bring in all cases positive support, so all problematic

areas, which could not be solved by negotiations, were deleted from the formal proposal of SPA and pSCI by

the decision of the Minister.

The proposal was finally accepted and adopted by the Government (April 2004). The deleted areas, which

were technically justified, were included at a later stage based on the conclusions made at the

biogeographical seminars. These steps are illustrated by following maps:

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



12

/ 4

6

Fig. 1: Illustration of the result of review of distribution data of all habitat types and species from reference

lists (different colours and patterns refer to different habitat types/species)

Fig. 2: Ecologically important areas (Governmental Decree) – National ecological network

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



13

/ 4

6

Fig. 3: Technical proposal for the Natura 2000 network (2004). Pink areas are SPAs, green areas are pSCIs

(overlapping of both areas is not visible)

Fig. 11: Adopted Natura 2000 network (SPA and pSCI) by the Government (2004)

4.1.3 MEMBER STATE PHASE (FROM 2004)

The improvement of data continued after Slovenia became the member of the EU in May 204, especially

where gaps have been identified during the accession process. In 2005, the Alpine and in 2006, the Conti-

nental biogeographical seminars took place. Following the conclusions, a technical proposal for updating the

Natura 2000 network was prepared and at the same time some mistakes corrected. New information was

added, as well. These changes were adopted by a Governmental Decree in 2013 and a following one in

2016.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



14

/ 4

6

After the accession, the main obligations regarding the implementation of the EU Nature Directives started.

It is a permanent work, depending very much on data availability and quality, as well as technical and admin-

istrative capacity of the member state (Fig. 12). This emphasizes the importance of good preparation in the

accession phase.

Fig. 12: Obligations before and after entering EU

4.1.4 SLOVENIA: CONCEPT AND LESSONS LEARNED

As the accession process of Slovenia was relatively quick (less than 7 years), the approach was pragmatic,

having in mind available resources, as well as available data.

The concept for defining Natura 2000 sites was relatively simple:

1. preparation of reference lists;

2. compilation of data for the whole territory – shaping layers for each of species/habitat type from the

reference list;

3. shaping Ecologically Important Areas (EPO – national ecological network) with overlaying of data

sets;

4. extracting Natura 2000 sites from EPO;

5. checking, corrections, additions/deletions.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



15

/ 4

6

The approach was based on 3 pillars:

- institutional and legal frame (negotiations, renewal of the legal system including transposition of the

EU Directives, reorganization of work and partly of institutions);

- technical work on proposals for Natura 2000 sites (reference lists, compilation of existing data, tar-

geted research, methods for site selection, shaping of site proposals…);

- communication: results of the technical group were immediately used for communication to stake-

holders on the ground. For this purpose, field communication teams were established and trained.

Each team included a representative of the local unit of the Slovenia Forest Service, an expert from

the regional unit of the Nature Conservation Institute and a local agricultural advisor.

Lessons learned:

- activate and include as many data providers as possible;

- data collected through the project should be public http://www.natura2000.si/index.php?id=200;

- verification board – all institutions (academic and relevant NGO’s, or private institutions) should be

seriously considered;

- work with stakeholders is of utmost importance (including top decision makers!); and

- do not underestimate communication.

4.2 CROATIA

Croatia started the Natura 2000 preparation process in 2001. At the policy level, the responsible body was

the Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection (Ministarstvo za zaštitu okoliša i prirode), while the State

Institute for Nature Protection (Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode) was the responsible body at the expert level.

The preparation of the Natura 2000 proposal in Croatia until the accession to the EU in 2013 was divided

into 5 steps that were overlapping in time.

4.2.1 1ST STEP (2001 – 2008): COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF AVAILABLE LIT-

ERATURE AND/OR FIELD DATA

The work was coordinated by the State Institute for Nature Protection, with the assistance of scientific insti-

tutions, experts and NGOs. It was financed through the Emerald project (Council of Europe, Bern Convention)

- 1st phase 2001-2003, 2nd phase 2006-2008 (total 41.500 €).

While dealing with the Emerald project, the Institute already projected their work towards the Birds and Habi-

tats Directives. They started to prepare the first drafts of reference lists for species and habitat types. Paral-

lel to that exercise, a gap analysis of Croatian specifics was carried out, meaning that the identification of

species and habitat types (such as endemic species, marine and cave habitats) was not covered by the Res-

olutions of the Bern Convention/EU Directives. That was an important cross check to get the rationale for

technical adaptations for accession negotiations, and, of course, more complete reference lists.

http://www.natura2000.si/index.php?id=200

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



16

/ 4

6

Another important result was the definition of borders of biogeographical regions (Alpine, Mediterranean and

Continental). They are exclusively used for checking of coherence in the second phase of Natura 2000 des-

ignation process (biogeographical regions), so they do not need to correspond fully to the biogeographical

regions in biological sense. That was the reason why the Pannonian biogeographical region was excluded

and considered as a part of the Continental region.

The same approach was used in Slovenia. Following biological principles, Slovenia is part of 4 biogeograph-

ical regions (Mediterranean, Alpine, Continental and Pannonian), but for the purpose of Habitats Directive

implementation, the whole national territory was considered only under the Alpine and Continental region.

Fig. 13: Emerald network in Croatia (Jelenić, I., 2014) – Blue areas (A): important for birds, green areas (B):

important for habitat types and non-bird species, dots: ‘point’ localities for habitat types and non-bird spe-

cies, orange areas (C): areas important for birds, habitat types and non-bird species

Within the LIFE III CRO-NEN project 2003-2005 (total 535.850 €), sites of the national ecological network

were defined (as a base for Natura 2000) in line with the provisions of the HD and BD.

Through the network of experts for collection of biodiversity data, the basis for the national monitoring pro-

gramme was prepared.

Summary of key outcomes of the 1st step:

Documents:

- draft reference lists of species and habitat types of European importance (Bern Convention and EU

Directives);

- defined borders of biogeographical regions (Alpine, Continental, Mediterranean);

- gap analyses (missing data for species/habitat types of reference lists, national important issues);

- first draft of possible proposals for additions to the Directives’ Annexes;

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



17

/ 4

6

- Emerald database filled with relevant data – starting with 6 protected areas of international im-

portance (Plitvička jezera, Velebit, Lonjsko polje, Crna Mlaka and delta of Neretva);

- first draft of the national ecological network.

Organisational:

- formation of Expert Group for species and habitats;

- better knowledge about the Directives at technical and administrative levels;

- establishment of the central GIS data base.

4.2.2 2ND STEP (2006 – 2011): FOCUSED RESEARCH AND DATA GATHERING, ESTAB-

LISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL NETWORK

As the day of accession was not known, the approach was to work on the national ecological network, tuned

to Natura 2000 principles. On the technical side, a systematic collection of data needed for species and

habitat types of the HD and BD was done, in the format that could be transferred to the SDF. These activities

were mostly financed through the state budget (approximately 875.300 €).

In parallel, Croatia prepared the legal platform for implementation in line with the EU Nature Directives. The

appropriate assessment was of special importance.

The National Ecological Network (NEN – Nacionalna ekološka mreža) was adopted by the Government in

November, 2007 (Narodne novine, 109/2007).

Fig. 14: National ecological network (NEN) in Croatia (Jelenić, I., 2014) - Green areas: habitat types and non-

bird species, Blue areas: bird species

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



18

/ 4

6

4.2.3 3RD STEP (2008 – 2009): CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH RELEVANT STAKE-

HOLDERS

Broad consultations with stakeholders were organised in the frame of the PHARE 2005 project „Institutional

strengthening and implementation of the ecological network Natura 2000 in Croatia” (1.611.750 €).

An important part of the project was related to the training for appropriate assessments, as well as intensive

public awareness activities and communication.

4.2.4 4TH STEP (2010 – 2013): FINE TUNING, CLOSING GAPS, TECHNICAL ADAPTA-

TIONS

The first proposal of Natura 2000 sites was available on the Institute’s web page in 2009. Intensive negotia-

tions with key players (e.g. forestry, spatial planning offices) were taking place.

Special emphasis was given to marine habitats (IPA project "Identification and setting-up of the marine part

of the NATURA 2000 in Croatia" (2010-2011) - 527.000 €) and the preparation for future management and

monitoring obligations (IPA project Natura 2000 management and monitoring – NATURA MANMON (2011-

2013 - 1.250.000 €).

During that time, in the frame of the accession negotiations, Croatia proposed the addition of some species

and habitat types to the Annexes of the Directives. The following proposals were accepted:

– 2 habitat types added to the Annex I of the HD: Sub-Mediterranean grasslands of the Molin-

io-Hordeion secalini (6540) and Tufa cascades of karstic rivers (32A0);

– 12 endemic, endangered and/or rare species added to the Annex II of the HD: Dinaromys

bogdanovi, Dinarolacerta mosorensis, *Vipera ursinii macrops, Aulopyge huegelii, Salmo-

thymus obtusirostris, Chondrostoma knerii, Chondrostoma phoxinus, Knipowitschia croati-

ca, Squalius svallize, Squalius microlepis, Proterebia afra dalmata and *Degenia velebitica

(*meaning proposal for priority species);

– 4 endemic, endangered and/or rare species added to the Annex IV of the HD: Dinaromys

bogdanovi, Dalmatolacerta oxycephala, Dinarolacerta mosorensis i Degenia velebitica;

4.2.5 5TH STEP (2013): ACCESSION TO THE EU AND ADOPTION OF THE NATURA 2000

NETWORK

The final proposal was prepared; the draft regulation was communicated at inter-ministerial level and made

available to the public for comments. The accession of Croatia to the EU was at 1st July 2013.

In September 2013, the Decree on ecological network (Narodne novine, 124/2013) was adopted by the

Government and replaced the Decree from 2007. Data (SDF) were uploaded to the EIONET (ReportNet).

It was politically decided to reduce NEN to Natura 2000 obligations. Nevertheless, NEN still provides the

potential to include additional target habitat types and species than those listed in HD, while following all the

(obligatory) rules for Natura 2000 network.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



19

/ 4

6

Fig. 15: Natura 2000 network in Croatia (Jelenić, I., 2014) – Green areas: pSCI proposal, Blue areas: SPA

sites

4.2.6 CROATIA: CONCEPT AND LESSONS LEARNED

As the exact timing of accession was uncertain, the approach of Croatia was to adapt in advance to the Eu-

ropean standards at the national level, and to use as much project money as possible for these transfor-

mations. In that respect, the national legal framework was adopted, and the national ecological network was

established, fully sound with the Natura 2000 criteria (including reference lists, data collection, valorisation,

defining of sites, etc.). After the accession, this network was converted to Natura 2000 with small adaptions.

The same model has been incorporated in the Serbian law, as well as in the new Law on Nature Protection

of Montenegro, and therefore this approach is tailored to the Montenegro situation, as well.

The most important thing is that core work was done using state budget or similar national sources and any

project money was only used as additional surplus. It should be stated that Croatia used external assistance

very broadly and efficiently. But to achieve this, there must be a clear strategy at the technical level and

enough support at the political level.

4.3 BULGARIA

Bulgaria is one of the richest European countries in terms of biodiversity and third in the EU in regard to na-

tional coverage of sites included into the European ecological network Natura 2000 (34.4%). In accordance

with the EU Nature Directives, Bulgaria protects over 90 types of natural habitats and over 300 species of

plants and animals.

Natura 2000 establishment in Bulgaria is implemented in several stages:

Stage 1: Transposition of the EU legislation into the national legislation;

Stage 2: Inventory of potential Natura 2000 sites;

Stage 3: Review and approval of proposed list of Natura 2000 sites

Stage 4: Supplementary and follow-up actions

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



20

/ 4

6

4.3.1 STAGE 1: TRANSPOSITION OF THE EU LEGISLATION

Historical overview

The process of Natura 2000 establishment in Bulgaria started in 2002 with the adoption of the Biological

Diversity Act (BDA), which transposes the provisions of the two European Directives, i.e. Council Directive

92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and Directive 2009/147/EC

on the conservation of wild birds (the Habitats and the Birds Directives).

Pursuant to the BDA, protected sites are designated in Bulgaria as part of the National Ecological Network.

These are sites that meet the criteria for occurrence of species and habitat types that are significant for bio-

diversity.

After accession to the EU in January 2007, Bulgaria adopted another key piece of legislation in the same

year with specific focus on protected sites: the Ordinance on terms and conditions for development of Ap-

propriate Assessment of plans, programs, projects and investment intentions with the conservation objec-

tives of protected sites (the AA Ordinance).

Both documents were further amended and supplemented.

Main outcomes

Lists of natural habitat types and species, for which protected sites of the European Ecological Network are

designated, are listed in Annexes 1 and 2 to the BDA.

Depending on the specific objectives, methodology and criteria for designation of protected sites in line with

the two EU Directives (for habitats and birds), the process for Natura 2000 sites designation was focused on

two streamlines:

Determination of the ecological network as regards protected sites under Article 6 (1), items 3 and

4 of the BDA (Natura 2000 sites for the conservation of the habitats of bird species under Directive

2009/147/EC); and

Determination of the ecological network as regards protected sites under Article 6(1), items 1 and 2

of the BDA (Natura 2000 sites for conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species under Di-

rective 92/43/EEC).

4.3.2 STAGE 2: INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL NATURA 2000 SITES

Historical overview

Field work and desktop gathering of scientific information was undertaken in the period 2003–2006.

The inventory of potential Natura 2000 sites in Bulgaria actually started after the National Nature Conserva-

tion Service within the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW) had received support under the DANCEE

Program of the Danish Ministry of the Environment through the Project "Conservation of species and habitats

in Bulgaria: convergence with the EU". Within the Project, a Bulgarian MoEW established a team responsible

for the Natura 2000 network coordination. In 2003–2004, 310 potential Natura 2000 sites were identified,

covering 36% of the national territory. Data required to complete the SDFs was collected to a partial or full

extent for 129 sites.

In 2005, the MoEW funded two major projects on a competitive basis through EMEPA (Entity for Enforce-

ment of Environmental Protection Activities): the Project "Natura 2000 Network Establishment in Bulgaria",

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



21

/ 4

6

which was implemented by the Green Balkans Nature Conservation Federation, aiming to complete the doc-

umentation for the sites under the Habitats Directive; and the Project "Establishment of a representative and

functionally unified National Ecological Network in its part of protected sites for birds as part of the European

Ecological Network”, implemented by the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, aiming to complete

the documentation for the sites under the Birds Directive.

In addition to these two major projects, other NGOs and research institutes, such as the CEIE, Balkani Wild-

life Society, GEF WWF Danube-Carpathian Program, Bulgarian Herpetological Society, Association of Parks in

Bulgaria, Butterfly Conservation Europe (Wageningen), National Natural History Museum, Forestry Institute,

and the Bulgarian Academy of Science were also funded by EMEPA/MoEW, as well as by international foun-

dations with the aim to research a part of the potential Natura 2000 sites.

Thus, as a result of the high activity of NGOs and scientific institutions to support and carry out the inventory

of potential Natura 2000 sites in Bulgaria, a draft list of sites was proposed to be reviewed by the MoEW.

The initial list included 500 sites in total.

Main outcomes

The inventory process included research, assessment and development of documentation for potential

Natura 2000 sites, in that part: definition of site name; identification of subject and objectives of conserva-

tion; filling-in Standard Data Forms (SDFs); producing graphic material (maps) and coordinate register.

The boundaries of the sites were based entirely on scientific criteria described in the Habitats Directive and

the national Biodiversity Act.

From 2002 to 2006, through the implementation of a number of projects, a national list of potential sites for

inclusion in the Natura 2000 network was developed. The initial list included 114 sites for the conservation

of wild birds (Natura 2000 sites under the Birds Directive - SPA), covering 23.6% of the national territory, and

394 sites for the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Natura 2000 sites under the

Habitats Directive – pSCI), covering approximately 35% of the national territory.

4.3.3 STAGE 3: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LIST OF NATURA 2000 SITES

Historical overview

Review and approval of proposed list of Natura 2000 sites by the competent national authority (MoEW) was

undertaken in 2006 – 2007.

This initial version of proposed sites was refined together with a wide range of stakeholders, and a final ver-

sion was developed after a series of discussions, which NGOs considered to be the minimum to meet the

commitments of Bulgaria under the two Directives.

The draft list of protected sites with all the supporting documentation was reviewed at the National Biologi-

cal Diversity Council (NBDC); meetings were held for the sites under the Birds Directive in September 2006

and for the sites under the Habitats Directive in November 2006.

The agreed list was then submitted to the Council of Ministers (CoM) for adoption. On 2nd March 2007, the

final list of sites proposed for inclusion in Natura 2000 network was submitted to the EC.

The process is illustrated in the figure below.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



22

/ 4

6

Proposed sites under the Birds Directive – Special

Protection Areas (SPA)

Proposed sites under the Habitats Directive – Sites

of Community Importance (pSCI)

114 SPA – 23.6% of Bulgaria

submitted to MoEW

394 pSCI – 35% of Bulgaria

submitted to MoEW

- A process of verification and refining the

boundaries of pSCI with broad stakeholder

involvement

- Data from various organisations was inte-

grated into a unified database and subject-

ed to preliminary selection process

- Assessment under the criteria for priority,

high quality and high biodiversity.


prepared for review by NBDC

Settlements, industrial and other urbanized

areas that are not essential for the species

were taken out of the boundaries


submitted for review to NBDC

225 pSCI – 28.6% of Bulgaria

submitted for review to NBDC

NBDC meeting of 1-Sep-2006

Decision to take out 5 SPA

NBDC meeting of 21-Nov-2006

Decision to postpone 29 pSCI


submitted for approval to the EC on 16-Feb-2007


submitted for approval to the EC on 21-Dec-2006

EC Decision of 2-Mar-2007 to postpone 26 SPA Initially EC did not make a decision and the list

was not submitted to the EC. At a later session

(16-Feb-2007), 16 pSCI were postponed


submitted to the EC

under EC Decision of 2-Mar-2007

180 pSCI – 13.4% of Bulgaria

submitted to the EC

under EC Decision of 2-Mar-2007

Box 2: Time line of preparation of proposal for Natura 2000 in Bulgaria

Main Outcomes

List of SPA and pSCI was submitted to the EC, but the proposed list was assessed as insufficient in the pre-

liminary communication with the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity. Therefore, Bulgaria committed to

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



23

/ 4

6

submiting a complete list of protected sites, including the ones that were postponed at the time, after sup-

plementing the scientific data for these sites by October 2007.

4.3.4 STAGE 4: SUPPLEMENTARY AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

Historical overview

The scientific information for sites included in the initial list was further supplemented in 2007 mainly under

the Project “Optimization of the National Ecological Network Natura 2000 and scientific grounds for its de-

velopment”.

In 2007, following European Commission Decisions 122/02.03.2007, 661/16.10.2007 and

802/04.12.2007, Bulgaria submitted a national list of potential Natura 2000 sites to the EC, including 114

sites under the Birds Directive and 228 sites under the Habitats Directive (covering 20.4% and 29.5% of the

territory of Bulgaria, respectively).

Following a number of the EC Decisions, the ecological network was further expanded and so far the network

includes 119 sites under the Birds Directive and 233 sites under the Habitats Directive (covering respective-

ly 22.7% and 30% of Bulgaria).

Main outcomes

Bulgaria fulfilled the commitment to provide a complete list of Natura sites to the EC.

In the process of implementation of Natura 2000 management, a number of projects were further under-

taken, one of the major ones being the Project “Mapping and defining the conservation status of natural

habitats and species – Phase I”. Based on the results from this project, the boundaries of some of the sites

are refined.

Meanwhile, the procedure for issuing national orders for designation of protected sites has started, together

with the development and approval of Management Plans for Natura 2000 sites.

An information website for the Natura 2000 network was developed:

http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/

The network of SPAs and SCIs in Bulgaria is illustrated below.

http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



24

/ 4

6

Fig. 16: Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria

4.3.5 BULGARIA: CONCEPTS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Bulgaria transposed the EU legislation related to Natura 2000 Network in the Biodiversity Act (BDA). Pursu-

ant to the BDA, protected sites are designated in Bulgaria as part of the National Ecological Network. Desig-

nation of Natura 2000 sites was provisionally split into two parallel processes – designation of sites under

the Birds Directive and designation of sites under the Habitats Directive.

The main lessons learned from the process of Natura 2000 establishment in Bulgaria are as follows:

involvement of scientific institutions and environmental NGOs is of key significance for the appro-

priate identification and designation of sites;

public awareness and constant consultation with stakeholders should be ensured through all stages

of the Natura 2000 establishment process;

follow-up actions are essential for further refining of the network of sites, including boundaries,

qualifying species and habitats, and conservation measures.

4.4 SERBIA

In 2008, an European partnership for Serbia was adopted, setting out priorities for the country's member-

ship application, and in 2009 Serbia formally applied. In March 2012, Serbia was granted EU candidate

status. In September 2013, a Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Serbia entered

into force.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



25

/ 4

6

Serbia is facing similar problems as Montenegro:

- as regards the legal and policy framework, the Law on Nature Protection is fully compliant with the

EU Nature Directives, but amendments of the two main by-laws, the Decree on Ecological Network

and the Decree on Appropriate Assessment are missing. There is no proper integration into spatial

and infrastructure planning through horizontal legislation;

- administrative issues and human capacities reveal significant weaknesses, such as: no leadership

in the nature protection sector on central level as regards the implementation of the Directives;

there is insufficient communication and cooperation between institutions at governmental and NGO

level; technical capacities and financing are very modest.

It is hard to find some good examples of solutions from this experience. Maybe it can be said that the direc-

tion of planning and actions are streamlined in similar direction as it is foreseen for Montenegro.

That means, building capacities to implement national law and on the technical side collect all available

data to design a EU Nature Directives compatible national ecological network.

4.5 IPA PROJECT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Despite the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not yet even a candidate country (formal status: ’potential

candidate’), some experiences, deriving from an IPA project, can be useful for Montenegro.

In the period of 2012-2015, the IPA project ‘Support to the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Di-

rective in Bosnia and Herzegovina’ took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was an exciting project chal-

lenged by the extremely sophisticated political situation of 3 entities. However, a common approach on

technical level was conducted through the project. Reference lists for species and habitat types were pre-

pared, and a manual for the interpretation of habitat types was produced.

The Emerald network was used as a basis for designing the proposed Natura 2000 sites.

The knowledge/data behind the Emerald sites proposals was rather weak and challenged by many experts.

When considering Natura 2000 proposals, the Emerald sites’ boundaries were used only for informational

purposes. Based on Natura 2000 criteria and additional data (hard data and expertise of the present ex-

perts), boundaries of those sites were reshaped.

Data sets and structure for a common data base were prepared, but further use of the data base beyond the

project didn’t continue for the reason of unclear political relations.

Management models were made for 3 pilot areas, one in each political entity. The circumstances and legal

situation in each region are different, so the management models had to follow the respective situation.

Information on the project and deliverables are available at:

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/ba/page/41/ekoloscaronka-mrea-natura-2000


NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



26

/ 4

6

Fig. 17: Selected potential Natura 2000 sites in BiH

Details were described in the project document ‘Final results of the selection and proposal of site to be in-

cluded in the Natura 2000 network of Bosnia and Herzegovina’:

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/NATURA%202000/R1%20Analiza%20podataka%20unesenih%20u%

20SDF%20i%20finalni%20izvje%C5%A1taj%20o%20predlo%C5%BEenoj%20Natura%202000%20mre%C5%

BEi%20ENG.doc

“The process began with the selection and contracting of local biodiversity experts. It was done through a

public announcement of the requirements and a selection procedure. Finally, ten local biodiversity experts

were selected and contracts with them were signed in April 2013. There were seven experts from FBiH and

three experts from RS who had to elaborate the reference lists for habitats and species for BiH, select poten-

tial sites and later on, complete the SDF of each of the sites with data in regard to habitats and species.

Most of these experts have worked previously for the WWF implemented project “Living Heart of Europe”,

which was the first project in BiH, attempting to select local species and habitats included in the annexes of

the Habitats Directive as well as to identify their distribution in the country.

Each of the biodiversity experts had allocated habitats and species form certain group or only species from

certain group/groups in accordance to her/his expertise. For each of the allocated habitat/species, he/she

had to collect data for coverage/distribution and to fill it in a special GIS platform. The platform was devel-

oped just for the purpose of collection of data and creation of the SDF of each of the selected potential

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/NATURA%202000/R1%20Analiza%20podataka%20unesenih%20u%20SDF%20i%20finalni%20izvje%C5%A1taj%20o%20predlo%C5%BEenoj%20Natura%202000%20mre%C5%BEi%20ENG.doc



NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



27

/ 4

6

Natura 2000 site. All biodiversity experts worked in close cooperation and their work was supervised by the

project's biodiversity key expert. There were regular meetings between the biodiversity experts and the pro-

ject team for discussions, coordination of the work and planning.

The project team, together with the biodiversity experts, collected all available information from previous

projects related to Natura 2000 in BiH: Emerald network, different high biodiversity value areas projects, like

“Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains” (the Sava project), RAMSAR sites, potential

Important Bird Areas (IBA), as well as the information about existing and planned national protected areas in

FBiH, RS and District of Brčko.

Based on this information, reference lists with habitats and species from the Birds and Habitats Directives,

found in BiH, were prepared. In total, the project identified 70 habitat types from Annex I of the Habitats

Directive, 22 plant species, 21 invertebrate species, 28 fish species, 5 amphibian species, 6 reptile species,

11 bat species, 7 large mammal species from Annex II of the Habitats Directive and 109 bird species from

Annex I of the Birds Directive.

Initially the focus was put on the 29 Emerald sites, 16 sites selected under Sava project, 3 Ramsar sites, 44

potential Important Bird Areas (IBA), 7 protected areas in FBiH, 13 protected sites in RS, as well as sites

proposed by the experts, based on their own experience and on the results of previous NATURA 2000 phase

in BiH.

Thus, the initial proposal included 102 potential Natura 2000 sites. Later on, following additional discussion

and review of the sites, the list was changed to 96 potential Natura 2000 sites. At a special two-day seminar

held in November 2013, the biodiversity experts, together with the project team, delineated the borders of

the sites, prepared shape files for each of the sites in coordination with all other experts, and also a

1:25,000 scaled map was prepared.

Based on new data provided by the biodiversity experts, the borders of some of the sites were corrected and

five (5) new small sites (bellow 2 ha) were added. Thus, the total number of proposed Natura 2000 sites had

increased to 101.

The process of selection of potential Natura 2000 sites, proposal of new sites, changes and corrections in

the delineation of their borders, as well as the completion of the sites’ SDFs, continued till October 2014.

As a result, 122 potential Natura 2000 sites were selected. The selection of the potential sites and the de-

lineation of their borders were done mainly using the available and published information in regard to habi-

tats and species distribution. Very limited field work was done by the biodiversity experts as the project did

not have planned resources for extensive field work and mapping of the distribution of habitats and species

in BiH. The project team and the biodiversity experts used the best available information in order to deter-

mine the distribution of habitats and species and to select the potential Natura 2000 sites.

The total area of the proposed Natura 2000 sites is 9567.7 km2. This is 18.68% from the area of Bosnia

and Herzegovina. According to the type of the sites there is 1 site of type A (SPA), 72 sites are type B (SCI)

and 49 sites are type C (both SPA and SCI). According to the administrative distribution, 3 sites are in Brčko

District, 61 sites are in Republika Srpska and 58 sites are in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

For each of the 122 proposed sites, a Standard Data Form (SDF) file was prepared. For this purpose, the

new SDF format and the instructions of the European Commission were used. Also for each of the proposed

sites, a map in 1:25000 scale was prepared.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



28

/ 4

6

4.5.1 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: LESSONS LEARNED

Due to the specific political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, experiences of that country cannot be di-

rectly used in the Montenegrin case. However, there are certain similarities in the richness of nature, level of

existing knowledge, level of capacities in natural sciences etc.

At technical level, some good experience can be used regarding the processes of preparing reference lists,

manuals, and designating of sites.

Emerald areas were used as potential Natura 2000 areas, but thoroughly checked by existing data and ex-

pert opinions against Natura 2000 criteria. Borders were accordingly reshaped and new sites defined.

The main message from the IPA project in BiH is rather serious: after the project had finished, most of the

work stalled. There was no remarkable follow up in technical, legal or organizational direction.

The project enabled a good and effective cooperation at technical level (common understanding, more or

less harmonized work) but in time of the project no capacity building of the existing administrative structures

happened parallel to the project or planning budget lines for continuation of work at the national level.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



29

/ 4

6

5. NATURA 2000 CONCEPT FOR MONTENEGRO

As it was mentioned before, the decision on the concept for Natura 2000 in Montenegro is defined by the

adoption of the Law on Nature Protection in August 2016. In Articles 41 – 53, the national ecological net-

work is regulated and this is a solid legal basis for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the

country.

However, the legal basis is just the first, conditional step, but then the challenge of the implementation fol-

lows!

We strongly advise that the competent authority prepares a master plan for implementation of complete

obligations deriving from the Birds and Habitats Directives. The formation of the Natura 2000 network is

very important component of the obligations set, but not the only one!

Capacities should be developed for following activities:

communicating with the EC, decision making, preparing laws (competent national authority –

MoSDT);

technical support (including central GIS data base; network of supporting institutions (e. g. uni-

versities, Natural History Museum, experts on habitats and other taxonomic groups) – EPA;

appropriate assessment (administrative body – MoSDT/EPA; assessment – qualified organiza-

tions/enterprises);

management of sites (MoSDT, protected areas management organizations, etc.);

monitoring/reporting (EPA with the support of scientific organizations and NGO’s).

Actually all segments of the society have to be involved: from the Ministry and EPA, other governmental sec-

tors, to scientific institutions and NGO’s. The private sector, local communities and landowners should also

be included throughout the planning processes.

This document will concentrate on Natura 2000 building bricks for Montenegro, based mostly on the experi-

ence of above mentioned countries in the region. In this line several activities of the project are already run-

ning.

Within the current IPA project, the preparation of a ’Supplements & Roadmap’ document is foreseen based

on the analyses of the project results. The purpose of this activity is to propose a roadmap of fulfilling the

remaining tasks for the finalization of proposals for SCIs and SPA preparation for the entire country together

with the corresponding capacity and resource needs.

5.1 NATURA 2000 CONCEPT AND NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL NETWORK

As can be clearly seen from the very beginning, Natura 2000 network is very specific and clearly legally de-

fined. Thus, all other existing initiatives for site designation deriving from international treaties are different,

such as Ramsar, UNESCO World Heritage, UNESCO MAB. Such sites can be considered in the preparation

process as a basis, but have to be tested against Natura 2000 principles, selection criteria and be based

exclusively on species and habitat types from the Directives’ annexes.

The national ecological network could be broader than the network of EU concern. It can include species and

habitat types of national importance. This in not obligatory, but it is in the hands of the national authorities.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



30

/ 4

6

This can be seen in the case of Slovenia, where Natura 2000 is a subset of the national ecological network

(Slovenia: EPO – ekološko pomembna območja), but the areas of the network that are outside of Natura

2000 have much weaker legal obligations (level of guidelines). In Croatia, the national ecological network

was built first broadly, taking into account national assets, and later reduced to the obligations of Natura

2000.

Article 41 of the Montenegrin LoNP clearly prescribes that the goal of the ecological network is to protect

and maintain habitat types and species of national and EU importance in line with the law and ratified inter-

national treaties. The Law foresees that target habitat types and species should be listed in a ministerial by-

law (national reference lists according to biogeographical regions). The legal basis for designation, protec-

tion, management and appropriate assessment follows as well. At this level, the legal concept seems to be

perfectly in line with the EU Directives. However, there is still much work that needs to be done for the im-

plementation on the ground (by-laws, implementation capacity, etc.).

5.2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND

Designing Natura 2000 is a highly technical process, depending on skilled experts that know the taxonomic

group they are dealing with and having deep knowledge of that group in the country (data on distribution,

population, taxonomy, ecology, etc.). On the other hand, these experts have to be familiar with the principles

and provisions of both nature directives, so that they are able to use their knowledge in proper way.

It is important to emphasize that the quality of data and their interpretation for designing Natura 2000 net-

work has long-term consequences. Data deficiency or their misuse can lead to serious problems in future,

mostly related to appropriate assessments, management and reporting.

5.2.1 REFERENCE LISTS

One of the first important tasks is the preparation of reference lists, as one has to know at the very begin-

ning which species/habitat types from the directives’ annexes are present in the country. From that lists

obligations, tasks and organization of further work are deriving.

There is a rich history in taxonomy science present in the region. However, by the rule, data are scattered

and no reliable lists of species present in the country are available. Thus, the preparation of species refer-

ence lists is an important first step activity. This is usually done using the following several groups of species:

large group of well-known species, accompanied by possible present species (no recent data: only historic

records, dubious taxonomy), expected species (no records for MNE, but present in neighbouring countries),

vagrant species, etc.

Reference lists are always the result of the state of play in taxonomic knowledge and data availability, im-

proving with time. This process should be intensified by targeted research and assistance of taxonomists

from outside of the country. Updating reference lists is an ongoing process.

The procedure is slightly different regarding habitat types. The habitat types’ concept is relatively new and

not so used in the region. So, it is important that experts for plant societies get familiar with this approach at

the very beginning. Experts have to convert their knowledge about associations into habitat types according

to the Habitats Directive Manual (European Commission, 2013) (Milanović, Đ. et all., 2015). In this respect,

there are very helpful manuals, prepared for Slovenia (Dobravec, J. et all., 2004), Croatia (Topić., J. & J.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



31

/ 4

6

Vukelić, 2009; Gottstein, S., 2010; Bakran-Petricioli, T., 2011) and Bosnia & Herzegovina (Milanović, Đ. et

all., 2015).

Habitat types that are not fitting completely to the description in the manual, e.g. because of different spe-

cies composition or due to geographical differences, therefore, should be interpreted within the existing hab-

itat type. Later this should be reflected in a proposal for amending the Interpretation Manual of European

Union Habitats. In case there are some very specific habitat types, not mentioned in the Annex I of the HD,

that habitat types can be elaborated and proposed as amendments during the technical adaptation phase of

the accession negotiations. It is important to emphasize that such proposed habitat type should not exist in

any of current EU member states.

According to the Article 41 of the LoNP, reference lists of habitat types for the two biogeographical regions in

the country have to be legally recognized.

5.2.2 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS

Reference lists should be done for every biogeographical region that occurs in the country. Following the

existing distribution of the regions in Montenegro, there are only two: Alpine and Mediterranean biogeo-

graphical region. In fact, a very small part at the NW border of Montenegro belongs to the Continental region

according to the official map of the biogeographic regions, available at EEA:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe-3#tab-gis-data

It makes no sense to regard this small area as Continental region. The country should include it to the Alpine

region via a proposal. The proposal can be delivered by the Government of Montenegro either through the

Standing Committee of the Bern Convention (Council of Europe) or as a part of technical adaptations during

accession negotiations. It makes more sense to use the first option.

When the formal request gets considered and adopted, EEA will make correction of the border at the time of

next update of the borders.

All species and habitat types that occur in this area should be listed in the Alpine reference lists. Similar cor-

rections were made in Slovenia and Croatia as well, as with this simplification conservation goals are not

jeopardized, but implementation is much more rational. Instead of 3 sets of reference lists, you would have

just 2, which means a more simplified process of designing sites, consideration at biogeographical seminars,

monitoring and reporting.

The marine part of the Mediterranean region is usually regarded separately.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe-3#tab-gis-data

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



32

/ 4

6

Fig. 18: Biogeographical regions in Montenegro

5.2.3 VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF THE NATURA 2000 PROPOSED SITES (BIOGEO-

GRAPHICAL SEMINAR)

The Habitats Directive has a unique system for verifying when the obligations of a MS towards the estab-

lishment of Natura 2000 are completed (when ‘sufficiency’ is reached). It gives final answers to very actual

questions: What % of the country needs to be covered by Natura 2000? How many hectares? When is the

network complete?

This verification process is called ‘Biogeographic seminar’ and is in fact a bilateral technical discussion be-

tween the European Commission and a member state. As this happens only after the member state delivers

the proposal for sites that qualify as pSCI, it is not relevant for Montenegro at the moment.

But bearing in mind that this is an extremely important step in the future process with consequences for the

member state, it is crucial to understand this process and to conduct the preparations and technical work

accordingly and avoid/minimise problems in advance.

There are several guidelines that support sufficiency evaluation. The criteria used for site evaluation are

based on some general principles provided by the European Commission in 1997 (Hab. 97/2 rev. 4

18/11/97).

Further clarification on certain species and taxonomic groups (Habitats SWG 2002-02 rev13) was provided

by the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity in 2002, as well as on the evaluation process itself via

an updated document prepared in 2016 (http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/chapter6).

At this verification meetings, the European Commission is supported by ETC from Paris (technical body pre-

paring data and opinion on sufficiency for each species/habitat type per biogeographical region), experts

invited by the European Commission, representative of NGO’s (invited by the Commission on proposal of

European Habitats Forum) and representative of land owners (usually national representative of ELO).

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/chapter6

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



33

/ 4

6

Fig. 19: Composition of biogeographical seminar

The reference lists are updated regarding latest stage of scientific information on these seminars. Then fol-

lows a thorough discussion, where checking species by species, habitat type by habitat type is being con-

ducted.

For each species/habitat type, the ETC prepares a distribution map (taking into account relevant biogeo-

graphical region), which is overlaid by the MS proposals of Natura 2000 sites for that particular spe-

cies/habitat type, proposing certain conclusion outlined in the Introduction. In an exchange of opinions,

these conclusions can be agreed or changed by arguments from all participants.

Following the European Commission guidelines there are the following possibilities for conclusions of the

sufficiency after analysing and discussing every single species/habitat type:

SUF (Sufficient): the occurrence of the species/habitat type is sufficiently well covered by the

current SCIs; no further sites are required.

IN MIN (Insufficient minor): no new SCIs are required, but this species/habitat type should be

added to the list of qualifying features on one or several Standard Data Forms of sites that

have already been proposed for other species/habitat types.

IN MOD (Insufficient moderate): one or several additional SCIs (or extensions of SCIs) must be

proposed to achieve a sufficient coverage of the Natura 2000 network for this species/ habi-

tat type (IN MOD GEO means additional site(s) are only required in a specifically named re-

gion).

IN MAJ (Insufficient major): none of the sites where this species/habitat type occurs have

been proposed as SCIs so far; in order to achieve a sufficient coverage of the Natura 2000

network for the species/habitat type, one or several of these new SCIs must therefore be pro-

posed.

SR (Scientific reserve): further research is required to identify the most appropriate SCIs for

this species/habitat type (research on identifying the most appropriate sites, on clarifying the

correspondence of a habitat present to the definition of Annex I habitats, etc. ).

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



34

/ 4

6

SR Ref List (Scientific reserve on the Reference List): the regular occurrence of this species

/habitat type is still uncertain and needs to be confirmed.

Delete from Ref List (delete from the Reference List): this species /habitat type is not natural-

ly occurring and will be removed from the Reference List; no sites are required for this species

/habitat type.

CD (Correction of data): the information about this species /habitat type in the Standard Data

Form needs to be corrected/completed/deleted.

Codes can be combined, for example ‘IN MOD/ CD’ would indicate that additional sites are

required and that the existing proposals need correcting or completing.

Box 3: Possible conclusions for each species/habitat type within particular biogeographical region addres-

sed at the biogeographical seminar

At the end EEA/ETC calculates the sufficiency index for each MS using a comprehensive formula, explained

in the Box 4:

SUFFMS : Sufficiency index for a Member State by summing up SUFF for each biogeographic

region

SUFFMS = SUM(i=1 to i=n) ((habi/ HABi + spi/SPi)/2)(Area(Bi)/Area(MS))

n = number of biogeographical regions within Member States

habi = number of Annex I habitats sufficiently represented for the biogeographical region i

HABi = Number of Annex I habitats listed in the Commission's Reference List

spi = number of Annex II species sufficiently represented for the biogeographical region i

SPi = Number of Annex II species listed in the Commission's Reference List

Area1(Bi) = Surface area of biogeographical region i within a Member State (km2).

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/designated-areas/designated-areas-

assessment-published-mar-2009/#indicator-definition

Box 4: Formula for calculating MS sufficiency index (how complete the Natura 2000 network is!)

Each biogeographical seminar ends with conclusions, agreed between MS and the EC. There is a clear obli-

gation for the member state to deal with insufficiencies and to fill these gaps through updating the Natura

2000 proposal. It can be done by adding relevant species/habitat types to existing areas, by enlarging exist-

ing areas or proposing new ones.

The European Commission is following very carefully efforts of the member state to implement conclusions

of the seminar(s). In case that the conclusions are not taken into account in legal action in a reasonable

time, the European Commission usually starts with an infringement procedure.

Fig. 20 illustrates the progress of the Natura 2000 network establishment in Slovenia. It should be empha-

sised, that there is a very great difference between sufficiency according to the Directives’ obligations and

the percentage of the national territory! The sufficiency index of the Slovenian Natura 2000 network was

about 50 % on 34,8 % of national territory and 96 % on 37,16 %! Thus, it is possible to increase sufficiency

through the quality of proposals.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/designated-areas/designated-areas-assessment-published-mar-2009/#indicator-definition

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/designated-areas/designated-areas-assessment-published-mar-2009/#indicator-definition

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



35

/ 4

6

Fig. 20: Step-by-step completion of the Natura 2000 obligations in Slovenia. It can be clearly seen that the

proportion of the national territory is not crucial for meeting obligations

Important message: Technical criteria have to be regarded, explicitly for designing Natura 2000 sites. Areas

where important habitats of Annex IV species and Annex I habitat types are present must be included to the

proposals as well. If not, very strong technical arguments must be present; otherwise, those areas will have

to be included after the biogeographical seminars!

5.2.4 EXPERT TEAMS AND DATA AVAILABILITY

The task for identifying and engaging of taxonomic and plant associations’ experts from academic, research

institutions and NGO’s is closely linked to the reference lists exercise. Such expert teams are ‘the heart’ of

Natura 2000 process, not only in designing the network, but certainly in the implementation phase, as well.

These expert teams are the guarantee for the scientific background of the whole Natura 2000 process. From

cases of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), it is very clear that the designation of Natura 2000 sites must

be based on purely scientific ecological criteria and data. The more knowledgeable and experienced the

group of experts is, the more complete the Montenegrin Natura 2000 network will be and better arguments

to justify the proposal will be available! That gives a rather important influence to experts, which is accom-

panied by responsibilities, not only in field data gathering but also in providing, collecting and analysing exist-

ing data from previous projects.

Building a network of experts needs political support, co-ordination, time and money. In principle it is based

on existing structures/capacities, but in perspective it should be oriented to upgrade the situation according

to the needs.

This process is specific for each country as it is reflecting specific circumstances. In Montenegro there is on

one hand very rich biodiversity, but rather modest capacities in taxonomy, despite some very high profiled

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



36

/ 4

6

scientists in the country. Nevertheless, the coverage of taxonomic groups and country territory are still not

complete.

The role of the project is to enhance this situation, giving a long-term perspective for expert teams working

for Natura 2000. More details regarding future knowledge and expert needs, coordination responsibilities,

trainings, finances, etc. will be elaborated by the end of the current IPA project, to ensure a close follow up of

the process.

Certainly, the basic responsibility lies in the hands of the MoSDT, being the competent authority for this area

and having the coordination role for the whole system (decision making, finances, policy). EPA could have

crucial role in permitting, monitoring and reporting. That means that there should be adequate staff, techni-

cally trained to cover all Natura 2000 taxonomic groups and habitat types (in particular, for forestry and ag-

riculture related habitat types/species). The most logical place for a central data base is at EPA and staff

should have an important coordinative role to all other data providers (universities, Natural history Museum,

NGOs, etc.) and have to be backed by the MoSDT mandate, including financial resources.

Taking into account the present situation, such organization can be reached step-by-step. Now is the time to

prepare a plan, aiming at the final stage and gradually build the system. The project can support the prepa-

ration of such plan and training of the core groups at all levels (MoSDT, EPA, experts), but a lot of efforts

have to be done parallel to the project.

That brings us back to data availability and quality. Ideally, all work should be based on complete existing

hard data, which – in reality – is never the case. The European Commission does not expect this, but their

pragmatic position is that the Natura 2000 network should be designed on the best available data and best

expert knowledge and judgment at present moment. So it is the country’s interest to use all potential re-

sources during the accession time to get as much reliable data and expert knowledge as possible to have

proposed Natura 2000 sites based on the best possible data.

At the beginning, it is important to make use of available data. There were many projects in Montenegro

dealing with this issue, but still data are scattered, not centrally organized or even disappeared.

Data derived from ‘thematic’ projects, like Important Plant Areas (IPA), can be checked towards the refer-

ence lists and relevant data used. Similarly, data gathered through other initiatives, like Emerald network,

Ramsar Convention, previous Natura 2000 projects, should be considered, but constantly referring the goals

and criteria of EU Nature Directives.

Again the need of the central data base should be emphasized. Once all existing public data (including ones

from previous projects) are put in the system and are publicly available, they can be used very broadly. When

data are publicly available (with certain restrictions to be discussed), it is important that credits to authors

are assured and interpretation of data related to competent experts.

The next steps are to carry out a gap analyses and to organize trainings for field work to fill as much gaps as

possible. For efficiency of this work, special inventories and field protocols should be used (if necessary de-

veloped) and targeted field work plans should be elaborated.

Experiences gained this way can be later used in other areas, that are not covered by this project (current

IPA project’s focus is on Key Biodiversity Areas – KBAs). This will be an excellent opportunity to build teams

for future implementation, including teams for future monitoring. Thus, active involvement of administrative

staff that will be responsible for future implementation is highly appreciated in that part of the work.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



37

/ 4

6

5.2.5 EMERALD NETWORK

Work on the Emerald network can be used in various ways. The structure of the data base regarding coding

of the national protected area system and similar general data can be used for SDF data base creation. Ref-

erence lists for Emerald should be checked towards the Natura 2000 reference lists and relevant data used.

Emerald sites should be used very cautiously, as it is very likely that they were not designed according to

Emerald, and especially not according to Natura 2000 standards. Emerald sites are indication of areas with

big potential to be future Natura 2000 sites, but must be strictly cross-checked with Natura 2000 criteria.

This precautionary approach is underpinned by the Results of Final Draft Conclusions of the West Balkan

second Emerald Biogeographical Seminar held in Bar from 2 – 4 November 2011 (Roeckarts, M., 2011).

Deficiency of data and serious gaps were identified there. As the Council of Europe is planning to have an-

other Emerald biogeographical seminar for this region in October 2017, it would be meaningful to take this

meeting into account in the Natura 2000 process.

Candidate Emerald sites in Montenegro were approved at the 35th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the

Bern Convention in 2015 (Council of Europe, 2015), but they have not yet been approved by the national

authority. In case of established Natura 2000 network in Montenegro, this data set will replace the existing

Emerald network.

As Emerald sites are strongly related to the pre-selection areas of the project, they should be examined, but,

once more – in light of the Natura 2000 criteria!

Montenegro Site Code Site Name Area covered (ha)

ME0000000 Maglic, Volujak i Bioč 7252.64

ME0000001 Mala rijeka River Canyon 3600.00

ME0000002 Durmitor mountain with Tara River Canyon 33895.00

ME0000003 Skadar Lake 37800.00

ME0000004 Velika Plaza with Ulcinj Saline 2839.46

ME0000005 Buljarica 302.00

ME0000006 Field Ćemovsko polje 358.00

ME0000007 Bjelasica mountain 5733.00

ME0000008 Cijevna River Canyon 6937.00

ME0000009 Mrtvica River Canyon 2903.00

ME000000A Lovćen 6267.00

ME000000B Tivat salina 240.00

ME000000C Lake Šas, Bojana River, Knetas, Ada Bojana 7397.00

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



38

/ 4

6

ME000000D Rumija mountain 12237.00

ME000000E Cave in Djalovica Ravine 191.00

ME000000F Plavsko-Gusinjske Prokletije (+Bogićevica) 15758.00

ME000000H River Lim 17148.00

ME000000I Valley of River Ćehotina 13356.00

ME000000J Ljubišnja 4332.00

ME000000M Golija i Ledenice 10276.00

ME000000N Piva River Canyon (the part after the Hydroelectric

Power Plant)

1664.00

ME000000O Visitor and Zeletin mountains 13680.00

ME000000P Komarnica 1473.00

ME000000Q Bay of Kotor (Kotor and Risan) 2778.00

ME000000R Sinjavina (Babji zub and Gradiste) 5709.00

ME000000S Orjen mountain 15046.00

ME000000T Pecin beach 15.00

ME000000U Hajla 2266.00

ME000000V Spas, Budva 352.00

ME000000X Komovi 6135.00

ME000000Y Katici, Donkova and Velja seka islands 439.00

ME000000Z Platamuni 1698.0

Table 1: List of Emerald sites, adopted in 2015 by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. The sites

that correspond to the pre-selected areas of the project are shadowed.

5.2.6 IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS PROJECT

Montenegro took part in the Plantlife International project on Important Plant Areas (IPA) in 2009. There are

27 sites with rather complete descriptions (Petrović, D., 2009). A list of IPA areas of Montenegro and data

about each area are available at:



NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



39

/ 4

6

Fig. 21: IPA areas in Montenegro (Source: http://www.plantlifeipa.org/Reports.asp?v=vRepCty&i=236)

Data can certainly be used for Natura 2000 but in a very controlled manner, exclusively for Annex II plant

species in the context with other localities of those species. Habitat information can also be used as addi-

tional information.

Of course, the importance of the IPA sites can be considered for establishment of the national ecological

network.

5.2.7 NATURA 2000 AND AREAS DESIGNATED BY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

Legally and technically there are no relations of Natura 2000 sites towards areas, which are designated by

international treaties, e.g. UNESCO World Heritage Sites, UNESCO MAB Reserves, Ramsar wetlands of inter-

national importance, Barcelona Convention sites, etc. Each of these nominations has its own goals and crite-

ria. Thus, these nominations are not considered as ‘nature protected areas’.

Designing of Natura 2000 sites must be done completely independent regarding those nominations. Howev-

er, data collected in these areas according to the nomination goals can be used, but strictly in line with the

selection criteria of the Nature Directives.

For instance, the World Heritage Site Tara Canyon is inscribed on the UNESCO list primarily because of the

dimensions of the canyon, whereas Natura 2000 will be designated in that area according to the presence

of valuable habitats of listed species and habitat types. In case of the Ulcinj Saline, the discrepancy of selec-

tion criteria for a Ramsar locality and SPA is smaller, but still it must be considered.

When the main part of the Natura 2000 selection process is done, fine tuning of borders and a coordinated

planning of management options can start. As Montenegro is a small country with limited capacities, it would

be wise to coordinate management, monitoring and reporting in a very efficient way.

5.2.8 NATURA 2000 AND PROTECTED AREAS

Regarding IUCN management categories of protected areas, Natura 2000 sites fit to the management cate-

gory IV: Habitat/Species Management Area. This category is aiming to protect particular species or habitats

and the management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active inter-

ventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a require-

ment of the category. The primary management objective of this category is to maintain, conserve and re-

store species and habitats:


NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



40

/ 4

6

https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-iv-habitatspecies-

management-area

This approach is rather different from other protected areas that are traditionally used in the protected areas

concept in the region. Even within countries in the region, differences in understanding and managing of

those areas can be diverse. Their goals are – in comparison with the very narrow and specific objectives of

Natura 2000 sites – very general (e.g. safeguarding of natural and cultural beauty, heritage) and have some

legal regimes (prohibitions). As these are normally areas with high natural values, it is very likely that these

areas host Natura 2000 species and habitat types. But there is also a very big possibility that there are

many species/habitat types that are not covered by the umbrella of protected areas.

So, protected areas cannot be automatically taken as Natura 2000 sites without careful technical checking

of the occurrence and representativity of listed species and habitat types in those areas.

It is very likely that protected areas will cover a substantial proportion of Natura 2000 areas. Thus, man-

agement authorities of protected areas can play an important role in later implementation. They can be re-

sponsible for coordinating or conducting measures, needed for species/habitat types that are on the pro-

tected areas territory.

There is a big advantage (especially in countries with limited capacities!) as their staff (rangers) is regularly

present in the field and can do surveillance, monitoring, building public awareness to local communities and

visitors, can contribute to the reporting and implement some concrete measures, if they are foreseen.

Measures can be written in their management plans.

5.2.9 WORK ON PRE-SELECTED AREAS

Designing Natura 2000 sites with the help of pre-selected areas is not an optimal approach. In this case it is

framed by the project outline due to limited resources. Normally, based on distribution data for all species

and habitat types from the reference lists, the most relevant areas are selected within each biogeographical

region followed by the process of defining sites.

There is a reasonable assumption that preselected areas will qualify as Natura 2000 sites, but within the

project this has to be justified and adjusted according to the Directives’ criteria. That means that desktop

work as well as targeted field research should be concentrated on those areas finding necessary data for

relevant species and habitat types.

These areas (following the project ToR) are:

1. KBA Prokletije and ASCI the Lim River Valley;

2. KBA Moračke planine mountains;

3. KBA Komovi and ASCI Canyon of the Mala rijeka River;

4. KBA Hajla and ASCI Hajla;

5. KBA Durmitor, ASCI Durmitor and valleys of rivers Komarnica and Pridvorica;

6. KBA Maglić, ASCI part of the Piva River Canyon, and ASCI Bioč, Maglić i Volujak;

7. KBA Ljubišnja and ASCI Dolina Ćehotine (Ćehotina River Valley);

8. KBA Ćemovsko field – Cijevna and ASCI Cijevna Rijeka – canyon; and

9. Morača Valley from approx. 8 km upstream of Podgorica to approx. Morača monastery.

https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-iv-habitatspecies-management-area

https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-iv-habitatspecies-management-area

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



41

/ 4

6

That doesn’t mean that within abovementioned areas Montenegro’s obligations for Natura 2000 can be

completed! The intention of this project is to communicate the framework for designing proposals for Natura

2000 sites on the base of pre-selected areas. In this way, pre-selected areas will be thoroughly checked

against Natura 2000 criteria and re-shaped, if necessary all species/habitat types argumentation will be

arranged accordingly to standards and structure of the Nature Directives.

During this process, the ‘Natura 2000 sites designing’ approach will be defined. It will include developed

methods, protocols for field work, established and trained expert groups for particular taxonomic groups,

reaching better common understanding of the process, horizontal and vertical organizational coordination,

etc.

With this knowledge, experience and capacities, it will be possible to extend the work in the same way to the

rest of the country, regardless if it was within another project or with support from the national government.

5.2.10 DESIGNING SITE BOUNDARIES AND CENTRAL DATA BASE

Designing site boundaries is one of the final tasks. First you must have rather confident topographic data on

‘best places’ for species and habitat types from the reference lists. Then you can overlap layers for each

species/habitat type using GIS methods and organize the particular sites in the best possible manner. Here

it is smart to take into account the possible dynamics of ecosystems and management needs/perspectives

in order to achieve/sustain the Directive’ goals in an efficient way. This helps to find technical answers to a

rather difficult question, how big the particular site should be. Countries are using different methodologies

for setting the boundaries of Natura 2000 sites. But it should be stressed that final selection and setting the

boundaries for future pSCI can only be done when the whole country has been inventoried. The IPA project

can only discuss a pilot methodology for delineation of particular pSCI.

Extremely important is to have an operational and managed central data base. Good organized data are

needed not only for technical justification of particular Natura 2000 site, but also for further negotiations

about sufficiency and complete implementation. Data are the base line for all future activities, including

management, monitoring and reporting. Without reliable data no reliable appropriate assessment can be

done, which means, that some decision can be later challenged by the court.

Data, once collected by public/project money, should be publically accessible, whether published on inter-

net, or even better, to be accessible through a public web portal. That means that there must be a compe-

tent organisation (central administration like EPA, or public authority) that will be responsible for long term

management of the data base.

All data collected within the project will be given to the MoSDT/EPA in raw form and in structured format in a

way that will be compatible to the SDF format, requested from the European Commission. GIS data on distri-

bution and site boundaries will be given as well.

5.3 ORGANISATIONAL AND LEGAL MATTERS

As it was said at the beginning, LoNP is providing a solid legal frame that can be used for designing the

Natura 2000 network and its later implementation. It is important to stress that this project is facilitating

national implementation capacity, which must be further developed and implemented in the regular gov-

ernmental framework after the project ends (planning of activities, personnel, finances, etc.).

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



42

/ 4

6

Some emphasises:

preparation of by-laws – all operational details have to be defined by by-laws, foreseen in LoNP. In

the first step this is the creation of ecological network, based on the by-laws regulating national ref-

erence lists and then sites and in line with the requirements of the Nature Directives. For full im-

plementation, also other provisions, e. g. for management, conservation measures, details on AA,

etc., have to be legally defined, as well. It is advisable to prepare and formalize everything and not

to wait till the last moment before entering EU.

it is important to build a rational national organisational structure that will be able to implement the

EU Directives. As in Montenegro capacities will always be limited in comparison with larger coun-

tries, the organisation has to be more smart. It is possible to combine the implementation of several

international treaties related to ‘nature’, but that means that administrative staff has to know very

well the specific requirements of each of them. Only then it is possible to find similarities and com-

bine implementation.

As implementation of Natura 2000 is very complex, the privilege and burden of obligations have to

be distributed in a right way, thus communication and participation is a must!

Natura 2000 brings financial consequences, mostly in the institutional and organisational structure,

which has to be accordingly organised to obligations and having trained staff in place and financial

capacities for proper future work.

5.4 COMMUNICATION

Communication is an essential part of the Natura 2000 exercise. As the principle approach is different from

the known nature conservation issues (e. g. protected areas, protected species), there are a lot of misunder-

standings, which can rise to opposition and implementation problems. They can even shadow clarification of

real problems.

That means that there is a broad target audience (decision makers, administration, science, stakeholders,

owners, general public, etc.), which has to be contacted and properly addressed by tailored messages and

information.

Communication should not be forgotten or underestimated in the designing process of the Natura 2000

network. Early involvement contributes to a technically better and accepted network and is a prerequisite for

efficient and less problematic implementation.

There is never enough communication!

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



43

/ 4

6

6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following findings and recommendations for future work can be drawn:

1. As Montenegro has adopted the new Law on Nature Protection which is in line with the EU Nature

Directives, there is no need to take a decision on Natura 2000 concept, but just to build capacity to

implement the LoNP.

2. As the date of accession is not known yet, it is very reasonable to establish the national ecological

network based on principles of the EU Nature Directives (using the example of Croatia). Following

Article 41 of the LoNP, by-laws needed for establishment of the national ecological network should

be finalized and adopted. In parallel, the technical work on the proposal for the national ecological

network should be intensified (reference lists, collection and validation of available data, gap analy-

sis, training for field research, field research, central data base, etc.).

3. The by-law on appropriate assessment and implementing structure should be adopted.

4. The technical proposal for correction of the biogeographical regions in MNE should be prepared and

discussed: the small part of the Continental region should be included under the Alpine region, and

the proposal should be sent to the Secretariat of the Bern Convention.

5. Constant support building up (and training) of expert teams for taxonomic groups and habitat types:

a core team should be placed in EPA, co-ordinating work of external experts (scientific institutions

and relevant NGO’s). Accordingly, adequate resources should be secured for EPA.

6. Above mentioned actions can be structured, developed and adopted in a Natura 2000 implementa-

tion plan for enhancing and sustaining capacity for Natura 2000 implementation. That would facili-

tate and guide the whole process as well as enable long-term planning (tasks, capacity, milestones,

and finances). In such document roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined, not only on

paper but in the practical day-to-day work, specifically a clear mandate for the EPA and MoSDT as

regards the designation process. Overall number of staff for implementing NATURA 2000 needs to

be significantly increased.

7. Designing of sites must be based on scientific criteria, only. When using available data it must be

constantly born in mind that the concept of Natura 2000 sites is very specific. Thus, other types of

international nominations (e.g. Ramsar, UNESCO World Heritage, UNESCO MAB, Emerald sites, etc.),

different NGO initiatives (e. g. IPA, IUCN Key Biodiversity Areas, etc.) cannot be directly converted to

Natura 2000 sites. However, they are sources of data; so available data should be checked against

Natura 2000 criteria and critically assessed. Even more, in case that available data are the result of

desktop exercises, they should be verified in the field. The only exceptions are BirdLife Important

Bird Areas (IBA) as they are acknowledged by the European Commission as reliable source of infor-

mation for SPA sites unless there are no available better and recent scientific information.

8. Natura 2000 sites are a relatively new concept of protected areas and different from other tradi-

tional categories used in protected areas systems in the region (mostly national, regional and land-

scape park types of protected areas). So it is not possible (it is wrong!) simply to convert existing

protected areas to Natura 2000 sites. Natura 2000 has narrow, specific and concrete goals – to

preserve or improve habitats for target species and habitat types. Natura 2000 sites should be de-

signed independently based on knowledge of distribution and population data of each of the spe-

cies/habitat type from the reference list. As there is big possibility that a huge proportion of Natura

2000 sites will overlap with protected areas, this can be used by smart fine tuning of the Natura

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



44

/ 4

6

2000 boundaries. Managers of protected areas should have a very important role in managing and

monitoring Natura 2000 sites within their protected area and even in the neighbourhood. They (in-

cluding personnel) should be informed and trained for these tasks.

9. The Emerald network of the Council of Europe is declaratory complementary to the Natura 2000

network outside EU. However, in praxis, the establishment is in most cases (particular in the region)

not following an analytical approach (species/habitat types inventories, selection of best areas,

overlapping and defining sites), but vice versa: at national level, a selection of certain areas is done

(a mixture of existing protected areas and outcomes of different projects), data are mostly desktop

based with little or no field work has been conducted. Thus, usually there is a serious lack of data

on species and habitat types from the reference lists, which should be the underlying reason for

proposing Natura 2000 site! This must be kept in mind to overcome shortages and traps of that ap-

proach (see next point).

10. As the financial means of the project are extremely limited, there was the only way to work on pre-

selected areas which derived from the Emerald network, which is not an ideal approach. Therefore,

it must be complemented by further research, mapping and selection of new sites in future. It is im-

portant to use the project momentum to build up a structure for technical work (EPA core technical

team, operative field teams, central data base, etc.) that will go beyond the scope of the project and

consider the territory of the whole country. Use the experience and capacity build in the project for

finishing the work on ecological network and use the gained structure and capacity for implementa-

tion.

11. Explore funding opportunities and develop project concepts/fiches (taking the absorption capacity

into account) for complementary work to finish the whole network.

12. Put intensive efforts in the preparation process, as the technical quality of the proposed sites of the

ecological network will have legal and economic consequences in the future (if the proposal will be

technically weak, a lot of problems will arise during implementation, some of them can even jeop-

ardise investments!).

13. Communicate and involve key stake holders in process (e.g. land owners, forestry, agriculture, tour-

ism, energy sector, infrastructure, etc.) to reach ‘speaking in one language’; information should be

specifically tailored to the stakeholder groups; but one message should always be the same: Natura

2000 sites will only be proposed based on scientific criteria; it would be advisable to elaborate a na-

tional communication strategy with clear goals, messages, tools, etc. and to design and implement

local communication strategies when potential sites have been proposed.

14. There is a need for political and technical leadership, supported by political will at highest level.

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



45

/ 4

6

7. REFERENCES

Bakran-Petricioli, T., 2011: Priručnik za određivanje morskih staništa u Hrvatskoj prema Direktivi o staništi-

ma EU. Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode, Zagreb.

Bosna i Hercegovina, outcomes of the Natura 2000 project 'Natura 2000 u BiH (2012-2015)':


Council of Europe, 2015: Updated list of officially nominated candidate Emerald sites (december 2015),

Standing Committee document T-PVS/PA (2015) 14, p. 7-8. –

https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=28

90756&SecMode=1&DocId=2323528&Usage=2

Croatia, Natura 2000 web page: http://www.natura2000.hr/

Dobravec, J., Jogan, N., Kaligarič, M., Leskovar I., Seliškar, A., 2004: “Habitatni tipi Slovenije HTS 2004, Re-

publika Slovenija, Ministrstvo za okolje, proctor in energijo - Agencija Republike Slovenije za okolje, Ljublja-

na, pp. 64.”-

http://www.arso.gov.si/narava/poro%c4%8dila%20in%20publikacije/HabitatniTipiSlovenije2004.pdf

European Commission, 2000: Managing NATURA 2000 sites, the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’

Directive 92/43/EEC.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf

European Commission, 2013: Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats - EUR28. Brussels, pp. 146

- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/Int_Manual_EU28.pdf

Golob, A. (ed.): Smjernice za pripremu Planova upravljanja za Natura 2000 područja u Bosni i Hercegovini,

Prospect C&S s.a., Brussels, pp. 9-14. - http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%202000%20-

%20Managment%20Plans%20LL.pdf

Gottstein, S., 2010: Priručnik za određivanje podzemnih staništa u Hrvatskoj prema Direktivi o staništima

EU. Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode, Zagreb.

Jelenić, I., 2014: Establishing the Natura 2000 network in Croatia. Presentation at TAIEX WS on Natura

2000, Skopje 27-28 March 2014.

Milanović, Đ., Brujić, J., Đug, S., Muratović, E. & L. Lukić Bilela, 2015: Vodič kroz tipove staništa BiH prema

Direktivi o staništima EU. Prospect C&S s.a., Brussels, pp. 186. -

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%202000%20-%20Interpretation%20Manual%20LL.pdf

Roekaerts, M., Opermanis, O., Evans, D., Sipkova, Z., Mac-Sharry, B. & D. Richard, 2011: Final Draft Conclu-

sions of the West Balkan second Emerald Biogeographic Seminar, Bar, 2. – 4. 11. 2011, Council of Europe. -

https://mycloud.coe.int/index.php/s/cudiuZPUr8IY6QE

Slovenia, Natura 2000 wb page: http://www.natura2000.si/

Topić., J. & J. Vukelić, 2009: Priručnik za određivanje kopnenih staništa u Hrvatskoj prema Direktivi o

staništima EU. Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode, Zagreb.

Skoberne, P., 2003: Metoda opredeljevanja potencialnih območij narave ekološkega omrežja NATURA 2000

v Sloveniji. Ministrstvo za okolje, prostor in energijo, Agencija RS za okolje, Ljubljana, pp. 48. -

http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/psci_metoda21.pdf


https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2890756&SecMode=1&DocId=2323528&Usage=2

https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2890756&SecMode=1&DocId=2323528&Usage=2

http://www.natura2000.hr/

http://www.arso.gov.si/narava/poro%c4%8dila%20in%20publikacije/HabitatniTipiSlovenije2004.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/Int_Manual_EU28.pdf

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%202000%20-%20Managment%20Plans%20LL.pdf

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%202000%20-%20Managment%20Plans%20LL.pdf

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%202000%20-%20Interpretation%20Manual%20LL.pdf

https://mycloud.coe.int/index.php/s/cudiuZPUr8IY6QE

http://www.natura2000.si/

http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/psci_metoda21.pdf

NATURA 2000

CONCEPTS



46

/ 4

6

Petrović, D., 2009: Montenegro. In: Radford, E.A. and Odé, B. (eds.), 2009. Conserving Important Plant Are-

as: investing in the Green Gold of South East Europe. Plantlife International, Salisbury. -

http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/our-work/publications/conserving-important-plant-areas-investing-green-

gold-south-east-europe

Legal documents:

Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and

of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. (the consolidated version after all the enlargements:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20130701)

Birds Directive: Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November

2009 on the conservation of wild birds. OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25 (amended Council Directive

79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147

http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/our-work/publications/conserving-important-plant-areas-investing-green-gold-south-east-europe

http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/our-work/publications/conserving-important-plant-areas-investing-green-gold-south-east-europe

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20130701

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147