Next Article in Journal
Micro Pumped Hydro Energy Storage: Sketching a Sustainable Hybrid Solution for Colombian Off-Grid Communities
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling and Analysis of Car-Following for Intelligent Connected Vehicles Considering Expected Speed in Helical Ramps
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/su142416733
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation

by
Irena Medar-Tanjga
1,*,
Neda Živak
2,
Anđelija Ivkov-Džigurski
3,
Vesna Rajčević
1,
Tanja Mišlicki Tomić
1 and
Vukosava Čolić
2
1
Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, University of Banja Luka, Mladena Stojanovića 2, 78000 Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2
Department of Spatial Planning, Faculty of Science, University of Banja Luka, Mladena Stojanovića 2, 78000 Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
3
Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 16733; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416733
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 4 December 2022 / Published: 13 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability in Geographic Science)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to explore the opportunities and challenges of sustainable conservation in the Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR Drina). Two countries in 2004 launched activities on the designation of TBR Drina, which would make a unique territorial system of Tara National Park (NP Tara) in the Republic of Serbia and Drina National Park (NP Drina) in the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina. Through the analysis of institutional and legal jurisdiction, the authors presented the management system of protected areas in both countries, with detailed insight into the specific mechanisms of government functioning and management in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its complex state apparatus represents the biggest limiting factor for the formation of TBR Drina. Through qualitative research, the researched area’s natural, cultural-historical, and socio-economic potentials were identified and recommendations were made for their optimal valorization and utilization. Research has shown that the natural, cultural-historical conditions of TBR Drina represent the potential for development, in contrast to the socio-economic conditions that make up its limiting factor. By planning through the cooperation between the border regions of both countries through support at the state level, TBR Drina can be recovered gradually, with the relative coexistence of ecological, social, and economic components of space, in the forthcoming period.

1. Introduction

Integration of space, territorial cohesion, and the formation of a unique system of protection of natural and cultural heritage is the main objective of almost all international documents in the field of sustainable development and protection of the environment. One of the instruments for spatial integration in the World is the formation of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves (TBR).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1971 established the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program. It is an Intergovernmental Scientific Programming to establish a scientific basis for the improvement of relationships between people and their environment [1]. Its World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) currently counts 738 sites in 134 countries all over the world [2]. The country in whose territory the reserve is formally declared is obliged to form a Committee for Human and Biosphere Program within the National Commission for UNESCO to integrate the economic and ecological dimensions of development.
Each biosphere reserve must meet a minimum set of criteria and conditions with the integration of three complementary functions: conservation, economic development, and logistic support. The biosphere reserve aims to achieve integrated management of resources by putting in place regional planning schemes based on integrating conservation into development through appropriate zoning. Reserves are spatially organized in three zones with different functions and protection regimes:
  • The core area(s) comprises a strictly protected ecosystem that contributes to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species, and genetic variation;
  • The buffer zone(s) surrounds or adjoins the core areas, and is used for activities compatible with sound ecological practices that can reinforce scientific research, monitoring, training, and education;
  • The transition area is the part of the reserve where the greatest activity is allowed, fostering economic and human development that is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable [3].
At the First World Conference on National Parks organized in 1962 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), TBR was mentioned for the first time. At the next conference held in 1972, a recommendation was made for close cooperation between the governments of the countries on whose territory TBR is located. In this way, the relationship between people and their environment transcends state borders and becomes an issue of global importance [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. In 1992, the International Coordinating Council of the MAB program enacted the first two TBRs [12]. According to current information from UNESCO, 22 TBRs (17 bilateral, 4 trilateral, and 1 Five-country Biosphere Reserve) located in 35 countries have been formed [2].
The formation of Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR Drina) would create a unique territorial system by joining Tara National Park (NP Tara) in the Republic of Serbia (municipality of Baijna Bašta) and Drina National Park (NP Drina) in the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina (municipality of Srebrenica) is planned by the bilateral cooperation program between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina [10,11,13,14]. Activities for proclaiming TBR Drina were launched under the UNESCO ROSTE Man and Biosphere program in 2004, when NP Tara, which was established in 1981 [15], was nominated with transboundary “Peace Park“ status between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina [16,17]. The Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina 2017 issued the Law on NP Drina [18]. Since the launch of the initiative, both sides have drawn up a series of strategic documents that are planning activities to establish a biosphere reserve. Despite the undertaken activities, TBR Drina has still not been elaborated on and systematically constructed.
The paper’s main goal is to analyse the two countries’ complex geopolitical systems, as well as the process of formation and management of TBR Drina, with detailed insight into the specific mechanisms of government functioning and management in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its complex state apparatus represents the biggest limiting factor for the formation of this TBR. The natural, cultural-historical and socio-economic conditions of the reserve were analyzed. As a scientific contribution, and for the optimal utilization of the potentials of TBR Drina, recommendations for their precise valorization have been set out.

2. Materials and Methods

TBRs are examples of good practices of spatial integration and territorial cohesion. An insight into the existing transboundary reserves, how biosphere resources are sustainably used and preserved, and the natural and cultural heritage found on their territory helps to recognize the potential of TBR Drina [12,19,20,21]. Particular interest is an insight into the institutional and legal regulation of their functioning since they are spread over the territory of several states [22,23,24,25]. It is necessary to establish continuous and high-quality activities on the formation of a permanent structure, for example, a joint and permanent coordination secretariat, which would be in charge of the functioning of the TBR, respecting the specificities of the countries. This management model has proven to be effective in the example of Krkonoše/Karkonosze TBR [26].
The possibilities for the formation and development of TBR Drina will be most fully perceived by analyzing the state and potential of the two national parks that would form integral parts of the planned reserve. NP Tara on the territory of the Republic of Serbia was declared in 1981, and its development directions were the focus of legislation [15,27,28,29,30], planning programs [31,32], and scientific and research articles. The diverse karst morphology of the area is presented [33,34], the water potential of the Drina River is emphasized [26,35,36,37,38,39] along with biodiversity [36,38,40] and cultural and historical heritage [36,40]. The area has been analyzed from the aspect of tourism potential [10,38,40,41,42], as well as spatial planning solutions [43,44], where its significance in cross-border planning [11,45,46] is particularly highlighted.
Located in the eastern part of the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina, NP Drina was declared in 2018. In addition to legal [18,47,48,49,50] and planning documentation [51], its potential has been analyzed through several scientific and professional publications. Natural potentials [13,52,53], cultural-historical heritage [13,53], and space placed in the context of the development of the cross-border region [13] are presented. All of the above were taken into consideration when preparing this research and will be perceived in light of the valid World, and European conventions and directives relevant to the research issue.
After collecting the data, a geostrategic framework of the researched area was given, through the definition of the borders of the two national parks that would make up the TBR Drina. An analysis of each state’s institutional and legal jurisdiction was carried out, with special attention paid to the analysis of the complicated and complex management system on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Zones of protection in the area of both national parks are shown. TBR Drina is presented through the analysis of natural, cultural-historical and socio-economic conditions. The recognized potentials were put into the context of the development of the area through recommendations of possible uses, all with the aim of finally forming and officially declaring the TBR Drina (Figure 1).
In the process of answering the questions posed, to achieve goals and tasks postulated in the framework of TBR Drina—opportunities and challenges of sustainable conservation, the qualitative research represents a top-bottom analysis from European level toward the regional, national, and local levels. Through methods of classification and regionalization, it is intended to form an integrated strategic mechanism for problem processes in the observed space. Modeling methods, software support, as well as complex evaluation methods contribute to the more exact formulation of the theoretical-applicative model construction of the research subject.
The main research instruments are the legislative analysis, the comparison, and the reference standard, and the main information sources are World, European and national documents, reports, communications, legislation, and websites of competent and relevant institutions.

3. Results

3.1. Geostrategic Framework

The Republic of Serbia is regulated by the Law on Territorial Organization [54]. According to the Law, the territorial organization of the Republic of Serbia as a territorial unit consists of municipalities (145 of them), cities (28) and the City of Belgrade (174 local self-government units), and the Autonomous Province (Vojvodina, Kosovo, and Metohija) as forms of territorial autonomy. There are 29 administrative districts in the Republic of Serbia to perform state administration activities outside the headquarters of state administration bodies.
Regarding the institutional and legislative framework of the Republic of Serbia, the system of protection of natural and cultural heritage is organized through the Ministries: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Culture and the Media, Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government. The institutions responsible for the promotion and protection of natural and cultural heritage were established, by the principles of sustainable management and development, of which the most important are: the Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, and Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia—Belgrade and Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (Table 1).
The legal framework for the protection of the natural and cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia is based on: the Law on Nature Protection [27], the Law on Environmental Protection [28], the Law on National Parks [15], the Law on Cultural Property [29], Law on Cultural Heritage) [30], and a series of rulebooks.
The signing of the General Framework Agreement in Dayton (21 November 1995) and its ratification (14 December 1995) ended the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The internationally recognized state of Bosnia and Herzegovina was created, comprising two political and territorial units—entities: The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which spans around 51% territory, and the Republic of Srpska, 49% of the territory. The pre-war municipality of Brčko was declared a district [55]. Today, Bosnia and Herzegovina has a total of 143 basic administrative-territorial units, 79 of which are in the 10 cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 64 are on the territory of the Republic of Srpska, and the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a separate unit. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina defines state-level obligations, and respective constitutions and legislative acts define the structure and division of jurisdictions at the entity level. This kind of multi-layer division of jurisdictions is the main cause of many problems at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bilateral and multilateral relations and cooperation are under the jurisdiction of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while NP Drina is on the territory of the entity of the Republic of Srpska. The simplest solution to overcome this problem would be to raise awareness about TBR Drina as a public good of general interest to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would overcome individual opposing interests of the entities.
Based on the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period after 1996, the issues of protection of natural heritage are under the jurisdiction of the state through the activities primarily of the Coordination Committee for the Environment, which was established in 1998. The committee consisted of eight members, four from each entity, and several representatives of international organizations (Office of the High Representative (OHR), the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), the World Bank, and the European Commission) without voting rights. The Committee was established to harmonize laws, regulations, standards, and action programs in the environmental field, cooperate with countries and international organizations, sign international environmental agreements, control their implementation, and participate in international processes.
By establishing the Inter-Entity Environmental Body [56] in 2006, the Environmental Coordination Committee has been put out of operation. The Inter-Entity environmental body has eight members, whose four members are appointed by the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and four members appointed by the Government of the Republic of Srpska and is responsible for all issues in the area of the environment for which a harmonized approach of the Entities is needed, as well as issues related to preparation and implementation of international agreements and programs in the field of environment, and participation in cooperation with international organizations and other countries.
In addition, these areas are defined at the entity levels and the Brčko District level of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In both entities, ministries are dealing with this issue, although with a significantly different scope of work and responsibility. In the Republic of Srpska, the jurisdiction in the sphere of nature protection belongs to the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Construction, and Ecology, but also other institutions (Table 1).
Jurisdiction over the cultural property of Bosnia and Herzegovina has the Commission to Preserve National Monuments established in 2002 by Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Decision of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Commission to Preserve National Monuments [57]. The Commission is composed of five members. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina appoints two, the Republic of Srpska one member, and the main director of UNESCO appoints the remaining members, each with a five-year term. The Commission is in charge of establishing the Provisional List and decisions on the designation of movable and immovable property to national monuments. Entity governments and ministries responsible for spatial planning and culture, as well as institutions for the protection of cultural monuments, are responsible for implementing the decisions of the Commission (for the Republic of Srpska, this is the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Republic Institute for the Protection of the Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of the Republic of Srpska).
The structure and division of competencies are completely asymmetrical in the two entities, including the Brčko District. Unlike the Republic of Srpska (which does not have cantons) in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, general competencies are related to the protection of natural and cultural heritage within the jurisdiction of cantonal ministries, while the Brčko District Government is directly responsible for these issues. Responsibilities are further divided between entities and/or cantons and local communities.
In the Republic of Srpska, jurisdictions for issues of protection of natural and cultural heritage, other than ministries acting at the entity level, have been transferred to the local community level. Within the municipalities, there are departments such as the Department for Spatial Planning, the Department for Municipal and Housing Affairs and Traffic Affairs, the Department for Urban Planning, Construction, Utilities, and Housing, the Department of Economy, and a few others. The names of departments and competencies are not uniform in municipalities, so different departments at the municipal level deal with the problems of protecting natural and cultural heritage.
Table
Table 1. Institutions included in the protection of the natural and cultural heritage in the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Table 1. Institutions included in the protection of the natural and cultural heritage in the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Republic of SerbiaBosnia and Herzegovina
Inter-Entity Environmental Body
Commission to Preserve National Monuments
Republic of SrpskaFederation of Bosnia and HerzegovinaBrčko District
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water ManagementMinistry of Spatial Planning, Construction, and EcologyFederal Ministry of Environment and TourismDepartment for Spatial Planning and Property Relations
Ministry of Environmental ProtectionMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water ManagementFederal Ministry of Spatial PlanningDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management
Ministry of Culture and the MediaMinistry of Education and CultureFederal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry
Ministry of Trade, Tourism, and TelecommunicationsRepublic Institute for the Protection of Cultural, Historical, and Natural HeritageFederal Institute for the Protection of Monuments
Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-GovernmentRepublic Hydrometeorological InstituteFederal Institute of Geology
Institute for Nature Conservation of SerbiaEnvironmental Protection FundFederal Hydrometeorological Institute
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia—Belgrade
Serbian Environmental Protection Agency
By the Dayton Peace Agreement, all legislation from the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was retained and was in force until the adoption of new laws. In 2002, the Republic of Srpska passed the Law on Nature Protection [47] and the Law on Environmental Protection [48], and, in 2010, the Law on National Parks [49]. They are all based on European Union legislation and the approach that its members use in terms of managing protected natural assets. This way, the Republic of Srpska wanted to establish the preconditions for the effective protection of nature and protected natural assets. In addition to the natural assets, the protected areas of the Republic of Srpska include immovable cultural assets that are covered by the 1995 Law on Cultural Property [50].
Post-war laws related to this area did not highlight the takeover (pre-qualification) of previously protected areas. For the system of protection of natural values and cultural and historical heritage to function, it was necessary to adopt the appropriate by-laws as soon as possible. The adoption of a set of laws created a quality basis for the establishment of a stable protection system and defined clear frameworks within the limits of which it is necessary to take concrete measures and actions.
Undoubtedly, the Republic of Srpska has a significant number of natural, cultural, and historical values that deserve adequate protection. Unfortunately, there is still not a sufficiently functional system of protection, and to establish it, it is necessary to cooperate among competent institutions and to establish a solid legal framework in which the Law on Environmental Protection will rely on all subsidiary laws of importance for this issue, such as the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction, the Law on Cultural Property, the Law on the Implementation of the Decisions of the Commission for the Protection of National Monuments, the Law on National Parks, the Law on Environmental Protection, the Law on Agricultural Land, Law on Water Protection, and the Law on Forests...
The lack of a good legal system enables or allows actions that should be sanctioned under already existing laws. In addition, already protected areas are no guarantee that nature will be preserved in them according to the type of protection that should exist in that area. Even those areas that have a certain degree of protection do not remain spared by various anthropogenic destructive activities. It is therefore not unlikely that, in protected areas, under the excuse of “sustainable” development, energy facilities will be built, quarries opened, woods inadequately cut, etc.

3.2. TBR Drina

Exceptional geological and biological diversity, a unique refugium for numerous relicts, endemic and endangered species, and rich cultural and historical heritage on both sides of the Drina (the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina) indicate the need for proclaiming TBR. It is planned that this TBR on the Serbian side will cover an area of 24,991.82 ha which would consist of the NP Tara and in the territory of the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the area of 6315.32 ha consists of NP Drina (Figure 2).
In terms of the protection regime, there are three zones of protection in the area of both national parks (Table 2):
  • I degree of protection—strict protection is ensured with the possibility of population management, which enables the spontaneous development of natural succession and other ecological processes, the preservation of habitats, living communities, and populations of plants and animals in wild conditions, with insignificant influence and human presence, except for scientific research and controlled education.
  • II degree of protection—active protection is provided, which enables limited and controlled use of natural resources and cultural heritage, while activities in the area can be carried out to the extent that enables the improvement of the state and presentation of the protected area, without consequences for its primary value.
  • III degree of protection—protection is provided which enables selective and limited use of natural resources and allows controlled interventions and activities in the area, if they are aligned with the management goals of the protected area or following the inherited traditional forms of performing economic activities and housing, including tourist construction.
Sustainability 14 16733 g002 550
Figure 2. Location, territorial coverage, and areas by zones of protection of TBR Drina.
Figure 2. Location, territorial coverage, and areas by zones of protection of TBR Drina.
Sustainability 14 16733 g002
Table
Table 2. Areas by zones of protection [18,32].
Table 2. Areas by zones of protection [18,32].
Zones of ProtectionNP TaraNP Drina
Area in Ha%Area in Ha%
I degree of protection3323.9213.35860.9313.63
II degree of protection8514.3934.072440.3538.64
III degree of protection13,153.5152.583014.0447.73
Total protected area24,991.82100.006315.32100.00

3.2.1. Natural Conditions

The biggest potential, and also the restriction of the entire area, of TBR Drina, presents the Drina River, whose hydropower potential is categorized as one of the largest in Europe. Drina River is a border river and therefore requires common concern, cooperation, and planning of the activity of using it.
NP Tara is a typical forest area and for its preservation and diversity of forest ecosystems (many of which are relict) one of the richest and most valuable forest areas in Europe. In the forest sense, Tara is covered with mixed forests of European spruce (Picea abies), Silver fir (Abies alba), and European beech (Fagus sylvatica), and specificity compared to other mountains of the Balkan Peninsula is a large number of relict and endemic forest species and plant communities.
The diverse plant life of NP Tara represents a rare natural resource, which has arisen thanks to a series of favorable natural conditions. More than 1100 plant species grow in the area of the NP Tara, representing almost a third of Serbia’s total flora [58]. Tara is known as a refugial massif or a habitat in which many relicts and rare plant species survived. The most significant and best known is the Serbian spruce (Picea omorika), which Josif Pančić discovered in 1975 in Zaovine village. It is a tertiary endemorelict that was widespread throughout Europe 20 million years ago, and today it is reduced only in the middle course of the Drina river. In addition to Serbian spruce, over 70 endemic species have been recorded in the parking area, of which 29 are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [32].
As a result of favorable orographic, edaphic-hydrological, biotic, and especially climatic conditions, NP Tara fauna appeared long ago and still remains very rich, both in species and in several individuals who inhabit the protected area. The most famous species, which can be said to be the symbol of the fauna of Tara, is the endemorelict Serbian grasshopper (Pyrgomorphella Serbica). In the Drina river and cold mountain rivers, representative specimens of the huchen (Hucho hucho) and grayling (Thymallus thymallus) live. There are about 130 bird species in the surrounding ecosystems. The most frequent species here are black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius), white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos), hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia), Ural owl (Strix uralensis), European serin (Serinus serinus), grey eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), grey hawk (Falco peregrinus), and other species [16,59,60]. Of the more than 50 species of mammals, brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wildcat (Felis silvestris), otter (Lutra lutra), and chamois (Rupicarpa rupicarpa) stand out. Chamois is one of the symbols of the “Tara” National Park. According to the results of the present research, this area is inhabited by the largest population of brown bears in Serbia. The “Tara” National Park is ranked among the richest mountain areas in terms of the number of species of daily butterflies [61]. About 140 species of daily butterflies have been found in the present research, including the famous dovetail (Papilio Machaon) and apollo (Papilio apolon).
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), NP Tara belongs to the 2nd category. In the territory of NP Tara, the following areas are recognized as internationally significant:
  • The area of the NP Tara represents the selected area for daily butterflies in Serbia and was proclaimed as a Prime Butterfly Area (PBA);
  • The broader area of NP Tara has been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA);
  • The broader area of NP Tara has been identified as an Important Plants Area (IPA);
  • The Tara area was identified as a significant area within the EMERALD Network;
  • and the area NP Tara is recognized as a significant area within the NATURA 2000 ecological network under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive [32].
The natural values of the NP Drina are also significant. Exceptional flora diversity is reflected in the presence of more than 600 vascular flora species, and the presence of Serbian spruce (Picea omorika) with several habitats contributes to the value of the area. The diversity of fauna in the area of NP Drina is extremely valuable. Particularly important species are grasshopper (Pyrgomorphulla Serbica), brown bear (Ursus arctos), chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), and grey eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).
There are a lot of bird species that live in the NP, and almost every species is a protected one. Some of them are crossbill (Loxia curvirostra), mountain buzzard (Buteo oreophilus), crested pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes), grey crow (Corvus tristis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and many others. Among the most important mammals, which are under protection are brown bear (Ursus arctos), chamois (Rupicarpa rupicarpa), Balkan lynx (Lynx lynx Martioni), wolf (Canis lupus), and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus).
The natural values of the NP Drina are defined and separated by various acts on the designation of protected areas by categories. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), NP Drina belongs to the 2nd category [62].

3.2.2. Cultural-Historical Conditions

The territory of NP Tara has a rich cultural and historical heritage with traces of prehistory, ancient, Roman, and Byzantine culture. In the territory of the NP Tara and the surrounding area, two immovable cultural inheritances are subjected to special protection regime: the monastery of Rača from the 13th century and Stećci Medieval Tombstone Graveyards in Perućac and Rastište (municipality of Bajina Bašta), which are at the UNESCO World Heritage List [63]. Ethnological heritage is extremely important and relatively well preserved. The objects of folk architecture from the village of Zaovina on Kaluđerske Bare and in the settlements of Jagoštica and Rastište stand out. In the territories of Tara, Zaovine, and Mokra Gora, the most original form of folk architecture appears, i.e., the typical form of the house of the Dinaric area, which in its simple form contains the genesis for all subsequent architectural objects.
As a cultural value and tourist attraction, it stands out as the Ethno-village Drvengrad (a wooden town) on Mećavnik, created according to the idea of the famous filmmaker Emir Kusturica, the winner of two Golden Palms at the Cannes Film Festival.
The area of NP Drina does not abound with rich cultural and historical heritage, and it mostly falls on the objects of traditional architecture. The original plan was that the NP Drina encompasses a much larger territory [13], which would capture the area of Višegrad, where the Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge still stands from the 16th century, which is listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List [64] and Andrićgrad or Kamengrad (a stone town) the conceptual project of Emir Kusturica on the other side of the Drina river.
The linking of these two cultural monuments under UNESCO protection (Stećci and the Mehmed Paša Sokolović bridge) and these two opposition tourist attractions (Drvengrad and Kamengrad), created as a product of world-famous artists, would have a lot of tourist exploitation as part of the unique TBR Drina.

3.2.3. Socio-Economic Conditions

Social and economic potentials are the weakest part of TBR Drina. All activities depend on the social and demographic factors that pose a dominant problem. A small number of inhabitants, scattered and unmanaged urbanization, and unfavorable demographic structure (age and education) require the definition of a new strategy for the spatial development of the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Serbia, which will enable residents to be directed to this area to perform demographic restructuring. If the current trends continue, especially in the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina, bearing in mind the ecological capacities and constraints of this great natural system, the consequences can be inconceivable. TBR Drina is predisposed to the development of tourism, and forestry, with an emphasis on activities that should be developed in coordination and coexistence with the protection and arrangement of the entire space. The developmental variant starts from the direct effects of planned activities (tourist, service, construction, infrastructure, entrepreneurship) on the steady growth of the population [41,65,66,67]. It counts on the demographic potential of the local population on the one hand and on attracting the population from the surrounding areas on the other. Opening up new jobs, opportunities for entrepreneurial activities, and forming family businesses in tourism, agrarian, and service activities is the greatest motive for living in this area.

4. Discussion

Thanks to its extraordinary natural potential (natural wealth, biodiversity and diversity, and the attractiveness of landscape), TBR Drina draws special attention because it represents the strategic and capital interests of the two states. Plan-oriented guidance and management of such spatial systems necessitate clearly defined protection measures and then assumed institutional responsibility at all levels. The protection of natural resources and values should be a real step toward the final design and use of nature [22,68,69,70].
Particular attention should be directed to the part of the reserve that seizes the most attention and interest, which is water. Water as a natural basis of planning, in recent years, is increasingly seen as a strategic resource of every country. Numerous studies emphasize above all the hydropower potential of the Drina River, which, unfortunately, is very often in itself attracting economic attention, which threatens to endanger other elements of nature. The establishment of a common protection system is also necessary for forest resources that are also exposed to ruthless and unplanned exploitation.
The cultural and historical potential of TBR Drina is necessary to be treated as an essential component of sustainable development of this area, given its great importance and dependence on the natural environment and economic circumstances in which it is formed and exists [71,72,73]. This implies a clear record of the cultural values and their present state, as well as the implementation of the necessary protection measures with the assumption of institutional responsibility for more efficient management. Integrating with other sectors such as tourism and culture and, in particular, nature leads to better exploitation of this resource. Legislation reform is required in line with contemporary trends, as well as the integration of cultural-historical values into tourism offers.
Particular attention should be paid to the affirmation of the cultural monuments on UNESCO World Heritage Lists. Knowledge of cultural heritage is necessary to spread at the local, regional and international levels, with an emphasis on cultural identity as part of European and global diversity.
The experience of countries with cross-border regions can serve as an example of good practice whose experiences should be of significant value. The principle that has proven to be effective in some TBRs [26], and due to the complex management system would be applicable in the case of the Drina TBR, is the formation of a coordinating body that would be in charge of managing the TBR, without creating a joint management plan. The administrators and managers of the Serbian and Bosnian protected areas, mainly the two national parks, are obliged to elaborate their own management plans according to different laws, which are controlled by the respective higher authorities (ministries). The other activities would be: to establish coordination between all local communities, provide support to state institutions and funds, and carry out education and systematic preparation of population and partners in the tourism development project. In addition, it is necessary to improve infrastructure capacities, invest in economic development, and link local and regional communities based on the economic interests of cross-border cooperation. Developing a joint spatial plan and master plans for integral development should be a good framework for all future investment and development [74,75,76]. These documents should define projects that can be realistically achieved in the medium term, taking into account the partnerships of residents, local communities, regions, and state and European funds. Previous experience has shown that the results of scientific research are most often not incorporated into management decisions. In addition to the popularization of research, greater emphasis should be placed on an interdisciplinary approach and social sciences.

5. Conclusions

The territorial coverage of the TBR Drina is precisely defined. The Republic of Serbia fulfilled its part of the obligation and fulfilled all the conditions by declaring the NP Tara and placing it under the appropriate protection regime. The Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina has adopted a series of activities by adopting the Law on NP Drina. In the forthcoming period, the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina is expected to harmonize state-level institutions and laws, and clearly define the obligations and competencies of all parties and users at the entity level [77].
The natural, cultural and historical conditions of TBR Drina represent the potential for development of this area, in contrast to the socio-economic conditions that make up its limiting factor. Most of the demographically demolished and economically degraded area requires exceptionally careful valorization instead of drifting on exclusivity. Among the many activities and processes that pose a threat to the protected area, the most dominant stands out:
  • Urbanization of the area;
  • Demographic depopulation of the area and age structure of the population;
  • Abandonment of traditional activities;
  • Lack of infrastructure;
  • Development of inadequate forms of tourism;
  • Unlawful use of natural resources.
In the process of overcoming these disadvantages, it is possible to examine and apply the experience of cross-border regions with similar spaces that have been developed and arranged in a relatively short period to the level of first-class economic, tourist, and cultural units.
All future activities should be aimed to protect and regulate the public interest but also the protection of private interest by encouraging a private initiative according to the criteria of public interest, in particular:
  • Establishing and harmonizing common interests and strategic development;
  • Linking and improving common natural resources;
  • Development of the protection of the environmental system;
  • Preservation and presentation of cultural and historical values;
  • Development of infrastructure that will contribute to a simpler flow of goods and people;
  • Sustainable development of the area and creation of conditions for the improvement of the quality of life and work of the local population through the promotion of traditional activities (rural tourism, eco-tourism, ethno-tourism);
  • Fostering cooperation between citizens, and cultural and public institutions through the realization of joint regional projects;
  • Monitoring, scientific observation, and appropriate education;
  • Harmonization of all spatial or developmental plans, which should be based on the principles and laws of European regionalism.
In the end, the methodology of integrated spatial planning of TBR Drina on modern principles requires above all the understanding of the reality, which, in addition to the existing values, also contains numerous problems that need to be addressed in the complex socio-economic situation on both sides of the reserve. By planning through the cooperation between the border regions of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the support of the state level and with the participation of the local self-government, the TBR Drina area can be expected to recover gradually, with the relative coexistence of ecological, social, and economic components of space, in the forthcoming period.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.M.-T. and N.Ž.; methodology, I.M.-T. and N.Ž.; validation, I.M.-T. and N.Ž.; formal analysis, V.R., T.M.T. and V.Č.; investigation, V.R., T.M.T. and V.Č.; resources, V.R., T.M.T. and V.Č.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M.-T. and N.Ž.; writing—review and editing, I.M.-T., N.Ž. and A.I.-D.; supervision, I.M.-T., N.Ž. and A.I.-D.; project administration, I.M.-T.; funding acquisition, I.M.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was supported by the Ministry of Scientific and Technological Development, Higher Education and Information Society, Republic of Srpska (Project No. 1259048; Contract No. 19.032/961-73/19).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves. Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/mab/about (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  2. UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves. World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/wnbr (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  3. UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves. What Are Biosphere Reserves? Available online: https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/about (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  4. Ðorđević, J.S.; Panić, M. Uticaj transgraničnih regiona na razvoj Srbije [The influence transborder regions on the development process in Serbia]. Bull. Serb. Geogr. Soc. 2004, 84, 183–196. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Živak, N.; Ðorđević, D.; Dabović, T. Prekogranična saradnja—Zajednički izazov Republike Srpske i susjednih zemalja [Cross-border cooperation–a common challenge of Republic of Srpska and neighboring countries]. In Problemi i Izazovi Savremene Geografske Nauke i Nastave; Grčić, M., Ed.; Geografski Fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu: Belgrade, Serbia, 2012; pp. 513–520. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  6. Popescu, G. Bordering and Ordering in the Twenty-First Century: Understanding Borders; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2012; pp. 1–183. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tripathi, D. Interrogating Linkages between Borders, Regions, and Border Studies. J. Borderl. Stud. 2015, 30, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hataley, T.; Leuprecht, C. Determinants of Cross-Border Cooperation. J. Borderl. Stud. 2018, 33, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Romano, J.; Pérez-Chinarro, E.; Coral, B.V. Network of Landscapes in the Sustainable Management of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves. Land 2020, 9, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marković, S. Turizam kao faktor prostorne integracije i socioekonomskog razvoja Donjeg Podrinja [Tourism as a factor of spatial integration and socioeconomic development of Donje Podrinje]. Ph.D. Thesis, Geografski Fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Belgrade, Serbia, 2020. Available online: http://phaidrabg.bg.ac.rs/o:23194 (accessed on 20 September 2022). (In Serbian).
  11. Stankov, S.; Perić, M.; Doljak, D.; Vuković, N. The Role of Euroregions as a Factor of Spatial Integration and regional development–the focus on the selected border area. J. Geogr. Inst. Cvijic 2021, 71, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Taggart-Hodge, T.D.; Schoon, M. The challenges and opportunities of transboundary cooperation through the lens of the East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Medar-Tanjga, I.; Živak, N.; Zekanović, I.; Popov, T.; Tanjga, M. The Drina Cross-Border Biosphere Reserve as an Instrument for Territorial Integration and Formation of a Unique System for Protecting Natural and Social Heritage. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Energy, Environment, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development (EEESD ’13), Lemesos, Cyprus, 21–23 March 2013; pp. 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  14. Josipović, M. Feasibility Study on Establishing Transboundary Cooperation in the Potential Tara-Drina National Park; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011; pp. 1–32. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/12832 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  15. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Law on National Parks; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 39/1993, 44/1993, 53/1993, 67/1993, 48/1994, 101/2005, 36/2009, 84/2015, 95/2018; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  16. Radović, D.I.; Stevanović, V.B.; Marković, D.; Jovanović, S.D.; Džukić, G.; Radović, I. Implementation of GIS technologies in assessment and protection of natural values of Tara National Park. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2005, 57, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Radović, D.; Andrian, G.; Radović, I.; Srdić, Z.; Protić, D. Evolving GIS technologies in nature conservation and the spatial planning strategy of Tara NP (Serbia) as a potential UNESCO MAB reserve. Bull. Serb. Geogr. Soc. 2008, 88, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska. Law on NP Drina; Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska No. 63/2017; Government of Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2017. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  19. Ishwaran, N. (Ed.) The Biosphere; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 1–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khasaev, G.; Sadovenko, M.; Isaev, R.O. Biosphere reserve−the Actual Research Subject of the Sustainable Development Process. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2016, 11, 8911–8929. [Google Scholar]
  21. Reed, M.G.; Price, F.M. (Eds.) UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Supporting Biocultural Diversity, Sustainability, and Society, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kallioras, A.; Pliakas, F.; Diamantis, I. The Legislative Framework and Policy for the Water Resources Management of Transboundary Rivers in Europe: The Case of Nestos/Mesta River, between Greece and Bulgaria. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lockwood, M.; Worboys, G.; Kothari, A. (Eds.) Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 1–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Těšitel, J.; Kušová, D. The more institutional models, the more challenges–Biosphere reserves in the Czech Republic. In UNESCO Biosphere Reserves–Supporting Biocultural Diversity, Sustainability and Society, 1st ed.; Reed, M.G., Price, M.F., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jakubowski, A.; Seidlová, A. UNESCO Transboundary Biosphere Reserves as laboratories of cross-border cooperation for sustainable development of border areas. The case of the Polish–Ukrainian borderland. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2022, 57, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Petrikova, H. Good Practices in Sustainable Transboundary Cooperation—The Krkonoše/Karkonosze Biosphere Reserve. In Crossing Borders for Nature. European Examples of Transboundary Conservation; Vasiljević, M., Pezold, T., Eds.; IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe: Gland, Switzerland; Belgrade, Serbia, 2011; pp. 35–39. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2011-025.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2022).
  27. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Law on Nature Protection; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 36/2009, 88/2010, 14/2016, 95/2018; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  28. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Law on Environmental Protection; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 135/2004, 36/2009, 43/2011, 14/2016, 76/2018, 95/2018; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  29. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Law on Cultural Property; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 71/1994, 52/2011, 99/2011, 6/2020, 35/2021; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2021. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  30. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Law on Cultural Heritage; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 129/2021; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2021. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  31. Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure of the Republic of Serbia. Prostorni Plan Područja Posebne Namene NP Tara [Spatial Plan for the Special Purpose Area of the NP Tara]; Department for Spatial Planning, Urban Development and Housing, Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  32. PC National Park Tara. Plan Upravljanja NP Tara za Period 2018–2027 Godine [National Park Tara Management Plan for the Period 2018–2027]; PC National Park Tara: Bajina Bašta, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  33. Telbisz, T.; Ćalić, J.; Kovačević-Majkić, J.; Milanović, R.; Brankov, J.; Micić, J. Karst Geoheritage of Tara National Park (Serbia) and Its Geotouristic Potential. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kovačević-Majkić, J.; Ćalić, J.; Micić, J.; Brankov, J.; Milanović, R.; Telbisz, T. Public knowledge on karst and protected areas: A case study of Tara National Park, Serbia. Hung. Geogr. Bull. 2022, 71, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pivić, R.; Josić, D.; Dinić, Z.; Dželetović, Z.; Maksimović, J.; Stanojković Sebić, A. Water quality of the Drina River as a source of irrigation in agriculture. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Scientific Agricultural Symposium „Agrosym 2014“, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 23–26 October 2014; pp. 795–801. [Google Scholar]
  36. Radovanović, M. (Ed.) Tara–Lexicons of National Parks of Serbia; Službeni Glasnik, Geographical Institute „Jovan Cvijić“ SASA: Belgrade, Serbia; Public Enterprise „Tara National Park“: Bajina Bašta, Serbia, 2015; pp. 1–364. ISBN 978-86-519-1899-8. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  37. Leščešen, I.; Pantelić, M.; Dolinaj, D.; Stojanović, V.; Milošević, D. Statistical analysis of water quality parameters of the Drina River (West Serbia), 2004–2011. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pecelj, M.; Vagić, N.; Ristić, D.; Šušnjar, S.; Bogdanović, U. Assessment of the natural environment for the purposes of recreational tourism–example on Drina River flow (Serbia). Eur. J. Geogr. 2019, 10, 85–96. Available online: https://gery.gef.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1016 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  39. Brankov, J.; Pešić, A.M.; Joksimović, D.M.; Radovanović, M.M.; Petrović, M.D. Water Quality Estimation and Population’s Attitudes: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective of Environmental Implications in Tara National Park (Serbia). Sustainability 2021, 13, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tomićević, J.; Bjedov, I.; Gudurić, I.; Obratov-Petković, D.; Shannon, M.A. Tara National Park–Resources, Management, and Tourist Perception. In Protected Area Management; Sladonja, B., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Brankov, J.; Jojić, G.T.; Pešić, A.M.; Petrović, M.D.; Tretiakova, T.N. Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact on the community in national parks in Serbia. Eur. Countrys. 2019, 11, 124–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Brankov, J.; Micić, J.; Ćalić, J.; Kovačević-Majkić, J.; Milanović, R.; Telbisz, T. Stakeholders’ Attitudes toward Protected Areas: The Case of Tara National Park (Serbia). Land 2022, 11, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Popović, D. Spatial characteristics of the Podrinje region. Bull. Serb. Geogr. Soc. 2015, 95, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dobričić, M.; Maksić Mulalić, M. Sustainable Spatial Development of the Tara National Park. In Proceedings of the 7th International Scientific Conference–ERAZ 2021, Knowledge-Based Sustainable Development, Online, 27 May 2021; pp. 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stojkov, B.; Ðorđević, A. Značaj transgraničnog planiranja Podrinja za prostornu integraciju Zapadnog Balkana [Meaning of crossborder planning in western Balkan countries]. Bull. Serb. Geogr. Soc. 2004, 84, 113–124. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stepić, M. Podrinje–od pogranične regije do potencijalne osovine razvoja [Podrinje–from a frontier region to a potential axis of development]. Bull. Serb. Geogr. Soc. 1995, 85, 27–36. Available online: https://digitalna.nb.rs/view/URN:NB:RS:SD_009D9BE9B60FF0ED17AA71C7413495B7-1995-B075#page/13/mode/1up (accessed on 20 September 2022). (In Serbian).
  47. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska. Law on Nature Protection; Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska No. 50/2002, 34/2008, 59/2008, 20/2014; Government of Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2014. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  48. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska. Law on Environmental Protection; Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska No. 53/2002, 109/2005, 41/2008, 29/2010, 71/2012, 79/2015, 70/2020; Government of Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2020. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  49. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska. Law on National Parks; Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska No. 75/2010; Government of Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2010. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  50. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska. Law on Cultural Property; Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska No. 11/1995, 103/2008, 38/2022; Government of Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2022. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  51. Ministry of Spatial Planning, Construction and Ecology of the Republic of Srpska. Izmjene i Dopune Prostornog Plana Republike Srpske do 2025. Godine [Amendments to the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Srpska until 2025]; Public institution New Urban Institute of the Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2015. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  52. Kovačević, D. Nacionalni park „Drina“–smisao i značaj [„Drina“ National Park meaning and significance]. Kult. Nasljeđe 2018, 1, 213–219. Available online: https://doisrpska.nub.rs/index.php/KN (accessed on 20 September 2022). (In Serbian).
  53. Panić, G.; Nagradić, S. Zaštita Prirodnog Nasljeđa u Republici Srpskoj [Protection of Natural Heritage in the Republic of Srpska]; The Republic Institute for Protection of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of The Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2019; pp. 1–134. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  54. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Law on Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 129/2007, 18/2016, 47/2018, 9/2020; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zekanović, I. Etnodemografske Osnove Političko-Geografskog Položaja Republike Srpske [Ethno-Demographic Basis of the Political-Geographical Position of the Republic of Srpska]; Geografsko društvo Republike Srpske: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2011; pp. 1–216. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  56. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska. Decision to Establish an Inter-Entity Environmental Protection Body; Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska No. 116/2006; Government of Republic of Srpska: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2006. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  57. The Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Decision on the Commission to Preserve National Monuments; Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. 1/2002, 10/2002; Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2002. (In English) [Google Scholar]
  58. Gajić, M.; Kojić, M.; Karadžić, D.; Vasiljević, M.; Stanić, M. Vegetacija Nacionalnog Parka Tara [Vegetation of Tara National Park]; Šumarski Fakultet Beograd, Nacionalni Park Tara: Bajina Bašta, Serbia, 1992; pp. 1–128. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  59. Vasić, V. Pregled faune ptica planinskog kompleksa Tara, Zapadna Srbija [Overview of the bird fauna of the Tara mountain complex, Western Serbia]. Arch. Biol. Sci. 1977, 29, 69–81. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
  60. Puzović, S.; Grubač, B. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for conservation. Volume 2: Southern Europe; Heat, M.F., Evans, M.I., Eds.; BirdLife International: Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 725–745. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jakšić, P. Yugoslavia. In Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe; Priority Sites for Conservation; Van Sway, C., Waren, M., Eds.; De Vlinderstichting: Wageningen, The Netherland, 2003; pp. 655–684. [Google Scholar]
  62. IPCHNHRS (Institute for Protection of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of the Republic of Srpska). Register of Protected Natural Assets. Available online: https://nasljedje.org/registar-zasticenih-prirodnih-dobara/ (accessed on 28 September 2022). (In Serbian).
  63. UNESCO. World Heritage Convention. Stećci Medieval Tombstone Graveyards. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1504 (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  64. UNESCO. World Heritage Convention. Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1260 (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  65. Cincotta, R.; Wisniewski, J.; Engelman, R. Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 2000, 404, 990–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tomićević, J.; Shannon, M.A.; Milovanović, M. Socio-Economic Impacts on the Attitudes towards Conservation of Natural Resources: Case Study from Serbia. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Järv, H.; Kliimask, J.; Ward, R.; Sepp, K. Socioeconomic Impacts of Protection Status on Residents of National Parks. Eur. Countrys. 2016, 8, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Wiering, M.; Verwijmeren, J. Limits and Borders: Stages of Transboundary Water Management. J. Borderl. Stud. 2012, 27, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Crofts, R.; Gordon, J.E. Geoconservation in protected areas. Parks 2014, 20, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bertzky, B.; Bertzky, M.; Worboys, G.L.; Hamilton, L.S. Eart’s natural heritage. In Protected Area Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Ferary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 43–80. [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Oudenhoven, J.P.; Van der Zee, K.I. Successful International Cooperation: The Influence of Cultural Similarity, Strategic Differences, and International Experience. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 51, 633–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Anderson, J.; O’Dowd, L.; Wilson, T.M. (Eds.) Culture, Co-operation, and Borders. In Culture and Cooperation in Europe’s Borderlands; Rodopi: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 13–29. [Google Scholar]
  73. Eder, K. Europe’s Borders: The Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 2006, 9, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Newman, D. On Borders and Power: A Theoretical Framework. J. Borderl. Stud. 2003, 18, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Đurđić, S.; Filipović, D. Tretmani zaštićenih prirodnih dobara u sistemu prostornih planova [A treatment of protected natural assets in the system of spatial plans]. Bull. Serb. Geogr. Soc. 2005, 85, 241–248. Available online: https://gery.gef.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/127 (accessed on 20 September 2022). (In Serbian).
  76. Bergs, R. Cross-border Cooperation, Regional Disparities and Integration of Markets in the EU. J. Borderl. Stud. 2012, 27, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gnjato, R.; Živak, N.; Medar-Tanjga, I. Institutional framework and development aspects of protected areas in the Republic of Srpska. Herald 2010, 14, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 16733 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme of the research procedure.
Figure 1. Scheme of the research procedure.
Sustainability 14 16733 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Medar-Tanjga, I.; Živak, N.; Ivkov-Džigurski, A.; Rajčević, V.; Mišlicki Tomić, T.; Čolić, V. Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416733

AMA Style

Medar-Tanjga I, Živak N, Ivkov-Džigurski A, Rajčević V, Mišlicki Tomić T, Čolić V. Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416733

Chicago/Turabian Style

Medar-Tanjga, Irena, Neda Živak, Anđelija Ivkov-Džigurski, Vesna Rajčević, Tanja Mišlicki Tomić, and Vukosava Čolić. 2022. "Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416733

APA Style

Medar-Tanjga, I., Živak, N., Ivkov-Džigurski, A., Rajčević, V., Mišlicki Tomić, T., & Čolić, V. (2022). Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation. Sustainability, 14(24), 16733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416733

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop