DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on the State of the Wolf Population in Croatia in 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on the State of the Wolf Population in Croatia in 2014 Report on the state of the wolf population in Croatia in 2014 Zagreb, December 2014 Report compiled and edited by: Jasna Jeremić, Ana Štrbenac (State Institute for Nature Protection) Authors: Jasna Jeremić, Sonja Desnica, Ana Štrbenac, Daniela Hamidović (State Institute for Nature Protection) Josip Kusak, Đuro Huber (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb) Collaborators: Guillaume Chapron (Grimso Wildlife Research Station, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Riddarhyttan, Sweden) Goran Gužvica (OIKON d.o.o. – Applied Ecology Institute) Lidija Šver (Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb) Hubert Potočnik, Tomaž Skrbinšek (Faculty of Biotechnology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia) Technical document processing: Ivana Ilijaš (State Institute for Nature Protection) English translation: Zanella Translation Services, Zagreb Cover photograph: Anđelko Novosel Recommended citation: State Institute for Nature Protection (2014): Report on the status of the wolf population in Croatia in 2014, Zagreb Report approved by DIRECTOR Matija Franković, PhD Class: 612-07/14-48/11 Reg no: 366-06-1-14-64 December 2014 1 Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4 2. Overview of the Report, assessments and interventions .................................................. 9 2.1. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Assessment of the status and trends in the period from 2005 to 2013 ................... 10 2.3. Deciding and executing legal interventions (culling) in the wolf population ............ 12 3. Analysis of the status of the wolf population 2013/2014 ................................................ 16 3.1. Damages to domesticated animals and impacts on livestock .................................. 16 3.1.1. Damages to domesticated animals .................................................................... 16 3.2. Telemetry studies ...................................................................................................... 26 3.2.1. Collaring and monitoring of wolf individuals ..................................................... 26 3.3. State of individual monitored packs for the period 2009–2014 ............................... 29 3.4. Large carnivore population monitoring campaign by snow tracks in the period from 2009 to 2014 ........................................................................................................................ 42 3.5. Collection of additional data on wolf observations .................................................. 46 3.6. Monitoring using photo-traps in the period from 2011 to 2014 .............................. 47 3.7. Monitoring using photo-traps on green bridges ....................................................... 50 3.8. Genetic research of wolves in Croatia and Slovenia ................................................. 51 4. Assessment of the wolf population size and distribution of packs ................................. 59 4.1. Assessment of abundance for 2013 .......................................................................... 59 4.3. Wolf mortality ............................................................................................................ 65 4.3.1. Wolf mortality caused by illegal culling and other human-based causes.......... 65 4.3.2. Wolf mortality due to legal interventions in the population ............................. 68 4.3.3. Total known wolf mortality and trends ............................................................. 68 5. Assessment of the likely effect of culling quotas on the future trends of the wolf population in Croatia ................................................................................................................ 70 6. State of the population in neighbouring countries .......................................................... 72 6.1. Bosnia and Herzegovina ............................................................................................ 72 6.2. Slovenia ...................................................................................................................... 73 6.2.1. Distribution and abundance ............................................................................... 73 6.2.2. Mortality ............................................................................................................. 74 2 6.2.3. Management ...................................................................................................... 74 7. Status, management and distribution of the wolf in Europe .......................................... 76 8. Assessment of the state of the wolf population in 2014, and achieving the objectives of interventions in the wolf population pursuant to the Wolf Management Plan in Croatia for the period 2010 to 2015 ........................................................................................................... 80 9. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 81 10. Information sources ........................................................................................................... 83 Appendix 1. Form for entering data on the observation of signs of wolf presence ................ 86 Appendix 2. List of associates .................................................................................................. 87 Hunting societies ................................................................................................................. 87 Standing experts and members of the intervention team for wolf and lynx of the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, scientific associates, staff in protected areas ..................................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix 3. Implementation of intervention culling of individuals of strictly protected taxa - wolf (Canis lupus ) ..................................................................................................................... 90 3 1. Introduction The wolf population in Croatia is part of the larger Dinaric/Balkan population that inhabits the territories of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and continues to the south of the Dinarides mountain range. This entire population is estimated to contain approximately 3900 wolves, and has been predominantly stable over the past six years (Kaczensky et al., 2013). In Croatia, the wolf is permanently present throughout the Dinarides, from the border with Slovenia to the border with Montenegro. According to the distribution map from 2013 (Figure 1), the wolf in Croatia is permanently present in 18,213 km 2 and occasionally present in an additional 6,072 km 2 of territory. The distribution of the Croatian wolf population is distributed over nine counties: Sisak-Moslavina, Karlovac, Lika-Senj, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, Istria, Zadar, Šibenik-Knin, Split-Dalmatia and Dubrovnik-Neretva. There were no changes in the distribution range in 2014 as compared to 2013. Changes in the size of the distribution area are due to changing dynamics within the Dinaric wolf population, and also due to better knowledge of the population in Croatia. The dynamics of the Dinaric wolf population depend on the approaches taken in wolf management in each of the countries sharing this population. Figure 1. Distribution of the wolf population in Croatia (from: Kusak, 2013) 4 The wolf (Canis lupus ) is a strictly protected species in the Republic of Croatia pursuant to the Nature Protection Act (OG 80/13) and the Ordinance on strictly protected species (OG 144/13). All forms of intentional capture, killing or intentional disturbance are prohibited by law, particularly during the mating and young raising periods. Damaging or destroying mating areas or wolf resting areas is also strictly prohibited. The keeping, transport, sale, exchange or offering for sale or exchange of live or dead individuals from nature is also prohibited. The Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection may permit derogations from these prohibitions only if there is no other suitable possibility, and if it will not harm the sustainability of the wolf population in a favourable state in their natural distribution range. All persons are obliged to report cases of captured and/or killed strictly protected animals to the State Institute for Nature Protection. The Republic of Croatia is a signatory to all the relevant international agreements in the area of nature protection. Significant acts for the protection of the wolf are the Act on Ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (OG-International Agreements 6/96), Act on Ratification of the Convention on the Protection of European Wild Taxa and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) (OG-International Agreements 6/00) and the Act on Ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Animal and Plant Species (CITES) (OG-International Agreements 12/99). The European Parliament passed the Resolution (Doc. A2-0377/88, Ser. A) of 24 January 1989, calling European nations to urgent action to conserve the wolf, and adopted the Proclamation on the protection of wolves, inviting the European Commission to extend its support to wolf conservation. The main framework for conservation of the wolf in the European
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FEEFHS Journal Volume VII No. 1-2 1999
    FEEFHS Quarterly A Journal of Central & Bast European Genealogical Studies FEEFHS Quarterly Volume 7, nos. 1-2 FEEFHS Quarterly Who, What and Why is FEEFHS? Tue Federation of East European Family History Societies Editor: Thomas K. Ecllund. [email protected] (FEEFHS) was founded in June 1992 by a small dedicated group Managing Editor: Joseph B. Everett. [email protected] of American and Canadian genealogists with diverse ethnic, reli- Contributing Editors: Shon Edwards gious, and national backgrounds. By the end of that year, eleven Daniel Schlyter societies bad accepted its concept as founding members. Each year Emily Schulz since then FEEFHS has doubled in size. FEEFHS nows represents nearly two hundred organizations as members from twenty-four FEEFHS Executive Council: states, five Canadian provinces, and fourteen countries. lt contin- 1998-1999 FEEFHS officers: ues to grow. President: John D. Movius, c/o FEEFHS (address listed below). About half of these are genealogy societies, others are multi-pur- [email protected] pose societies, surname associations, book or periodical publish- 1st Vice-president: Duncan Gardiner, C.G., 12961 Lake Ave., ers, archives, libraries, family history centers, on-line services, in- Lakewood, OH 44107-1533. [email protected] stitutions, e-mail genealogy list-servers, heraldry societies, and 2nd Vice-president: Laura Hanowski, c/o Saskatchewan Genealogi- other ethnic, religious, and national groups. FEEFHS includes or- cal Society, P.0. Box 1894, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3EI ganizations representing all East or Central European groups that [email protected] have existing genealogy societies in North America and a growing 3rd Vice-president: Blanche Krbechek, 2041 Orkla Drive, group of worldwide organizations and individual members, from Minneapolis, MN 55427-3429.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategija Razvoja Općine Mrkopalj 2015. – 2020
    STRATEGIJA RAZVOJA OPĆINE MRKOPALJ 2015. – 2020. - radna verzija - Skrad, 2016. Strategija razvoja općine Mrkopalj 2015. - 2020. Koordinatori : za PINS: Danijel Bertović, dipl. oec., ing. el. za CLER: prof. dr. sc. Nada Denona Bogović prof. dr. sc. Saša Drezgić Autori: PINS: Danijel Bertović, dipl. oec., ing. el. Nataša Kozlica, ing. agr. Nikolina Crnković ĐorĊević, str. spec. inf. CLER: prof. dr. sc. Nada Denona Bogović prof. dr. sc. Saša Drezgić Saša Ĉegar, univ. spec. oec. Sandro Boţanić, mag. oec., mag. polit. LOKALNA RAZVOJNA AGENCIJA PINS d.o.o. CENTAR ZA LOKALNI EKONOMSKI RAZVOJ EKONOMSKOG FAKULTETA SVEUĈILIŠTA U RIJECI CLER d.o.o. STRATEGIJA RAZVOJA OPĆINE MRKOPALJ 2015. – 2020. SADRŢAJ 1. UVOD .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Ciljevi izrade Strategije razvoja .................................................................................. 1 1.2. Metodologija ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Struktura ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. PRIRODNI RESURSI, KULTURNA BAŠTINA I OKOLIŠ (autori: PINS d.o.o.)....... 4 2.1. Prirodni resursi i zemljopisna obiljeţja općine Mrkopalj ............................................. 4 2.1.1. Reljefne karakteristike ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline / 700 to 1800 / CROATIA
    Timeline / 700 to 1800 / CROATIA Date Country | Description 732 A.D. Croatia Edict of the Byzantine Emperor Leon III by which he excluded western Balkan lands, the entire Illyrics, from the authority of the Roman Pope and submitted them to the Byzantine patriarch. 791 A.D. Croatia Croats establish the principalities of Primorska Hrvatska on the Adriatic Coast and Posavska Hrvatska in north Croatia. 820 A.D. Croatia The Church of St Donat in Zadar, first dedicated to Holy Trinity, is built in the 9th century, a great example of Byzantine architecture and the largest circular church of the Carolingian era in Europe. 852 A.D. Croatia Trpimir I issues a charter in Latin in which he names himself the ‘Duke of Croats’ (Dux Chroatorum iuvatus munere divino) and his realm as the ‘Realm of the Croats’ (Regnum Chroatorum). 879 A.D. Croatia Duke Branimir becomes Banus of Croatia and breaks up with Constantinople. Pope John VIII gave his blessing to the duke and the whole Croatian people, as he informed Branimir in his letters. 925 A.D. Croatia According to some, the Croatian kingdom was established and Duke Tomislav became its first king. The first Church Synod is held in Split. 969 A.D. Croatia Crowning of the first Croatian king, Stjepan Držislav (969–97), a member of the Trpimirovi# Dynasty. The Byzantine Emperor Basil II gave him symbols of royal power. 1000 A.D. Croatia The Venetians install Krešimir III (1000–30) as king of Croatia; he ruled with his brother Gojislav. They attempted to restore rule over the Dalmatian cities that were under Venetian control.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Adventure in Nature!
    Your Adventure in Nature! Active Croatia Adventure Guided Multi activity Tour Active Croatia Adventure discovers Top 5 most beautiful nature spots in Croatia: Biokovo - Vošac trail, Paklenica climb, Velebit - Premužić trail, Bijele stijene - Vihoraški trail and Plitvice lakes hike. Be ready to take real adventure, kayak, trek, bike and climb for 11 days and experience remarkable beauties of Croatian nature! Starting from Dubrovnik, we kayak to discover the beauties of mysterious Lokrum Island, next day hike to magnificent mountain Biokovo is on the menu and most beautiful sunset over the islands. After this we discover Tučepi and move to northern city Zadar, magic for itself. Then we climb the rocks of Paklenica National Park and move to next National Park Nothern Velebit where we hike Premužić trail on the mountains, and with sea views! We finish with astonishing scenery deep in mountains, from white rocks over the Vihoraški trail hidden gem of Croatia! Next day visit to UNESCO protected National Park Plitvice lakes and transfer to Zagreb, capital of Croatia. Hike to mountain, Medvednica in Zagreb and next day is goodbye. Day 1 - Dubrovnik kayaking After breakfast, transfer to our apartment in Meeting your guide in small port Pile in Dubrovnik Pridraga (cute Hamlet near the sea), settling in centre for kayaking tour (4,35mi, 3h). Kayaking our apartment and biking tour to nearby old to explore caves and beauties of mysterious water mills trail. Lunch in local traditional Lokrum Island, also called 'The Island of love'. restaurant. Afternoon transfer to beautiful city of After paddling around the island, you will paddle Zadar.
    [Show full text]
  • Gray Wolf Populations in the Conterminous U.S
    Gray Wolf Populations in the Conterminous U.S. Wolves are apex predators on top of the food chain with no natural predators of their own. They play a critical role in maintaining the balance and structure of an ecological community. North American wolf numbers plummeted in the 1800’s and early 1900’s due to decreased availability of prey, habitat loss and in- creased extermination efforts to reduce predation on livestock and game animals. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were listed as endan- gered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1974. Although wolves today occupy only a fraction of their historic range, conser- vation efforts have helped some populations to meet recovery goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed Western Great Lakes gray wolves were delisted in removing protections for gray wolves throughout the U.S. and 2011 but will be monitored for five years to ensure Mexico in 2013 – a final decision is pending. recovery is sustained (Credit: USFWS). Western Great Lakes The FWS published a final rule at the Human-Wolf Conflict Population end of 2011 to delist wolves in Min- nesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Gray wolves of the Western Great Human-wolf conflicts continue Lakes region are mainly found portions of adjoining states. to occur as both populations throughout northern Minnesota and expand, particularly between Wisconsin, Michigan’s Upper Penin- sula, and Ontario.1 In the 1800s and wolves and livestock farmers. early 1900s, unregulated hunting, Social constraints must be government bounties, and diminished carefully considered when de- prey availability nearly eliminated the wolves in the Great Lakes veloping management plans for 2, 3, 4 any wolf population, including region.
    [Show full text]
  • Oligarchs, King and Local Society: Medieval Slavonia
    Antun Nekić OLIGARCHS, KING AND LOCAL SOCIETY: MEDIEVAL SLAVONIA 1301-1343 MA Thesis in Medieval Studies Central European University CEU eTD Collection Budapest May2015 OLIGARCHS, KING AND LOCAL SOCIETY: MEDIEVAL SLAVONIA 1301-1343 by Antun Nekić (Croatia) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ Chair, Examination Committee ____________________________________________ Thesis Supervisor ____________________________________________ Examiner CEU eTD Collection ____________________________________________ Examiner Budapest Month YYYY OLIGARCHS, KING AND LOCAL SOCIETY: MEDIEVAL SLAVONIA 1301-1343 by Antun Nekić (Croatia) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. CEU eTD Collection ____________________________________________ External Reader Budapest Month YYYY OLIGARCHS, KING AND LOCAL SOCIETY: MEDIEVAL SLAVONIA 1301-1343 by Antun Nekić (Croatia) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Supervisor CEU eTD Collection Budapest Month YYYY I, the undersigned, Antun Nekić, candidate for the MA degree in Medieval Studies, declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of the work of others, and no part of the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Accounting for Regional Poverty Differences in Croatia: Exploring the Role of Disparities in Average Income and Inequality
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Accounting for regional poverty differences in Croatia: Exploring the role of disparities in average income and inequality Rubil, Ivica The Institute of Economics, Zagreb 16 January 2013 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43827/ MPRA Paper No. 43827, posted 16 Jan 2013 11:16 UTC ACCOUNTING FOR REGIONAL POVERTY DIFFERENCES IN CROATIA: EXPLORING THE ROLE OF DISPARITIES IN AVERAGE INCOME AND INEQUALITY Ivica Rubil The Institute of Economics, Zagreb January 2013 Abstract The prevalence of poverty in a given population is determined by both the level of average income and the shape of income distribution. Accordingly, the difference in poverty between two populations can be attributed to disparities in their average incomes and in the levels of income inequality. In this paper, we decompose the differences in relative poverty between each of the twenty-one Croatian counties and Croatia as a whole into the contributions of the mean income and income inequality, using the Household Budget Survey data for 2010. The decomposition framework that we utilize here is one usually applied for decompositions of intertemporal poverty changes, and is based on the concept of Shapley value from cooperative game theory. Poverty is measured by three conventional measures – the headcount ratio, the poverty gap, and the squared poverty gap – and robustness of the results to switching from one measure to another is discussed. The results of decompositions show that in most cases both the mean income and inequality differences contribute to poverty variation across the counties, relative to poverty in Croatia as a whole. When poverty is measured by the headcount ratio, the income contribution dominates the inequality contribution, while when we switch to the other two measures, which give more weight to poorer among the poor, the inequality contribution starts to dominate.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for the Monitoring of the Central European Wolf Population in Germany and Poland
    Ilka Reinhardt, Gesa Kluth, Sabina Nowak and Robert W. Mysłajek Standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population in Germany and Poland BfN-Skripten 398 2015 Standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population in Germany and Poland Ilka Reinhardt Gesa Kluth Sabina Nowak Robert W. Mysłajek Cover picture: S. Koerner Graphic: M. Markowski Authors’ addresses: Ilka Reinhardt LUPUS, German Institute for Wolf Monitoring and Research Gesa Kluth Dorfstr. 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany Sabina Nowak Association for Nature “Wolf” Twadorzerczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland Robert Myslajek Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw Project Management: Harald Martens Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Unit II 1.1 “Wildlife Conservation” The present paper is the final report under the contract „Development of joint monitoring standards for wolves in Germany and Poland“, financed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety (BMUB). Client: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). Contract period: 01.03.2013 - 31.10.2013 This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de). BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade. A pdf version can be downloaded from the internet at: http://www.bfn.de/0502_skripten.html. Publisher: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn, Germany URL: http://www.bfn.de The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act?
    Journal of Heredity, 2018, 585–597 doi:10.1093/jhered/esy020 Original Article Advance Access publication 8 June 2018 Perspective Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act? Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/109/5/585/5034846 by guest on 22 January 2019 Robin S. Waples, Roland Kays, Richard J. Fredrickson, Krishna Pacifici, and L. Scott Mills From the NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA (Waples); the Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (Kays and Pacifici); the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC (Kays); Missoula, MT (Fredrickson); and Wildlife Biology Program and the Office of Research and Creative Scholarship, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (Mills). Address correspondence to L. Scott Mills at the address above, or e-mail: [email protected]. Received October 25, 2017; First decision January 11, 2018; Accepted May 8, 2018. Corresponding Editor: Fred Allendorf Abstract Defining units that can be afforded legal protection is a crucial, albeit challenging, step in conservation planning. As we illustrate with a case study of the red wolf (Canis rufus) from the southeastern United States, this step is especially complex when the evolutionary history of the focal taxon is uncertain. The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of vertebrates. Red wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973, and their status remains precarious. However, some recent genetic studies suggest that red wolves are part of a small wolf species (C. lycaon) specialized for heavily forested habitats of eastern North America, whereas other authors suggest that red wolves arose, perhaps within the last ~400 years, through hybridization between gray wolves (C.
    [Show full text]
  • Vina Croatia
    Wines of CROATIA unique and exciting Croatia as a AUSTRIA modern country HUNGARY SLOVENIA CROATIA Croatia, having been eager to experience immediate changes, success and recognition, has, at the beginning of a new decade, totally altered its approach to life and business. A strong desire to earn quick money as well as rapid trade expansion have been replaced by more moderate, longer-term investment projects in the areas of viticulture, rural tourism, family hotels, fisheries, olive growing, ecological agriculture and superior restaurants. BOSNIA & The strong first impression of international brands has been replaced by turning to traditional HERZEGOVINA products, having their origins in a deep historic heritage. The expansion of fast-food chains was brought to a halt in the mid-1990’s as multinational companies understood that investment would not be returned as quickly as had been planned. More ambitious restaurants transformed into centres of hedonism, whereas small, thematic ones offering several fresh and well-prepared dishes are visited every day. Tradition and a return to nature are now popular ITALY Viticulture has been fully developed. Having superior technology at their disposal, a new generation of well-educated winemakers show firm personal convictions and aims with clear goals. The rapid growth of international wine varietals has been hindered while local varietals that were almost on the verge of extinction, have gradually gained in importance. Not only have the most prominent European regions shared their experience, but the world’s renowned wine experts have offered their consulting services. Biodynamic movement has been very brisk with every wine region bursting with life.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature Parks in the Republic of Croatia
    Cigrovski-Detelić B., Tutić D., Udovičić D. (2010). Nature Parks in the Republic of Croatia. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 82-92. NATURE PARKS IN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Brankica Cigrovski-Detelić, Dražen Tutić, Dino Udovičić University of Zagreb, Faculty of geodesy Kačićeva 26, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia Abstract Environmental protection, the preservation of biological and landscape diversity, and rational usage of natural resources and energy in the most convenient way are the basic conditions of healthy life and the fundament of a sustainable development of every country. The nature and natural values are of great interest for the Republic of Croatia, and they are particularly protected, which is also legally regulated. There are altogether 11 nature parks in the Republic of Croatia: Biokovo, Kopački rit, Lonjsko polje, Medvednica, Papuk, Telašćica, Velebit, Vranko Lake and Učka. The paper presents the particularities and geographic position of all Croatian nature parks. Key words: Nature Park, natural resources, environmental protection 1. INTRODUCTION Nature Park is, according to the Environmental Protection Act of the Republic of Croatia (National Gazette 162/03) regionally natural or partly cultivated land and/or sea area with ecological properties of international or national significance, with emphasized landscape, educational, cultural and historical, and tourist and recreation values. In the Republic of Croatia there are altogether 11 nature parks: Nature Park Biokovo, Nature Par Kopački rit, Nature Park Lonjsko polje, Nature Park Medvednica, Nature Park Papuk, Nature Park Telaščica, Nature Park Velebit, Nature Park Vransko Lake, Nature Park Učka, Nature Park Žumberak – Samobor Mountains and Nature Park Lastovo islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2014/16 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2014 Public sitting held on Wednesday 12 March 2014, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) ________________ VERBATIM RECORD ________________ ANNÉE 2014 Audience publique tenue le mercredi 12 mars 2014, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Croatie c. Serbie) ____________________ COMPTE RENDU ____________________ - 2 - Present: President Tomka Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Judges ad hoc Vukas Kreća Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Tomka, président M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président MM. Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Mmes Xue Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde M. Bhandari, juges MM. Vukas Kreća, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Government of the Republic of Croatia is represented by: Ms Vesna Crnić-Grotić, Professor of International Law, University of Rijeka, as Agent; H.E. Ms Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, Ambassador, Director General for EU Law, International Law and Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Zagreb, Ms Jana Špero, Head of Sector, Ministry of Justice, Zagreb, Mr. Davorin Lapaš, Professor of International Law, University of Zagreb, as Co-Agents; Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London, Mr.
    [Show full text]