 Dear participants of today's session, I wish you good morning, and welcome you to this webinar devoted to biodiversity and nature protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thank you very much for joining us in such a huge number. In circumstances caused by the pandemic, it is extremely nice to see such a huge number of participants in our webinar. In some other circumstances, we could not post such a huge number. My name is Senka Barudanowicz. I am professor at the Faculty of Mathematics and Science of the University of Sarajevo. I am the head of ecology section at the biology department. Today, together with my colleague, Professor Milena Mataruga, who is also a professor at the University in Banyaluca at the Forestry Faculty, I will moderate this session. The session aims to strengthen our capacity to raise the awareness of required plant actions for nature protection in the next 10 years. This webinar, as you may know, is a part of the ESAP project activities, ESAP 2030 development of the strategy and action plan for environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina until 2030. Within this webinar, we will have an opportunity to hear three distinguished experts in development of ecological networks in Europe. They will share with us their knowledge and experience in this process. They will address the benefits of the establishment of ecological networks, both for biodiversity and nature as well as humans and the society as such. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, traditionally, we are found of our nature, we are very proud of our nature, and it is a fact that we have very often taken as granted for granted. And I do hope that the takeout from this webinar makes us richer, and we will gain some ideas and clarity as to how we can continue protecting our nature using European mechanisms, and mechanisms which proved to be successful and efficient in the biodiversity conservation. In order to achieve our goal today, of course, we need to use the capacities, fully use the capacities of this webinar, and we will try to do so to this end. I throw your attention to the fact that although you cannot speak directly with us, I kindly ask you to use the question and answer box for asking any questions. If you have an icon, Q&A, where you can ask questions, and your questions will be read out and translated to our panelists, and one of them will be answering your question. For this, in order to work smoothly on this webinar, I would kindly ask all the native speaker of Bosnia and Serbia in our creation to use this option in the interpretation action, and English speakers, of course, to use the English option. Let me also remind you that we will have a 10 minute break at 10.25, and we will try to stick to the agenda and the timeline as much as possible. I will now hand over to Professor Mila Mataruga PhD. Professor, the floor is yours. Thank you, Professor. Certainly, I will use this opportunity to welcome our distinguished lecturers and presenters, and I also would like to say that I'm extremely pleased that we have such a huge response and so many participants. I have a nice number so far at our webinars. I will try to share my presentation at the beginning. My colleague Barudanovic and myself prepared this presentation in order to provide you with an overview of biodiversity situation, especially we're focusing on the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope you can hear me well and you can see my presentation. As Professor Sinc already noted, for those who attend these activities of e-sub development for the first time, I should note that this webinar is taking place within the activities developed by the National Strategy and Action Plan Development, funded by the Swedish Embassy and implemented by the Stockholm Environment Institute. The aim of this process is to provide and finish the strategy and submit it to the governments across the level, BIAH, Federation, the Public Aspska and Pachikodistik for their adoption. The project is taking place within seven working groups, and as you may see, we are in the working group number three, biodiversity and nature conservation. Thanks to these activities and the project, we will have a number of workshops and webinars, and this is the third one. If you are interested and eager to learn about some other topics, you can continue attending our webinars. Briefly, as Professor Barudanovic noted, we tend to brag about our nature and biodiversity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I will not take too much time talking about over 5,000 species that had been identified in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and nearly 1,800 endemic species. But that's thanks to the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina through biogeographical regions identified by Natura 2000 is positioned in three regions, continental, alpic and Mediterranean. In our previous activities in the implementation of ISAP within the working group for biodiversity, regardless of the jurisdiction or the level of the governments, we identified nine groups of challenges. Someone would say problems, but we call them challenges, which should be addressed in a near future in order to have a better approach to nature conservation in compliance with the EU principles. First of all, we identified legislative challenges. We identified the non-compliant regulations and the laws which are not aligned with the EU legislation and regulations, then we identified institutional challenges. And what we should stress today, we don't have sufficient exact accurate data on biodiversity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The level of protection of nature has been increasing on a daily basis, but we have not achieved EU standards yet. We should also address the lack of political will, undeveloped public awareness, that politicians tend to take decisions without previously consulting scientists and science and prevailing problem is the lack of funds for all these activities. And the fact that Natura 2000 is an activity which comprises two major directives, directive on birds and directive on habitats. We should inform you what has been done in Bosnia and Herzegovina to this end. We started 10 years ago and we established preliminary emerald network and then in the period 2007-2015 we implemented four projects in all these project stages. We were developing reference lists and we have tried to amend the applicable legislation and regulations so as to enable full implementation of Natura 2000 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the end of this project period, as you may see, we adopted the reference list and we already prepared some preliminary plans, management plans for pilot areas. We also developed some manuals, but we actually stopped when we had started to develop IT system which should have been established because in Bosnia and Herzegovina we could not agree where we should set up this system. And at the end, the system was set up in Croatia and it was active while we had the connection, but in the meantime it was closed down so we don't have access to this. A similar happened to the communication strategy. We should have formed the website Natura 2000 which is not active and which is not accessible. As a result of these activities until 2015, we prepared preliminary lists of areas, 122 areas. We proposed nearly one million hectares for the Natura network to be included in the Natura network and over 200 species were identified under annexes 124, directive on habitats. And all this has been done based on available literature and references the researchers could obtain in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We did not have sufficient field research. We had insufficient financial support in order to start to engage on mapping of areas and data collection in the field. Unfortunately, from 2015 until 2021, the processes on the implementation of Natura 2000 nearly stopped in Bosnia and Herzegovina and this is something which we may perhaps stress as one of the major goals of our activities. Maybe we should seek to identify mechanisms to secure financial and political support and agreement among various jurisdictions in Bosnia and Herzegovina taking into account different responsibilities across the jurisdiction and in compliance with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. To enable us to continue our work. We are fully aware of the procedures and at this point, what we are missing is mapping of different areas. We need to fill the forms and define specific areas and of course we need to take activities which will lead the participation of Bosnia and Herzegovina at biographical seminars. We are able to present what has been done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is just a very short overview of what we have done and what we expect in the near future. I believe you will have much more questions for our distinguished panelists from other countries. Professor Senka Barudanovich and myself, not only during this webinar but anytime thereafter will remain available for any questions. You may have any comments and you are mostly welcome to get involved in the activities of our working groups. We need this to come up with documents which will enhance all the procedures that are ongoing and improve the standards in this area. Professor Barudanovich, thank you. I turn over to you. Thank you Professor Mataruga for this very brief and concise overview of the challenges we face in efforts to establish the Natura Network and other networks. Thank you very much for inviting the public to join us in our efforts to define the area policies. So, I will invite our first panelist, Mr. Kaya Patterson, who will present the case study from Estonia. Of course, we will see what we can apply from what she informs us in our country. To briefly introduce the panelist, Kaya Patterson is working in SEI Institute Office in Tallinn since 1993. She is a senior researcher and since 2000 is director of the Sustainable Development Program. Her fields of interest and research including environmental policies, specifically environmental assessment, issues such as the methods of impact assessment, environmental management, the process of public involvement and the consideration of results of public involvement in decision making. Kaya published several books, guidelines and papers on these issues and she is also a respected and distinguished lecturer on these topics. Kaya, you have the floor. Thank you Senka for this very nice and promising introduction. What I would add is probably that the participants are wondering what is my relationship with Nature Conservation and Natura 2000. Then I can assure you that I was the project manager for selecting the bird areas, the SBAs under the birds directive for Estonia between 2000 and 2003 when Estonia was very heavily involved in joining the EU because Estonia joined EU in 2004. And so it took us a little bit less than nine years from the association agreement with the EU to become a full member of EU and do all the different environmental key activities and transposition of EU legislation in less than nine years. So we regarded quite a strenuous period for us but it also provided Estonia lots of new experiences and new, I would say, new values and even in the Nature Conservation field because my first training comes from ecology. And then I have built up on environmental assessment and specifically the Natura assessment or appropriate assessment. So this is what I would like to share with you the Estonian experience today, what we learned and especially from the perspective of an ecologist. So this is my background. Would I have the first slides please? Next one please. Yeah, so I would like to touch upon what are the differences or what have been the main differences applying the EU Nature Conservation Directives, the Habitus Directive and the Birds Directive. Because as any other country and also Bosnia and Herzegovina and all the European countries have a long history of nature conservation and what is the Natura 2000 brings along, what are the differences, what we should reconsider and maybe even revaluate. And definitely the transposition and implementation of the two Nature Conservation Directives of EU bring along different impacts, different effects to not only to nature conservation but also to other sectors because they are all interlinked. And finally just to visualize some of the Estonian examples. Next slide please. What I consider the main difference is that nature conservation has become more of a legal procedure. On one hand it has become rather complicated as any legal procedure usually does. But on the other hand, it has given nature conservation a very firm legal framework, which means that you can't just do anything in the nature, but you have to consider you have to justify you have to motivate your decisions. And more importantly, you have to plan and assess the activities with a consideration of what would be the impacts on the nature. So the nature conservation is populated quite a lot of different terms, but they are not just simple terms, they have legal framework, they have legal meaning. And this makes it probably as I said, complicated, but when you get used to it, you take it rather naturally. What it also brought about, at least to Estonia was that accidentally or by surprise to some people or decision makers at local and the governmental level that the ecologists have become very important positions, very, very important people, because they know the species, they know the habitats, they know how they function, what they need for their functioning. And since this forms the baseline for establishing the Natura 2000 sites. So the government officials and the local governments are desperately looking for for this information and who are the people who know the Beatles who know the different plant species or lichens or mosses, or even snails, whatever are listed in the habitats, direct to the annexes, and also the birds that similar similar to the habitat directive. So the ecologists are becoming very important people and with the backing of the legal system and with the backing of decision making and impact assessment. Thirdly, I would point out that quite a lot of time and resources and thinking were initially, at least in my country, devoted to demarcation, ordering the areas and and when the impact assessments were organized. The borders were taken as very important aspects of where the impact actually reaches, what is in the impact area, whether there are any Natura 2000 sites. But I would like to assure you and I will visualize it also in the next slide that the borders actually do not matter so much. It's about land ownership and how to identify the areas, but in terms of the impacts, the borders does not matter so much at all. So the impact, whether the impact, the habitats and species will get the impact or not. And, firstly, I would point out that why I'm saying that nature conservation becomes a very strong legal ground is that every time anything is planned in nature. In the outer environment, the Natura assessment or appropriate assessment should be conducted. And more importantly, the outcome of this assessment should assure the decision maker whether any impacts are envisaged or no impacts could follow. So if there is an even a slight uncertainty, then the Habitus Directive Article 6.3 requests that further and more in-depth assessment is needed, which means that the permissions to build or excavate or to forest filling or whatever land use change in the environment do not have just very simple solutions, but rather it should become as an object of impact assessment on the habitats and species. So as I said, the nature conservation becomes as a form of legal grounds and the ecological knowledge is very important. And also it might be looked that it's restrictions, restrictions and the economic activities are prohibited. This is not the case. I will come back to it later today in my second presentation. What is important is the integrated approach. As I said, the different sectors, not only sectoral view, but also from the point of view of taxing. Let's say there are mechanisms or instruments where the government can provide different taxing systems depending on the severity of the limitations to economic activities. But on the other hand, also the compensation measures or payments are those that would mitigate those different restrictions and these become very sophisticated and as far as EU is concerned, quite largely used. But we will look at them later today. And lastly, but not leastly, I would say that the nature conservation is not only your state or entity matter, it's an EU matter. So in several cases, the approval of the European Commission is needed in order to proceed with different activities. So it should also take to be taken into account. The next slide please. So this is an illustration what I said about the borders. There can be different activities with different impacts. Let's say this green dot is a natural 2000 site and either this is a corridor or is it something that is going to build a building. So it may have depending on the environment, the landscape, the hydrological situation, it may have different impact areas. So the most important thing is whether the natural site, the habitats and species will be impacted. Not that let's say it's 500 meters from the natural site border. So we assume that there are no impacts. So those metering doesn't play a role. Next slide please. This is an illustration of how the establishment of Natura 2000 sites was envisaged. And this is probably all known to you, but I want to emphasize in this graph and why the system is called Natura 2000. Since the habitat directive was adopted in 1992, and it was envisaged that by 2000 everything is in place. The network is there, it's functioning, the species and habitats are protected. And of course, it didn't materialize in such a well way. Depending on the system that according to the habitat directive, the orange box is here. It's a gradual and step by step assessment of the proposed sites, which finally becomes the sites of the Natura 2000 network. As you see from the left hand side, the birds directive is quite simple. So the areas or special areas, the special protection areas, SBAs, if they are identified, they almost immediately become part of the Natura 2000 network. One more term in this graph is the biographical seminars. And it was also referred by Senka and Camilan. This is where experts gather and they are looking at the proposed sites from a biographical point of view. Next slide please. And there are 11 biogeographical regions across Europe. And these regions play quite a substantial and important role because the addition to the biogeographical region from the joining EU countries will be specifically looked at whether it will provide some extra sites, extra protection to the species. The next one please. And moreover, from this slide you can see that some of the habitats are not represented in all EU countries or they are represented to a certain extent. And some countries have quite significant important role for protecting those habitats and species. Next slide please. For instance, Estonia, Finland and Sweden, we have quite important responsibility for Alvars for the dry crosslands and these are priority habitats across EU. So it shows that what happens in Estonia, Finland and Sweden, and especially when the impacts are concerned, then we have to be very careful. It's not only about our country, but it's about the habitat across EU. Next slide. And this is how the Estonia Natura 2000 network looks like today. I must say that the number of SBAs is 66 and even the borders or the area of the SBAs haven't changed since 2004. So we pretty well knew at that time where the best bird areas were, and especially thanks to the projects, different projects prior to the joining of EU, and especially when Estonian Ornithological Society identified the IBAs, the important bird areas. The number of habitat sites has increased to 541 and you see that the marine areas and the mainland with those brownish dots and many of the areas of habitats are also coinciding with the SBAs with the bird areas. So it's a good mixture of applying the Nature Conservation Directives in Estonia. But my fellow speakers will now elaborate how they implemented the Natura 2000 in Croatia and the cross EU. So thank you for your attention. Thank you Kaja for your informative resourceful presentation on establishment of Natura 2000 network in Estonia. And indeed for all the notes which can lead us into thinking as to how to seriously deal with the establishment of the same network in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I will note here those listeners and audience who have asked questions already in our agenda, we have a special section after 11 o'clock for questions and answers. So you don't expect your answers now but I would like to prompt you to do use this section and ask your questions. Now we will move to embrace another presentation related to the establishment of Natura 2000 sites and ecological networks in Croatia it is our great pleasure to greet, this is a message who is a biologist and ecologist with over 18 years of professional experience in nature conservation team leader and coordinator of field research on habitat mapping for multiple protected areas and ecological network sites, including the research of specific objectives of ecological network preservation among other things she worked as coordinator of field research on distribution of 11 taxonomic groups in Republic of Croatia within the EU integration project Natura 2000. As expert for the ecological network Natura 2000 on a technical assistance program for the implementation of Natura 2000 in Turkey, she participated in the development of the manual for ecological network appropriate assessment Natura 2000 and she has been a lead expert in appropriate assessment of more than 20 projects for the ecological network. During, I apologize, over the last two years she has been a lecturer at the Hunting and Nature Conservation Studies at the associate degree college in Carlovet where she teaches courses on nature conservation and bio diversity. I apologize if I shortened presentation about drink and now we will have a great pleasure to hear from her on the establishment of establishment of Natura 2000 in Croatia. Thank you, please take the floor. Good afternoon, I would like to greet everyone I'll try to use these 20 minutes to share a process with you which has lasted for the last 20 years. There are two roles of mine in the process one as an authorized person working on assessment appropriate assessment and the other is researcher for habitat and species. When we refer to Natura 2000 in Croatia, we I would like to mention one thing you can see where this network when we refer to terrestrial Natura 2000 area, the first three countries with the highest share of ecological network in their territory are three Baltic countries. Natura is someone, be somewhat behind Slovenia. At one point, we were in front of them. However, Slovenia later received requirement to include some other areas of its country in the tour 2000. The right hand side is related to the tour 2000 area marine area. This segment is not showing the percentage but the share of the area and this is another part which we should add in the next period. We have slightly less than 37% of the terrestrial territory of the ecological network and slightly above 16% of coastal areas 745 areas for preservation of important areas and some for birds. I should I was to address the establishment and appropriate assessment of ecological network and the management of the ecological network and the part that pertains to every member state that they have to set up a monitoring system to show that they adequately manage the network. The timeline with regard to defining and setting up the ecological network came up back when we discussed the emerald network and all the countries had a similar process. As you do in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you gather all data regarding the space species habitats, you carry out the mapping for this data to integrate them into the GIS system and in this first period from 2002 2005 the prepared the proposal for the emerald network which was the basis for us to define first and national ecological network of the Republic of Croatia and in 2013 when we became a member. We became the Natura 2000 network. I singled out certain other periods and points during this period of 13 years and one of them is that we established a professional body the National Institute one independent national body this is crucial and this contributes to quality of preparation of the ecological network and its development. There are several other projects which were also directly related to this, including the live project that address the challenge of development of the ecological network, which so called pro net then, which was the basis for further development in 2007 and establishment of the ecological ecological network, another activity which helped hugely in the preparation process was the development of the map for the Republic of Croatia. If you have such a map, it is easier to define other things, important areas for ecological network, etc. So we had a number of projects that that were implemented and some processes focusing on defining and development of the network through different projects mainly funded by the EU. And in this process we actually prepared the ecological network in 2013 we simply declared it. When we became the member, we, the process did not stop. We had to propose our ecological network and it had to be discussed at the biogeographical seminars and that happened very soon for Croatia and the majority of the proposed areas were accepted. So for some areas we had to make some modifications we had to further protect some areas and we had to add some species in other areas. The establishment of the emerald network. It is a process which requires mapping of territorial habitats, which is used for development of natural habitats. 50% of the terrestrial territory of Croatia was actually important for the establishment of this network. In some later analysis we came up with 37% and that's more or less the percentage which remained unchanged. At the early beginning of the National Institute for Nature Conservation set up a system for information sharing so information was available and accessible to the public and for all of us who were not directly engaged or employed with state institutions. It was very useful and enabled us to get engaged in the process. When proposing Natura 2000 areas, every country can add their own species to the list and Croatia did so in its own proposal. We added, I believe, some 20 species and two habitat types. One of them were sediment barriers. EU is sometimes hesitant to accept adding of new species because that can affect other members. In other states, if they also have these species, then they have to review their areas of ecological species. When you have the genia Vallabitica, which can be found only on the mountain Vallabit, it is much easier to do this. You can see the overview by species. We have 76 habitat types which were declared a part of the ecological network and 122 bird species and 146 other species. A very important part in the implementation of the whole process, not only the establishment but some other things that need to be done is the management of, such as management of the ecological network is the information system. Croatia or the state institute or national institute for nature conservation was responsible for this and it looks like this today. This is public information and they are available at request, but we are still have no functionality which enables you to obtain data on certain species of plants or animals. But then we have the map of habitats which is available to everyone and this makes easier the implementation of the ecological network. On the right hand side, you see the database which was developed by Professor Tony Nikolić from the Faculty of Mathematics and Science in Zagreb. This is the database, Floracratica database. It is a database which was established in late 90s already and today it is a very important source of information both from Natura 2000 and nature conservation in general. This is really something valuable because all of us who research Flora and Fauna can contribute to the database and improve it on a daily basis. Despite the fact that we had multiple projects in this period of 20 years, this is a print screen of the description of one area of ecological network. You can see the goals of conservation and we marked red data quality, DD means data deficiency and this is something which we still lack. And there is there are a lot of things that need to be upgraded in this ecological database. So the process takes more than 20 years and you must use different mechanisms and projects. Another important method is that we had a number of projects after we became the member and these projects were seeking to improve this lacking data. And I see now that I made an error we had the Natura integration, which was funded by the World Bank, which means that the state actually took a loan to fund this project. The mapping of course, none would have it and inventory of nine taxonomic groups of animals, these were two major projects of inventory in the territory of Croatia, since we know the research in the Republic of Croatia. We had the project aimed at drafting of management plans for strictly protected species I believe that we made management plans for eight species and what we have now these are competition and cohesion projects, some of them started at 2016 but in some of them we still did not the implementation we still did not start the field work one is also related to the monitoring of Nature Natura 2000. And this, we have the project of mapping of coastal and the commercial marine habitats. We have a problem that we the procurement procedure is a long lasting process as you can see in 2016 we should have started with the implementation. But we are still not. We still not been able to go to the field and actually started undertaking activities so the public procurement is a long lasting project and this is an advice for you you should focus on this and you should try to arrange it in a better way. Now I will open a topic which is related to appropriate assessment of the ecological network or article six of habitats directive. You see parts of this article I will not read them but through the appropriate assessment of the ecological net network every country is required to, to make sure that interventions, programs or plans do not undermine the integrity of the ecological network that's in brief. This is one of the certainly most strongest mechanisms for nature conservation anywhere in the world. And from our experience, what I can say, and I have been involved in the implementation since the beginning. As you will see on the next slide, we had the first appropriate assessments in 2009, and in 2009, we had hardly five employed biologists. Just to illustrate how poor we're in, we were in human resources today, we have over 20 of biologists and together with other partner companies, I can say that more than 50 biologists were involved in the activities on nature conservation and very likely by the end of this year we will have 10 biologists employed in our authorities. This should be a very strong mechanism, which will make all the stakeholders in the economy to get involved in an adequate way, because as I mentioned already, the knowledge, the knowledge of biologists is crucial in it has never been so important. There are two stages, the screening appropriate assessment and overriding public interest with compensatory measures. What I could say about that is that I know that very often the investors think if appropriate assessment is not positive, so if we identify probability of major impact, then they say then but there is an overriding public interest. That's a situation you would not like to be in, because that complicates things a lot. I could have another presentation only on this point, but just briefly in 2005 we intensified activities when the law defined the ecological network, in 2007 regulation, we had a support point to carry out appropriate assessment, at the beginning we called it nature impact assessment, then we had to define the content of this new document which we needed to develop and then we had some activities related to the accession process and the approximation process in the following years. When we look at the whole procedure, it can be an independent process. I showed here the process and as you can see it is open for the public during screening phase, appropriate assessment stage and they all involve public hearing. And as you can see this is the website of the ministry which shows the whole procedure. This also can be done within the environmental impact assessment or a strategic environment impact assessment. Just briefly, appropriate assessment for interventions regarding ecological assessment, all those who are authorized persons and who are members of the committees, they are all not certain what is a significant impact, how it can be defined. And it has been changed also based on decisions of the EU judgments of the EU court, this is nothing which is static. Very often it is necessary to carry out additional research and the research can take up to a year or even more. And this is something that the leaders of any interventions or actions must have in mind. There has been a lot of resistance. First of all, there is a financial aspect and then the aspect of time. If you tell someone that they need to wait for a year to carry out the project, it's a major thing. I also mentioned the education of authorized persons who are carrying out these studies and those who prepare the studies and also the education of members of committees, commissions, several manuals were developed for the appropriate assessment. And we upgraded them in the recent period, updated them and they contain some additional documents. Strategic impact environment assessment is a process causing many problems, particularly when it refers to major assessment and it becomes one in some strategies, rounds and programs, it can create a lot of stalemnt and prevention in development of strategic environment impact. It is conducted on the local, regional, national levels. It has been problematic. So they had doubts whether some plans such as forestry or strategic planning is required or not. It was tried to be avoided in some other processes but ultimately it is difficult that you can avoid some things since the European Union is quite strict in certain matters as they dictate what can be done. So in few years you receive the decision that you are to change the law and procedures. One of the problematic areas is that the assessment of documented higher level, it boils down to the lower level. However, the higher level does not have sufficient details so that you can problem is how many details you include during this assessment. Perhaps I would like to note the part related to the training of members of the committee in our strategic planning we have noticed not only when it comes to major assessment that many problems can arise where some members of committees do not fully understand the level of where such documents are being prepared and developed. One thing that I perhaps have not mentioned before in my slide is that in other procedures appropriate assessment for ecological measure. The role of the Institute which is called the Nature Conservation Institute that for any major assessment at any level whatsoever expert opinion should be issued by the Institute for Nature Conservation. So it is very important element and based there on members of the committee should provide their view. Briefly about stakeholders, some of them have been noted here where the implementation of Natura 2000 and implementation of ecological measures makes them to conduct some new procedure. Usually through management plans of natural resources, Croatian waters, forestry, electric distribution company, and those who have to slightly change some things in their own procedures. This is something which requires a lot of energy, a lot of efforts to be invested, which would then ultimately pay off. One of the problems that we've been facing is in spatial plans, they must be at the continental level go through the strategic environmental impact assessment, and many contents, many districts avoid their revisions to spatial plans because in some of the things interventions that they wanted to do through these plans, they will need to give it up so development of such plans are quite demanding they can last for many years. And this is something that nobody is eager to do. One, briefly on a more positive note, one of the issues for stakeholders, agriculturists, or farmers can contribute to different issues through their practices through the rural development plan measure number 10, where the ways of management of grassland is regulated so that they contribute to nature conservation and protection of biodiversity, and this is mostly related to Natura 2000, one of the things that we've been working on. Currently working on a project involving monitoring over the implementation of this measure, and we collect information and data for Natura 2000 sites related to types of habitats. Currently, we are developing management plans for the ecological network sites. And management itself of these sites, but also including sectoral plans for management of natural resources. A lot of things have been dealt with under those plans for the implementation of management and this is one of the very important elements. One of the methods that are contributing, it is the rule book on the targets of conservation and measures of the preservation of target types of birds in the ecological network sites, which defends what is the size of population and what measures should be implemented by individual sectors in order to preserve the species or habitat type. The ways of management of ecological network sites, national parks or nature parks is managed by the state owned institutes and there are 21 canton and each canton must have their own public institution which will manage the ecological network sites and they also manage the sites, excuse me, protected areas in terms of the law on nature conservation, but they also manage sites of ecological network problem arises when ecological network site is located and distributed in several canton's every state level institution is in in charge, which is located in that particular site. However, the management plan is unique for the entire ecological network site, so it's a bit complex, and we have not made such management plans yet in the upcoming year or two, we will be able to tell you how to overcome this issue this problem. It's also important to mention management forest management plans or forest land management plans are those plans that manage ecological network sites. So these plans are developed by foresters, and it's a part which has been currently regulated. Every member state has the obligation to perform monitoring and reporting. We have entered this period of reporting between 2013-2018 the next one is between 2019-2024. As you can see here in species, we have a lot of gray areas, which are unknown. This is the part related to the missing data. However, we have a big project, which should organize monitoring, one of the problem is that we do not have sufficient experts to perform all the activities that are necessary. I'm not sure if I exceeded my time, perhaps I should stop here or if I have some more time to continue. I'm truly sad to stop you here because all the information that you have shared with us are very important showing how complex process is ahead of us. Of course, our time for break has already ended. If you want to continue and move on, please do and finish your presentation after the break. If you want to do so because it is truly important or we can move on with the next presentation later and you can please join us with the discussion. We have already received many questions. Thank you. I do apologize for exceeding the time. The last slide or the second to last, there is no need for me to read it out. I have already mentioned and tackled upon all the issues I'd like just to greet everyone. Thank you one more time. I didn't want to interrupt you because your presentation is quite comprehensive providing us with many important details important for us as well kindly ask you to take a break for 10 minutes and we will come back at 1052. Please do not switch off from zoom. Just come back at 1052 when we shall resume. Thank you. Dear attendees of this webinar. I hope that you have all come back. We have finished with our break. We even exceeded it a few minutes. We devoted it to reading out your questions. I'm glad to see your questions. We will try to get responses to your questions from our panelists in order to keep up our dynamics. We will kindly ask our next panelists to take the floor and of course I will ask to provide response to questions and thus cover the remaining parts of her presentation that she didn't manage to present today. Now it is our great honor to hear from Mr. Theo van der Sluis coming from again and again environmental research. He is a landscape ecologist with a PhD on European processes of landscape change he worked for over 20 years on development of networks of protected areas in many European countries, including central and Eastern Europe. I'm glad to say that Theo has actively participated in projects of cross-border cooperation on recognizing important sites for ecological measures between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia. He is also involved in the work of the European Center on Biological Diversity with a particular focus on landscape connectivity. Theo, please take the floor. Thank you very much. I would also like to thank the organization for inviting me to present to this large number of people. I should add one point. I'm also project leader for the biogeographical process, which is a contract with the European Commission, whereby we support all the European member states in developing the 2000s. In the research, we also organize different workshops, network events and seminars. Like at a moment we are preparing for the Mediterranean seminar for all Mediterranean countries to discuss the topics related to the 2000 and the new biodiversity strategy. So that also connects to all the previous presentations. We are supporting the member states in their process of implementing, which is an ongoing process. Well, let me continue. I will briefly present. Why do we need ecological networks or green infrastructure, as it is always also called. The bit about national approaches on ecological networks and how to develop ecological networks at site or regional level. And in brief, I will say something about funding and where you can find some further information also. Well, ecological networks. One moment, let me check that I have. Yes. Ecological networks are essential because the modern landscape, as we know it is totally fragmented. We have the railways, we have built up areas, we have houses. Next slide please, by the way. We have our industry and, well, as you know, as well know our landscape has considered has changed considerably. Well, as a result, we see that what was in the past. Well, natural habitat living areas for species. It has decreased and decreased. And we have ended up in a situation where there's very little natural habitat left. In fact, it's the situation and the right bottom. So few fragments or for instance for us or wetlands or whatever is remaining. What we have to go now is to a situation where you try to reconnect what is left. And partly you can focus on restoring lost habitats, lost wetlands or grasslands or whatever. It's also a matter of connecting those patches to improve biodiversity. This relates to the concept that we discussed, the concept of ecological networks. It's a concept which has been well much used developed within landscape ecology. And as mentioned, there are several terms for it, you can call it landscape connectivity or spatial cohesion or, well, nowadays they use also the concept of green infrastructure. Which is more or less the same but more multifunctional with other functions like the recreation or adapted farming. Well, an ecological network consists of habitat patches for the population of species, a particular species that exchanges individual by dispersal. So you might have a core area and smaller areas around it and between those areas there are species moving. And that is how the network functions. So, besides core areas, the good protected areas, there are also corridors. That's an important concept. And the corridors may differ. It is obvious that a corridor for a fish should be a waterway somehow. It should be water connecting areas. However, a corridor for a birch might be different because they can cover some hostile habitat, hostile territory. So in that respect, well, you don't need a physical connection directly. You might perhaps need stepping stones between protected areas. Also important is that a network is species based. It is not a matter of doing a calculation and calculating a fragmentation index and trying to improve that index that is of no use at all. You have to focus it on certain target species. For instance, the links or for instance fish species for which you want to connect protected areas. Yes. And well, if we focus on species, next slide. Let me see. Yes, if we focus on species, we asked experts in European workshop, which species do most need connectivity green infrastructure. And well, those experts 50 or so they mentioned as first, well, aquatic species, fish species. They also mentioned mammals as being very important and also insects to a lesser extent, perhaps birds and flowers. Well, that is the kind of gut feeling, of course. And it depends very much on the mobility of a species. And also the type of available habitat, which is present in the landscape and that forms part of the ecological network. Well, to some extent, also some habitats, we discussed the different habitats in the habitats directly. Also habitats do need connectivity. They also need exchange across the landscape, especially in the light of climate change. That is going to be a very important issue in the near future. Well, what species do need what's connectivity. First of all, there are species that are good disperses there are species that are poor disperses that that means they can distribute, they can move easily or not so easily. And they have different strategies for spatial cohesion. Networks are important for poor dispersals that that need a small network area, but they are very much dependent on very specific habits, like for instance, particular rare subproxilic beetles. They they might need a network to survive. On the other hand, there are also species that might be good disperses, but they need a large territory, like the links that I mentioned before. They need large area as well. And my next slide shows then the principle. You have a certain graph of cohesion of the landscape and a certain aim that you would like to achieve for biodiversity. And along that graph, for instance, where those access cross you see here a marmot and here the fragmentation level is okay. The species that the protected areas are barely enough connected for this species to be sustainable. This is on the threshold value or above the threshold value. That means that for all other species that have less demands, like flowers, like small mice. The next slide please. Yes. And one more. Yes. Yes. So, all species with less demands on the left of the marmot, like some reptiles, like flowers, like mice. They have a situation where they can exchange between those areas, whereas species with higher demands, like those ones to the right on top. Certain species with large territories or links or so they might need additional measures for those species work has to be done to improve connectivity. Well, I show an example in the next slide of infrastructure to improve connectivity because those species that need improved networks. They do need well means to to cross, for instance, the highways is an example of our first eco duct in the Netherlands, which was built I think 25 years ago. But in the meantime, we have, I think about 35 eco ducts in the Netherlands to improve landscape connectivity for particular species. Well, you see some other examples in the next slide, the other needs very specific measures, also along waterways in the roads to pass those roads. Amphibians might need different measures. For fish might be an opportunity also. And you also see one eco duct in the construction, which I visited with an Israeli visitor three years ago. So that are all examples of how you can restore connections in the landscape. Next slide. Yes. I can't see my zoom. Well, I will just continue. There's some information about funding in the slides. I will show you some examples of projects that were funded by the live program, the EU live program. For instance, projects to improve the connectivity for large carnivores to remove barriers or raptors migration measures to ensure river connectivity. Transnational planning of ecological networks and other conservation actions. So that is a way how projects are funded. This program has been scaled up a lot in the coming years that there is a large increase in budget by almost 2 billion euro from the present live program. I'm not sure I couldn't find the information so easily whether at the moment there is pre accession funding for Bosnia Herzegovina for this purpose, there was in the past I know that. But there is also of course the opportunity to coordinate to cooperate with other member states. And it might well be possible that Bosnia participates in a project on for instance brown beer or links that is focusing on connectivity where Bosnia can be one of the partners in a project. Coming to policy and legislation. For the European member states article 10 of the habitants directive is very important to implement corridors to improve the ecological networks. Ecological networks are also seen as part of the natural 2000 network ecological corridor sorry. Also the emerald network recommends the development of corridors. And the new EU by diversity strategy for 30 also highlights the importance of a coherent trends European nation network. This is exactly to set up ecological corridors to prevent genetic isolation, allow for species migration and maintain and enhance healthy ecosystems. So also the coming years, this is going to be an important focus because in Europe we have. In the European member states we have realized that our, the conservation status of species and habits is still insufficient. Too many species are in poor conservation status that is partly due to, well, poor habitat quality, but partly also due to the poor connectivity, the poor landscape cohesion. So, as mentioned, the new strategy mentions that a lot of funds will be available 20 billion a year for investing in green infrastructure. Well, if we look at ecological networks at a national level. Planning landscape collectivity and ecological network is done in different ways in different regions of Europe. Often you see very regional approaches. You saw that in the past like 30 years ago, the development of the ecological network started in central Europe and in the Baltic states they had a leading role in those days. And we see nowadays that you can define between federal states and no federal states, the federal states like Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain. They are very decentralized and different regions have different approaches. But as other countries, it's a coordinated national approach to develop an ecological network. And I just show a few maps, the map from the Netherlands, we started 50 ecological network in 1991, like the 92. And this is the map that was developed at the time. Also the map from Estonia, the green network. This map is 2010. France has made a very liberated process of develop different networks that were merged into one map for the tram, very blue. Germany has also a quite different network, it has a federal approach as I mentioned so it differs how dense the network is in some boombas lender. Sometimes it's very dense, sometimes it's not. And you have many very small fragmented protected areas. Well, I show some examples of ecological of work on ecological networks and they come from a study I did for the top center by the first in 2019. I show. Well, there are examples in that report on different habitats for instance for boreal Baltic coastal meadows for alpine rivers and for temporary Mediterranean homes and these are all habitats from the habitats are active which are considered important which are in need of connectivity. So you can find it in that report how that approaches, and you can see the cover of that report. This report is going online, or it is already online now, and I will give you afterwards some details to check for more information on this study. This handbook is available for all member states and all other countries and interested experts to consult. And one of the chapters is indeed dealing with the green infrastructure and network coherence. Well, I give an example of temporary Mediterranean pulse. There's a distribution map with red dots on the right. You can see where you see where the habitat is occurring. Several live projects have been executed in the past to construct and rehabilitate Mediterranean pulse. Also to eradicate exotic species, which is an important problem for this habitat. There are two drain ditches and for reintroduction of species. And there are for instance projects on the coast of Portugal life charter course that hasn't worked on it. In the slide you also see by the way the reference to the report that is example is worked out. Well, we also did in the same report some examples of species that need connectivity. One of the species is the European Sturgeon or the beluga. It's the large copper butterfly species. Eurasian links and the stack beetle. These are also all species from the habitats directive. So, yeah, check out that report for the war elaboration on this or the handbook where you find the same examples. I also give an example for Ukraine, Belovatsk region, which is Lugansk Oblast, where we nowadays have those problems, all the unrest. I did some field work there for steppic habitats like 10 years ago. We used a map because as you recall, ecological networks have to be species specific and habitat specific so this purpose was really to make an ecological network for steppic habitats which are very important in this area. So we prepared that map with remaining grasslands and steppe that are still there. And we defined the number of species which are depending on that steppic habitats and the species. Basically, they differ from spotic sous-slick up to the wolf, steppe harrier or eagle owl. And the species differ in their requirements. On the left top, there are species that need only small areas. They have limited range. Right bottom, you see species that have a large range and also needs very large areas. And in developing a network, you should, well, define what your aim is. Are you happy if the marbled pole cat with all the species to the left can come back? What do you want to have a higher aim and want to have populations of wolf that can move in the landscape. So that that is a choice for politicians to make, but we as specialists, species experts, we have to advise the policymakers on what approach and which species can be focal for the network. Well, we visited all the remaining steppe grasslands, we identified what the good grasslands were. And we also identified in the landscape where potential corridor could occur. And that are the yellow lines in the map. That are the possible steppe corridors. We did spatial modeling. I won't go into much detail but what you see here is a map that we analyzed with the model large. And you see that in the bottom center, there is the dark, bright green area, which is considered a poor area for the steppe marmots. And in the ecological network, you aim to make connections from that area to other areas. With the model, we could show also if the network could work would be sufficient for the species to obtain sustainable populations. So that that is an approach that we follow there that we did similar work, for instance in central Poland for the Vistula river and in other regions in Europe as well. If you recall, well, our colleague from Croatia mentioned in her slides also the work that was done on the Sava river and I happened to be in Bosnia in the years 2003 till 2005. At the time I also met already Senka Barudanovich. But at the time we had a partners for water project, which was also working looking at developing an ecological network for the Sarah. And we worked with the different governments, with the different authorities, the river basin committee, experts in conservation planning on this network. And we worked on the ground, we had several experts involved from the different countries, we organized at the time also a workshop in Sarajevo, where we discussed. Well, the network and of course in those days that means we're not as good as we have nowadays, but we managed to print large maps and with the experts. In this case, Croatian experts, we look at the quality of areas and at species which would depend on the Sava river for connectivity. It is very important to stress here that in this work, transboundary work is essential. And that is not only for Bosnia, it counts for all European member states. Also, France and Germany have to discuss those transboundary corridors. Networks don't stop at a border. Networks cross those borders. So it needs discussions with neighboring countries, with neighboring regions to define what priorities should be, which species should have priority and what joint measures can be made to make a joint network. And as mentioned, live projects, for instance, can be such a tool to develop or to open such discussions that also other means can be followed. Well, then I come to my final slide with key findings. Well, it doesn't matter much what name you give it, whether it is ecological network or network coherence or green infrastructure. The names may differ, but the concepts are similar. It is a matter of connecting areas, connecting natural habitats. The problem is that many networks are developed. They are on paper, but they are not brought into practice. It remains a paper network. So, in reality, a lot of work has to be done at a national level to improve the network coherence or the landscape connectivity. And to make that map also practice. And you have to discuss with the different landowners, how to realize a corridor that a landowners will accept that also shoot a purpose of connecting those protected areas. As mentioned, the new biodiversity strategy 2030 is very important for the EU member states to improve ecological networks. So, in aspect is that ecological networks should be species based. So, do not just connect the protected areas, it doesn't make sense to connect wetlands with forest areas because there is no corridor necessary, usually. You connect wetlands with wetlands or forests with forests or grasslands with grasslands. There are opportunities for funding, perhaps pre accession funding or other ways of funding, and that should be looked into. One thing that I haven't mentioned in my slide, but in our work for the bio geographical process. We have a newsletter where we announced different meetings, discussion groups, for instance, we the plan this year, and meeting on fly base for birds for ecological networks for birds in Croatia, I think. If you subscribe to our newsletter you will be informed about such events happening and you can join those meetings, either online or live in Croatia. So, I will put that the email address in the chat so you can subscribe to the newsletter and be informed about activities that we're doing on the European network. That's all I want to say. Thank you very much. Thank you for your information. We have received many information today. I would like to thank Drenka, who has been helping us with responses in the answers and questions box I would kindly ask Kaya to take the floor and to present her second presentation. Thank you. Now we have come to a stage where all those ideas and the pre work and the establishment of areas has come to a point to put into interaction, how to implement that and what mechanisms and what instruments the governments have. Or and I would like to illustrate some of the some of the possibilities. So some people say that there is no question nature has intrinsic value and then we should be very careful of destroying it or affecting it. Although we all know that we we are using natural resources and we trade with them and there are resources that we are not trading with. And but but still we are we are trying to put some some price tags on on the on the resources. And I would like to go through what we mean by land management for conservation. And and then the few arguments that are prevailing and then I would say universal to all the countries independent of whether they are you members or not. I would like to illustrate how the nature conservation in in land management have been implemented and what are the new trends and and ways out on the example of Austria, which is perhaps more. I mean from the natural point of view and as the environment point of view more similar to Bosnia than Estonia is because Estonia is a flat country similar to the Netherlands, but of course the density of people is is quite different. And this makes quite a difference also in the attitudes and and nature conservation objectives. Would I have this next slide please. So when we are talking about the land management for conservation then then people usually think that this is about jobs and this is about jobs. And and there is quite a widespread hesitation that nature conservation will put restrictions on the economic activities. And there will be a reduction in jobs, especially in the rural areas. And so there is a quite a large cost involved that the society should should bear. I would like to touch upon some of the issues. In the nature conservation of course the primary objective is to maintain the favorable conservation status of species and habitat and this forms the framework of land management as well as we were talking about earlier. How to assess the impacts and how to avoid them. It's also about soil and water, not not only about forestry and agriculture but also forest soil and and the water systems. More broadly, and it's about landscapes because when you look at the very specific area very localized concrete area. You should not solve the problem you should broaden your view to the catchment area to the landscape area to different administrative scales. We have talked here today, the integrity of the site is very important, and this was the main message by Tio that how to maintain the connectivity and integrity of the green infrastructure, the green areas. But it's more broadly being discussed in the across Europe is the nature based solutions. And it's not so much about perhaps nature conservation but how to use nature and the functions for the benefit of let's say water purification wastewater treatment and and also avoid flooding for instance. And more importantly, also the different research groups and also the governments are looking for how to put a value on ecosystem services because we are using the ecosystem functions but not we are not necessarily paying for them. And how to put a price tag also on them. And probably most recent action and also the application of sustainable land use is related to result based payments. So far, the farmers have been able to apply for action based payments, let's say they there are certain criteria how to apply for agri-environmental support when they do good things to the nature. But it is more widely being discussed that we should rather be focusing on the results rather than single actions. So I would like to briefly touch upon three issues. It's about the restrictions to the economic activity, then the public, the cost on the public budget and whether nature conservation can only be implemented on public land. So let's take the first aspect about the restrictions to the economic activity. The next slide please. And perhaps also already to the next one. So, yes, there are certain economic restrictions because the primary aim is to conserve the species and habitats. So not all the economic activities can be implemented or not at the mountain scope as they perhaps were envisaged by the developer. But it's not about losing jobs. The jobs are actually created somewhere else. They are not created in the industry, but they are created in the forestry, in the agriculture, in the nature tourism. And also those who are not necessarily involved in those sectors but own the land and they can't use the land as they perhaps would have liked to because of the nature conservation limitations. Then the countries, the governments are also compensating for those restrictions. The next one please. So yes, the public budget is important because nature conservation is a public good, is a public activity and it's expected that all the society contributes to that. But not all the benefits are quantifiable as I already mentioned, for instance, the ecosystem services, also how to put a price tag to the clean air or clean water that we enjoy either outside or inside environments. And also nature as a cultural good source for culture and also people's behavior. The next one please. As to the public land. Yes, again, this is partly true because all the governments across Europe have found that implementing the nature conservation objectives are more easier, more straightforward on public land than on private land because the private land owners may have different objectives of using the land. But when we look at the numbers for instance even in Estonia, then the protected areas are divided between different management zones and there is a management zone where there is the share of private and public land is 5050, but all together together with a very restricted protected areas. It counts for 20% on private land. When we take the examples the next slide please of Austria and Estonia and just not to go into the Austrian slides in detail but this is just for you for further exploration. Next slide please. Just to show you that how Austria has tackled the farmland management and the forest management in their country. And as you see from from those boxes, there is there is quite a number of people. If I may interrupt you only for one brief moment. Thank you if I can kindly ask you, it is impossible to complete the big issue today. The Austrian examples. I kindly ask you to go back to Estonian example and then to have some time left for us for discussion. Thank you. Just just to conclude the Austrian case you can study that how the Austrian government is also paying supplementary or as they call premiums when the farmers are doing or taking agri-environmental measures that are good for the nation. The next one. You can go further than that. This is just a calculation of how the premiums are calculated. The next one please. And also the next one. And the next and yeah the next please. So just to show that yes the state and the private land share in Estonia is 80 to 20 in a broader sense and also the government is has a long term plan how to buy from private ownership to the state of the nature conservation land that have really very restrictive management, very restrictive on management. And but what I want to emphasize here is that with this slide is that the governments or the countries are not alone. So when you look at the right hand side graph, it shows that actually more than 80% of the funding to compensate for the restrictions comes from the EU and national government puts even less than 20%. And so there is a possibility there are options how to manage the major conservation areas with the EU funds and from different programs, especially with the CAP or the common agriculture policy the rural development plan measures which shows the left graph. That's it. Yeah, and some illustrations from Estonia and the next one please. What are the euros per hectare paid in Estonia for managing different habitat types. This is an annual basis and these are quite motivating for the farmers and for the landowners. So please study those slides. There is also compensation system for damages occurred by the protected species and and so these systems are all in place and and very helpful to to also to alleviate the restrictive from nature conservation. All of them are kind of what doesn't that see you kaya for your presentation and I again apologize for asking you to skip a part of your presentation, which would also be beneficial and resourceful, but as I have said already, it is obvious that we cannot manage to do everything that we have planned on the agenda because we see that an interest by participants is great many questions have been asked I've already thanked us drink and thank you for writing your responses to questions but I believe that there are other questions that should that deserve answers, and it would be beneficial for all participants I've tried as we went along to compile some of the questions. I apologize to those participants who's mentioned whose names I would not mention I will start with. Zrinca again and some questions were asked of her about the usability of our current plan for Natura 2000 you've seen from the presentation that Bosnia Natagovina has a plan for Natura 2000 identified based on reference literature and the question for all of us what's next how to proceed there after I can ask the next question. Please be brief in your responses we don't have much time another question for you Zrinca for you please take the floor many of participants ask with respect to the integral process in establishing Natura 2000 the question of conflict of interest between local communities and the interest for establishing a protection of biodiversity through establishment of ecological the questions of the strategic assessments what is a quantity how to plan it in the next 10 years strategic assessments and with respect to appropriate assessment and so on can you please elaborate and give specific responses to our participants. I'll start from the last one I forgot what was the first question already, but the last question you asked it is a process which requires time, and we are still in the process for spatial plans, our special plans are not aligned with for the Natura 2000 implementation in many parts they're off when we authorize persons work on appropriate assessment on the project and the ecological measures. We have a problem where a plan has envisaged something but cannot be implemented with significant impact, then a problem arises overriding public interest compensation measures and so on and so forth. So it is a process this is quite lengthy and much longer and the implementation of such project is much more demanding in terms of its finances alignment at all levels in terms of different sectors and all other documents is long lasting time consuming so nothing can do about it. We have joined European Union you cannot have it all at once simultaneously, you are given a time period where some things are supposed to be aligned and fully implemented. Natura 2000 ecological measures are not in possession of some member states that have been members for many years, and they do not have it fully implemented to be called perfect. There are still some parts lacking some elements where you need to supplement and add other issues. I think that I answered this part with respect to proposal of the tour 2000 in Bosnia and that's a govina. Some proposals have been made in Croatia as well in 2007 in the meanwhile. Some things have changed in their definitions by 2013 a bulk of information have been collected based on which some things have been revised some species were no longer the objective of preservation, perhaps some others have become. Today it can happen where ecological network site Croatia realizes that in data deficiency species do not include a data sufficient data, so we realize that this species is no longer there. So it is a more complex issue, can you then move such species from ecological network or not you are to prove whether you did everything you could for its conservation, why is no longer there. So, the only thing that I can say collect data, try to collect and to designate base on the known data. Where if data is not verified for the precaution reason, you certain things should be included in the ecological network site until you prove they no longer exist and that there are no requirements. You know what I'm talking about. We're going to be dealing with your line of activity. We are detailed answers to the questions that came. You said at the beginning, there was a strong development of legislation as a pre requirement for activities in the development of ecological network. Could you give us an advice to this and like with any piece of legislation, you can easily adopt legislation and declare ecological network but at a certain point we started to applied in 2009 practically we started with first appropriate assessments for ecological network and that's where we started to apply ecological network and the first assessment that was done within the environmental impact assessment went well, there were no major conservation measures required. The first individual independent was about the intervention at the rivers and the process has not ended yet the ministry in a way concluded that this should be discussed in terms of overriding national interest and that was impossible for such intervention. And actually such approach sent a message. The owner of the intervention was the company creation waters and they are a state within the state they're very strong whatever they intend they can implement and at that time, they thought no one can interfere with their interventions. And what happened was that the appropriate assessment actually stopped their intervention and that everyone realized well this is something we will have to take into consideration maybe brief one brief question who is funding the appropriate assessment in Croatia, the investors do the investors. It is much clearer now. Thank you very much for both your participation in this webinar and your assistance and your answers. We've seen that there is a lot of interest there in your answers. Now may I ask Kaya to provide some answers to questions asked from her. First of all, I've seen among the questions sent by our participants, the point that there is a need to better understand the relation between protected areas and nature ecological network sites. And also, there are areas which require funding from the companies which manage the ecological network. And also, if you could come back to the end of your presentation the benefits for the population from the establishment of ecological network. Our goal is to obtain as much information as possible about the benefits not only for biodiversity but potential economic benefits for the population which live in the territories covered by ecological networks and neighboring areas. Kaya please. Thank you. Probably relates also to the previous question that, and this especially with the timing, the timing is very important, because when let's say Bosnia and Deltukovina has submitted a list of potential ACIs or SPAs to the European Commission. And now let's say the forest has been filled, the waterways have been changed, so there are major changes in the natural environment that the species might not be there, the habitat is not there anymore. So this is an issue between the Commission and the country, whether this area can be restored or it should be excluded from the Natura 2000 network list. So this is just my comment to the previous question. But as to the protected areas and the ecological network, for instance in Estonia we have 23% of the territory protected and Natura sites are a little bit less than 18%. So there is 5% of land, which is not in the Natura network in this, as you call it the ecological network. Because every country has history of protected areas, there was no need to exclude them and to do it purely as a Natura network, but this is our heritage, this is our natural heritage and this needs to be protected as well. However, as I explained, there are certain and very different rules for Natura network and for the national network of protected areas, and this should be taken into consideration. As to the benefits, the last question and yeah for the people, so as I said, actually when you put everything on the table or even in the same Excel table, you may find that the benefits are way the restrictions. Because as I explained that there are lots of different possibilities when you become EU country to apply for funds to apply different measures on top of the national budget and as I showed even the 80% comes from the EU. And not necessarily for the nature conservation but through the farming and agriculture and rural development, which is the biggest budget in EU comprising about 40% of the total budget. So I would also recommend to when to develop those measures and to see how it matches with the rural development measures, especially the green measures, the agri-environment measures. Thank you very much. I think these arguments can serve a lot to the benefit of development of ecological network. In our discussions with local communities when we are able to explain the compensatory measures and other facilities we will be in a better position. And finally at the end, I will have one or more questions for Theo, which relates to the need for connectivity for the purpose of floor of genetic material and the establishment of networks should be based on ecological knowledge. I would like to highlight a specific point in our country, which is regulated by the law on nature conservation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I guess the approximation process will be in form of a special ecological individual ecological networks which will be connected into a single BIH ecological network. And the issue of connection of these small parts of ecological networks in Bosnia and Herzegovina is very important. Can you give us an advice how we can work on development of a single network which comprises some individual parts. Theo, please Theo. Well, it's a general question. First of all, it's very important to have basis with good maps as we saw from Croatia, they had a very good database established with vegetation sites, the protected areas, so that is an important basis. And the second step is to define which species are really targeted or which ecosystems are targeted for an ecological network. And in the case of Bosnia, I can indeed think of the forests as important habitats as well, the semi-alpine areas, they are quite important as well, they are very particular for the flora and very rich as well. And I guess also the wetlands and aquatic habitats are an important ecosystem that are the first ecosystems that come to my mind as focal. And based on that you should identify which species are protected within those habitats that can form a kind of leading species to develop the network for. In the Netherlands, we had, I showed examples of the ecoducts. And those were very much developed for the rodier, which was the largest mammal in the area. So you look at where are the rodiers now, where are good adjoining areas that should be or can be linked by by solving the bottlenecks with the highways. And based on that we made the, we identified locations for the ecoducts. So yeah, that would be my approach. First of all, make sure you have your data in order, collect it and store it and make it available digitally like Croatia was done and well, I'm sure you're also on your way of developing such databases. Second, identify most important ecosystems, which are relevant for for your country. And well, the different units infect as well because it's quite complex in Bosnia. And thirdly, identify your focal species where you will work for and be sure that that for instance if you establish a network for the brown bear. Many smaller species which have the same habitat use as a brown bear will benefit from the same network so it's not one species that you work for. But a larger group of species, a trade that is kept covered then. And the species itself, if you make sure that it is an appealing species like a fish otter in many countries, people like the fish otter. If that is a leading species then you will also work on the acceptance by by stakeholders by, well, the policymakers, etc. Thank you very much for this. And so Zinka, would you like to add something? No, no, I did not understand that the question was asked from Pia. I see that we have some other questions but at this point we don't have more time to look at them and to address them but I do promise that Professor Mataruga and myself we will look at them. We will try to answer the question or link these who are persons was these questions with our experts. And as we are coming to the end of our webinar, I would try to briefly round up what we've heard from the presentations and the discussion. Going back to the beginning and the points made by Kaia in the first presentation, the legislation is a crucial requirement for any further action. What we have also learned is that integrated approach and cooperation with other sectors horizontally and vertically is also crucial precondition for development of further actions. We also heard from all our panelists that the ecological knowledge are the basis and the use of this ecological knowledge in the development of these network are indeed base basis and what we heard today about the appropriate assessment the need to develop strength capacities. And the question from our audience about the relation between the management plans and the establishment of development of ecological networks. Tell me something and that that today's webinar is just a beginning of activities in this highly complex process. And I think that it's this webinar came at a good time. Developing the environmental strategy which comprises biodiversity chapter for the next 10 years we should use and grab every possibility and chance to meet as much as possible to develop our knowledge and skills for the process we all need to contribute to and that's then we will be in a position to show something to the decision makers we have different stakeholders from the non governmental sectors governmental sectors students and we should focus on prioritizing actions that need to be taken. Of course, we will seek to pursue establishment of ecological networks. That's our goal. At the end I would kindly ask Mr Mataruga to address you to share with us his conclusions. Professor Mataruga back to you. Thank you, Professor. Last weekend was very nice so I went I spent it outdoors and caught cold I will not take too much time. I have tried to sustain to ask questions and participate in the discussion I wanted to allow more space to our panelists and to the audience of this webinar. I absolutely agree with the conclusions of Professor Barudanovic. And again, I also believe that this is a very good time very good point to address what we already decided will be the part of our environmental strategy. We should seek and I hope that the technical support will help us in doing this. We will try to communicate your questions to the panelists and to answer those we can answer just please provide your email addresses. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Mataruga. I will use this opportunity to thank the SCI organizer of this event. And at this point, I will ask them to organize the next event because it is entirely clear that we just tackle this topic and that we need much more knowledge to define clearly our policy areas, our course of action, which will serve the conservation structure to the benefit of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank our panelists, the participants and take care. Stay safe. Thank you.