- Download PDF - 

SEEFOR 1 (2): 61-66
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15177/seefor.10-07  

Original scientific paper


Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in Croatia – Public and Professional Perception and Needs for Adaptation

Dijana Vuletić 1*, Stjepan Posavec 2, Silvija Krajter 3, Elvis Paladinić 3

1 Croatian Forest Research Institute, Director, Cvjetno naselje 41, 10 450, Jastrebarsko, Croatia
2 Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, Department of Forest Inventory and Management, Svetošimunska 25, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
3 Croatian Forest Research Institute, Division for Forest Management and Forest Economics, Trnjanska cesta 35, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

* Corresponding author: e-mail:  

VULETIĆ D, POSAVEC S, KRAJTER S, PALADINIĆ E 2010 Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in Croatia – Public and Professional Perception and Needs for Adaptation. South-east Eur for 1 (2): 61-66. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15177/seefor.10-07  

Cited by:        CrossRef        Google Scholar


Background and Purpose: Croatia is one of the countries with a long practice of payments for environmental forests’ services (PES). Following the implementation of green tax in Croatia and present European trends, the aim of this research is to investigate state of economic mechanisms and possible need for change or adaptation to the new trends.
Material and Methods: Primary data were collected by interviewing forestry professionals in charge of collection and distributions of green tax to gain an insight of their perception on importance of green tax, their comments on recent decrease in prescribed rate and what are the issues related to tax collection. Also very short telephone questionnaires were conducted with taxpayers to get an impression on how taxpayers perceive their obligation, their awareness of the purpose of this payment, their participation in discussion related to green tax and do they receive annual reports from Croatian Forest Ltd. company related to money collected and spent. Secondary data consisted of review of relevant literature, legislation overview and analysis of reports on collection and distribution of green tax provided by Croatian Forests Ltd. company. 
Results and Conclusion: Collected amount of green tax grew constantly given the period 1993-2009. Important factor was increased monitoring of tax collection. Main problems with green tax were constant change of governmental decisions and lack of transparency of tax distribution. Green tax was perceived as burden by taxpayers and their knowledge of its purpose was general at best.

Keywords: environmental services, green tax, implementation, perception, Croatia



  1. EHRLICH PR, EHRLICH AH 1981 Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York, pp 305
  2. COSTANCA R, D'ARGE R, DE GROOT R, FARBER S, GRASSO M, HANNON B, LIMBURG K, NAEEM S, O'NEILL RV, PARUELO J, RASKIN GR, SUTTON P, VAN DER BELT M 1997 The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260
  3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. A Framework for Assessment. Island Press.
  4. GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUM E, DE GROOT R, LOMAS PR, MONTES C 2010 The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209-1218. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
  5. WESTMAN W 1977 How much are nature's services worth? Science 197: 960–964. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.197.4307.960
  6. DE GROOT RS 1987 Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. The Environmentalist 7 (2):105–109. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02240292
  7. CORBERA E, KOSOY N, MARTÍNEZ-TUNA M 2007 The equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environ Chang 17: 365–380. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005
  8. PAGIOLA S 2008 Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 65: 712–724. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033
  9. WUNDER S, ALBÁN M 2008 Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol Econ 65: 685–698. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004
  10. WUNDER S 2005 Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper 42, CIFOR, Bogor
  11. MURADIAN R, CORBERA E, PASCUAL U, KOSOY N, MAY PH 2010 Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69: 1202-1208. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
  12. MAVSAR R, RAMČILOVIĆ S, PALAHÍ M, WEISS G, RAMETSTEINER E, TYKKÄ S, VAN APELDOOM R, VREKE J, VAN WIJ M,  JANSE G, PROKOFIEVA I, REKOLA M, KUULUVAINEN J 2008 Study on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest Goods and Services, Final Report. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/forest_products/index_en.htm (Accesed: 20 October 2010)
  13. Forest Law 2005 (OG 140/05)
  14. CROATIAN FORESTS LTD 2006 General Forest Management Plan 2006-2015
  15. Rulebook of Forest Management, OG 121/1997, OG 111/2006 
  16. PRPIĆ B 1992 O vrijednosti općekorisnih funkcija šuma. Sumar list 116 (6-8): 301-312
  17. Društveni dogovor o osiguranju sredstava za biološku reprodukciju i zaštitu šuma od požara za područje krša (engl. Agreement on funding of forest renovation and fire prevention of forests on karst), 1980. OG 44/1980
  18. IVANČEVIĆ V 1983 Šumarstvu na kršu predstoje bolji dani. Sumar list 107 (11-12): 509-524
  19. Forest Law 1983 (OG 54/1983)
  20. ŠIMAŠEK A 2007 Metoda naplate Naknade za općekorisne funkcije šuma u Republici Hrvatskoj, njezino praćenje i kontrola, Magistarski rad, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Šumarski Fakultet, Zagreb, p 100
  21. Forest Law 1990 (OG 52/1990)
  22. Forest Law (OG 140/05, amendment OG 82/06) 
  23. Forest Law (OG 140/05, amendment OG 80/2010)
  24. GOVERNMENT of REPUBLIC of CROATIA 2010 Plan of implementation activities of program for economy revitalisation, May, 2010, (Croatian only). Available at: http://www.vlada.hr/hr/preuzimanja/publikacije/plan_provedbenih_aktivnosti_programa_gospodarskog_oporavka (Accessed: 22 October 2010)
  25. MRKOBRAD M 2009 U razminiranju je dosad potrošeno 160 mil.kuna, pod minama još 155 000 ha. Hrvatske šume 148 (4): 4-8
  26. Law on Fire fighting, 1999 (OG 106/1999, article 47, amended in OG 117/2001, 36/2002., 96/2003., 174/2004, 38/2009, 80/2010)
  27. CROATIAN FORESTS LTD 2010 Report on collected green tax and its distribution for 2009 and January-April of 2010
  28. CROATIAN FORESTS LTD 2009 Report on collected green tax and its distribution for 2008
  29. MAYRAND K, PAQUIN M 2004 Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey and Assessment of Current Schemes. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, Montreal, 2004. Available at:  http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/PES-Unisfera_en.pdf (Accessed: 20 August 2010)
  30. SMITH M, DE GROOT D, BERGKAMP G (eds) 2006 Pay-Establishing payments for watershed services. IUCN, Gland, 109 pp. Available at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-054.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2010)


© 2015 by the Croatian Forest Research Institute. This is an Open Access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).