Hrvoje Petrić *

On the Protection of Nature

and and the the Beginnings
Beginnings… of the
of Environmental Movement
the Environmental Movement in Croatia (with some inSelec-
reference to Slovakia) until the 1990s:
ted Examples
Croatia (with some reference
to Slovakia) until the 1990s:
Selected Examples
Nature conservation in Croatia has a tradition going back to the late 19th or early 20th century. This article com-
pares this tradition with that of Slovakia. It is interesting that Croatia’s and Slovakia‘s first national parks were
established in the same year: 1949 (Plitvička jezera/Plitvice Lakes, Paklenica, and Tatranský národný park). In
Slovakia the Slovakian Union of Preservers of Nature and Landscape (Slovak zväz ochrancov prírody a krajiny)
was formed in 1969, which gathered under its wing not only the former members of the Section for the Protection
of Nature (founded in 1958) of the National Museum Society, but also a variety of unorganized groups of nature
lovers. Slovakian Union security of nature and landscape has been particularly active in the 1980s and was in-
fluenced by, among other factors, on the development of Slovakia‘s environmental movement. On the emergence
of environmental movement has certainly influenced industrialization that has upset the balance of the environ-
ment. In Croatia, the environmental movement occurs at the beginning of the 1970s, but he appeared in the
system of socialist self-management that successfully prevents „subversive ecology”, since the mid-1980s, there
was environmental action „from below”, which is reflected through the anti-nuclear movement, problems with
waste, environmental spontaneous rebellion against the construction of hydroelectric power plants in other ways.

Keywords: protection of nature, history of environmentalism, environmental movement, Croatia, Slovakia

Protection of nature1 In Croatia active protection of nature initially

The beginnings of active protection of natu-
re date back to late 19th century2, 1873 founded
Hungarian Carpathian Association (Magyarorszá-
gi Kárpát-egyesület, Ungarischer Karpatenverein,
Uhorský karpatský spolok) – the first associations
of friends of nature and scientists for protection
of nature. This organization was active in area of
today‘s Slovakia.3
targeting the protection of forests, i.e. in 1888 in
Croatia (Gorski Kotar) some isolated areas of old-
-growth forests, had been protected first as forest
reserves.4 Other segments and initiatives for envi-
ronmental protection were in the hands of promi-
nent naturalists (Stjepan Gjurašin5, Ivo Horvat6,
Ivo Pevalek7 in Zagreb, Croatia). The first organi-
zation promoting the protection of nature in the

*
Prof. Hrvoje Petrić, Ph.D., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History.
1
In this article, I give a disproportionately greater contribution to Croatian history. A detailed overview of the development
of nature protection in Slovakia: Stockman, Viliam: Dejiny ochrany prírody na Slovensku chronológia udalostí v oblasti ochrany
lesa, ochrany prírodných pamiatok, ochrany prírody územnej i druhovej, rovnako chronológii vývoja odborných organizácií štátnej
ochrany prírody na Slovensku. Banská Bystrica: Štátna ochrana prírody Slovenskej republiky, 2013, pp. 1–792.
2
An excellent overview of „long” 19th century is presented in the book: Holec, Roman: Človek a príroda v „dlhom” 19.
storoči. Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV vo vydavateľstv Typoset Print, 2014, pp. 1–342.
3
Gross, Alfred: Die Hohe Tatra, Geschichte des Karpatenvereins. Stuttgart: Arbeitsgemeinschaft d. Karpatendeutschen aus d.
Slowakei, 1961.
4
Šumarski list Hrv. slav. Šumarskog družtva, a. 12 (1888).
5
Pevalek, Ivo: Stjepan Gjurašin. Ein Nachruf. Acta botanica Instituti botanici Universitas Zagrebiensis, a. 10 (1935), pp. 5–8.
6
Horvatić, Stjepan: Ivo Horvat. In memoriam. Acta Botanica Croatica, a. 22 (1963), pp. 13–25.
7
Hrvatska enciklopedija. a. 8, Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža 2006, p. 444.

258 I. dio: xxxxx

Croatian territory was the Croatian Mountainee-
ring Association (Hrvatsko planinarsko družtvo),
founded in Zagreb in 1874.8
In the area of ​​today‘s Slovakia the legislation in
use was Hungary’s and the applicable laws Hun-
ting Acts of 1876 and 1883, which are in Slovakia
in force until 1947.9 Croatia had its own hunting
law which has been in use since 1893. In Croatia
had passed a law on hunting, covering protection
of singing birds and other birds; it was followed
by 1900 law on p r otection of caves; in 1910, the
Croatia-Slavonia government and its department
of the Interior i ssued a decree on „necessity to
preserve masterpieces of nature, important from
a scientific point of view, and/or of special aesthe-
tic importance, to the glory of the homeland”.10
Especially branched activity in nature conser-
vation was in Croatia, with a very active Croatian
Society of Natural Sciences founded in 188511 and
the Society for landscaping and beautification of
Plitvice lakes and the surrounding area, founded
in 1893; in 1914, the latter sent an initiative to the
Croatian Parliament to proclaim Plitvice Lakes as
a national park (“narodni perivoj”).12
After World War I, both Slovakia and Croatia
left the joint Hungarian part of the Austro-Hun-
garian Empire a n d became parts of the multi-
-ethnic states. Between the two world wars, there
were several initiatives on environmental protec-
tions. In Croatia, the activities were led by Cro-
atian Society of Natural Sciences, which in 1922
established a committee for the protection of na-
tural sites, whose activities significantly contribu-
ted to the adoption of modern concepts of nature
protection.13
In the new state Czechoslovakia, in Slovakia
the first mountaineering club was known as Tatra
mountain and alpine circle (Tatranský horolezecký
a alpinistický krúžok) was founded in 1921; in 1926
it was renamed the Union of Tatra mountaineers
(Spolok tatranských horolezcov JAMES).14
The first national parks in Croatia were decla-
red in 1928: Plitvice Lakes, Bijele stijene (‘white
rocks’) on Mt. Velika Kapela, and two peaks on
Mt. Velebit – Štirovača and Paklenica. In 1929,
another one was added to the list – Prašnik fo-
rest in Slavonia. These national parks remained
in their status for one fiscal year only, never to be
included in the budget again; however, in 1938
the Regulation on National Parks was adopted,
providing a legal basis for the protection of the
most important natural areas in Yugoslavia. In
practice, it was never implemented, and neither
was the Regulation on the Protection of Antiqui-
ties and Natural Sites of 1940.15
While it is difficult to compare Croatia and
Slovakia in history, there are several small simila-
rities, especially after World War II, during the ti-
mes of strengthening federalization in both Yugo-
slavia and Czechoslovakia. This is only an insight
into issues that will need to be more thoroughly
researched in the future.16
Nature conservation‘s socialist law and
institutions for the protection of nature
A systematic, continuous effort to protect na-
ture began after the end of the Second World War
and the creation of a federal Yugoslavia; in 1945
Yugoslavia already had a law for the protection
of cultural monuments and natural rarities of the
Democratic Federal Yugoslavia; the first article
of this law reads as follows: „Natural rarities of
zoological, botanical, geological paleontological,
mineralogical and petrographic and geographic
character, no matter to whom they belong and no
matter in whose possession they are, may be put
under the state protection.”17
In 1946, the National Assembly of Yugoslavia
brought a new and more complete general act on
the protection of cultural monuments and natural

8
Poljak, Željko – Blašković, Vladimir: Hrvatsko planinarstvo. Zagreb: Planinarski savez Hrvatske, 1975, 56.
9
http://www.lesmedium.sk/clanok.php?id=150 ; http://www.pralesy.sk/ochrana-pralesov/historia-ochrany-pralesov.html
10
Rauš, Đuro: Zaštita prirode i čovjekova okoliša. Zagreb: Šumarski fakultet, 1991., pp. 8–10.
11
dadić, Žarko (ed.): Spomenica Hrvatskog prirodoslovnog društva 1885–1985. Zagreb: Hrvatsko prirodoslovno društvo, 1985,
p. 9.
12
Pravila družtva za uredjenje i poljepšanje Plitvičkih jezera i okolice u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Družtvo za uredjenje i poljepšanje
Plitvičkih jezera i okolice u Hrvatskoj, 1893; Brlić, Ivan: Lička društva za poljepšanje mjesta. Ekonomska i ekohistorija, a. 10
(2014), pp. 209–212.
13
Perc, Zvonimir: Čuvajmo prirodu. Šumarski list, a. 88 (1965), p. 96.
14
Šimko, Jožo: Dvadsať rokov. Krásy Slovenska, a. 19, nr. 9 (1941), pp. 194–199; Lipták, Ľubomír: Die Tatra im slowakischen
Bewusstsein. In: Stekl Hannes and Mannová Elena: Heroen, Mythen, Identitäten. Die Slowakei und Österreich im Vergleich.
Wien: WUV 2003, pp. 261–288.
15
Rauš, Đuro: Zaštita prirode i čovjekova okoliša, p. 10.
16
Kovač, Dušan: Istorija Slovačke. Novi Sad: Vojvođanska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2012, p. 184; Matković, Hrvoje:
Povijest Jugoslavije (1918–1991). Hrvatski pogled. Zagreb: Naklada P.I.P. Pavičić, 1998, p. 280.
17
Službeni list Demokratske Federativne Jugoslavije, nr. 54, Beograd, 1945.

Hrvoje Petrić: On the Protection of Nature and the Beginnings… 259

rarities, in line with the new Yugoslav constitu-
tion.18 On the basis of that law, from 1947 to 1949,
the assemblies of the individual federal republics
of Yugoslavia adopted the laws on the protection
of nature, and those acts were the basis for the
organization of nature protection service throu-
gh independent institutions. For Croatia, the
Law on the Protection of Cultural Monuments
and Natural Rarities came into force in 1949.19 By
1949, every republic in Yugoslavia had already
passed laws regulating the protection of natural
rarities, and later, nature conservation. However,
the formation of professional institutions occur-
red at a much slower pace and were generally
understaffed.
Independent institutions for the protection of
nature were established only in Croatia (1946)
and Serbia (1948). In Croatia, this was the Natio-
nal Institute for the Protection of Natural Rarities
of the People‘s Republic of Croatia, established on
26 January 1946; the institute operated for four ye-
ars, maintaining under state protection the „natu-
ral curiosities,” that is, the places of great natural
value (Plitvice Lakes, Paklenica river canyon, Ml-
jet island, Krk island, Dundo forest, Lokrum is-
land, Hušnjakovo, Rupnica by Voćin, etc.).20
After the Second World War important steps
were taken to protect natural environment. An in-
teresting fact is that both in Croatia and Slovakia
the first national parks were founded in the same
year of 1949: Plitvice Lakes (Plitvička jezere)21 and
Mt. Paklenica (Paklenica) in Croatia22 and Tatra(s)
National Park (Tatranský národný park) in Slo-
vakia.23 There followed a declaration and other
national parks in Croatia: Risnjak – 195324, Mljet
– 196025, Kornati – 198026, Brioni/Brijuni – 1983,27
and Krka river – 1985.28 By the end of 1980s, Slo-
vakia established four other national parks (ná-
rodný park)29: Pieninský národný park (1967),30
Nízke Tatry (1978),31 Slovenský raj (1988),32 and
Malá Fatra (1988).33 It is possible to observe the co-
incidence of the increased intensity of the declara-
tion of national parks in Croatia and Slovakia in
the 1980s.
In 1950, the Croatian Institute for the Protection
of Natural Rarities merged with the Department

18
Službeni list Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije, nr. 81, Beograd, 1946.
19
Narodne novine (Službeni list Narodne Republike Hrvatske), nr. 48, Zagreb 1949.
20
Kevo, Ratko (ed.): Zaštita prirode u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Zavod za zaštitu prirode, 1961, pp. 1–188.
21
Narodne novine, nr. 29, Zagreb, 1949.
22
Narodne novine, nr. 84, Zagreb, 1949.
23
At the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire “the Tatras became a key symbol for both Slovaks and Poles. Scientists,
writers, and artists from these two stateless nations promoted their respective sides of the mountain range as a national
landscape beginning in the first half of the nineteenth century. The suggestion to create a “national” park within the
framework of an empire was therefore a politically charged endeavor. A new era for the national park project began with
the dissolution of the empires and the subsequent emergence of nation states in East Central Europe after World War I.
In a joint effort, Polish and Czechoslovak natural scientists promoted the establishment of several transboundary parks
to appease unresolved border disputes. This idea developed simultaneously with the establishment of the Waterton-
Glacier International Peace Park at the US–Canadian border and aroused lively interest within the international nature
protection scene. In one neighboring sector of the Carpathians, the Pieniny Mountains, the first European transboundary
nature park, was created in 1932. However, Tatra National Park, which represented the centrepiece of the ambitious plan,
was stalled due to conflicting activities in the area, ranging from a booming tourism sector to intensive sheep grazing. In
1939, the Polish state went ahead and unilaterally established a nature park on its side of the border. It eroded the initial
idea of a jointly established nature preserve as it incorporated a territory that Poland had gained from Czechoslovakia
in the wake of the 1938 Munich Agreement. The outbreak of World War II prevented further development of the
park. After the war, both Czechoslovakia and Poland established national parks along the restored inter-war border.”
Hoenig, Bianca: Profoundly National Yet Transboundary: The Tatra National Parks, Arcadia, no. 16 (2014), http://www.
environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/profoundly-national-yet-transboundary-tatra-national-parks
24
Narodne novine, nr. 43, Zagreb, 1953.
25
Narodne novine, nr. 45, Zagreb, 1960.
26
Narodne novine, nr. 31, Zagreb, 1980.
27
Narodne novine, nr. 46, Zagreb, 1983.
28
Narodne novine, nr. 5, Zagreb, 1985.
29
lacika, Ján – lndrejka, Kliment (eds.): Prírodné Krásy Slovenska – Národné parky. Bratislava: Dajama, 2009; Slavkovský,
Jozef: Mining, Nature Protection and Numismatics in Present Slovakia. Acta Geoturistica, a. 1, nr. 2 (2010), p. 51.
30
https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/-/SK/ZZ/1967/5/vyhlasene_znenie.html; Slovak National Natural Reserve in
Pieniny and the Polish Pieniński Park Narodowy were the first International Landscape Park in Europe – founded in
1932. Zarzycki, Kazimierz – Marcinek, Roman – Wróbel, Sławomir: Pieniński Park Narodowy. Warszawa: Multico Oficyna
Wyd., 2003.
31
https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/-/SK/ZZ/1978/119/19781019.html; The Low Tatras National Park (Národný park
Nízke Tatry, NAPANT) was established and officially decreed by law by the government of the Slovak Socialist Republic
in 1978 (Nariadením vlády SSR č.119/78 Zb.), http://www.napant.sk/info/napant.htm
32
http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/1988-23
33
http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/1988-24

260 I. dio: xxxxx

of Cultural Monuments at the Conservation In-
stitute of the People‘s Republic of Croatia’s De-
partment of Natural Rarities all the way to 1960,
when it re-emerged as an independent Croatian
Institute for Nature Protection.34
Since 1955, Slovakia passed a new law, the Na-
ture Protection Act, which improved the situation
in environmental protection. The new legislation
also regulated the state administration in charge
of natural environment protection. In 1956, Slova-
kia launched its own state agency, the National
Authority for the Protection of Nature.35
New laws on the protection of nature in Yu-
goslavia were adopted in 1960. These laws were
amended in 1965, to be compliant and in line
with the second Yugoslav constitution (passed
in 1963). Croatia declared its first complete law
regulating nature protection in 196036 and again
in 1965.37 Apart from this legislation on the pro-
tection of nature, there were other regulations
and laws that jointly aimed at the „protection
and promotion” of nature and the environment.
Particularly significant was the adoption of the
third constitution of Yugoslavia in 1974, which
annulled the federal legislation and passed the
responsibility to adopt new laws on to the mem-
ber republics and autonomous provinces. On the
basis of the new constitution, new laws on natu-
re protection were passed in some republics and
provinces, as well as laws concerning the protec-
tion of nature and the environment, such as laws
on individual national parks, forest laws, laws on
hunting and fishing, laws on water and air pollu-
tion, laws on spatial planning. A number of other
provisions and regulations were passed (on the
keeping of registers of protected objects in nature,
on the professional supervision of the affairs of
nature conservation). The effectiveness of legisla-
tion and its practical use were shown by the fact
that many natural areas and habitats in socialist
Croatia were placed under protection.38
Environmental policy and
environmental movement
In the 1960s and 1970s the problems related
to environmental protection were growing, and
new technology solutions for the benefit of the
environment were scarce. The process of indus-
trialization intensified urbanization. At the same
time they are geographers, biologists, architects
and others turned to environmental issues, or-
ganizing a series of events dedicated to environ-
mental issues.39
As the global environmental crisis emerged,
Yugoslavia was quick to respond accordingly.
The problems of environmental pollution were
felt in many industrial cities and their surroun-
dings: Split, Rijeka, Slavonski Brod, etc.40 Great
environmental pollution problems also existed in
the industrial cities of Slovakia.41
In 1972, Croatia adopted a resolution on the
protection of man‘s environment which is still ap-
plicable and in use today. In 1972 Zagreb was the
site of an international meeting of UNESCO’s Man
and the Biosphere (MAB) programme. In 1972
Rudi Supek, a sociology professor at the Univer-
sity of Zagreb, was a participant in the alternative
Daidong conference, which brought together in-
dependent scientists and was held parallel to the
UN conference in Stockholm. Rudi Supek wrote a
book about the ecological problems of „This one
and only world of ours: are we approaching ca-
tastrophe or the Third Revolution?” (“Ova jedina
zemlja. Idemo li u katastrofu ili u Treću revolu-
ciju”) (1973).42
All Yugoslav environmental initiatives were
consolidated on 1–2 February 1973 in Belgrade,
the capital of Yugoslavia, when the Council for
the Protection and Improvement of the Environ-
ment of Yugoslavia was established at a founding
conference attended by more than 400 stakehol-
ders, everyone with an interest in environmental

34
Kevo, Ratko (ed.): Zaštita prirode u Hrvatskoj, pp. 1–188.
35
Stockman, Viliam: Dejiny ochrany prírody na Slovensku, pp. 1–792.
36
Narodne novine, nr. 19, Zagreb, 1960.
37
Narodne novine, nr. 34, Zagreb, 1965.
38
Bujnović, Dubravka: Istorijat rada na zaštiti prirode u SFRJ sa posebnim prikazom rada na zaštiti prirode u SAP Vojvodini. MA
(Mr. Sc.) Thesis, University of Zagreb, 1979, pp. 14–16.
39
McNeill, John Robert: Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World. New
York: Norton, 2001, pp. 51–83.
40
A lot has been written about air pollution in the newspaper. For example: JApunčić, Darko: Bumerang civilizacije. Arena,
nr. 630 (January 19th, 1973), p. 17; Stop za smog! Arena, nr. 684 (1 February 1974), p. 15; Miličević, Željko: Smrad na sudu.
Arena, nr. 1433 (June 4th, 1988), pp. 26–27.
41
Sarnovský, Michal: Industrializácia Slovenska a životné prostredie v období komunistického režimu. Acta Oeconomica
Pragensia, a. 15, nr. 7 (2007), pp. 58–69.
42
Supek, Rudi: Ova jedina zemlja. Idemo li u katastrofu ili u Treću revoluciju? Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber, 1978 (2nd
Edition), pp. 274–281.

Hrvoje Petrić: On the Protection of Nature and the Beginnings… 261

protection, from the federal government of Yugo-
slavia to the speleologists’ society. The sponsor
of the founding meeting was the president of Yu-
goslavia, Josip Broz Tito; his envoy who spoke at
the conference was Edvard Kardelj, Yugoslavia’s
„politician number two” at the time. The council
assembly elected 70 members (10 from each re-
public and 5 from each of the two autonomous re-
gions). Aleš Bebler was named its first president;
Vera Johanides, vice president; and Tadija Popo-
vić, secretary general.43
The establishment of the Council for the Pro-
tection and Improvement of the Environment of
Yugoslavia was followed by identical councils
in individual republics. For example, on 15 May
1973 the Executive Council of the Parliament of
the Socialist Republic of Croatia (the government
of the Croatian republic) established its own Co-
uncil for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment, as its advisory body. The president
and members of this council were appointed by
the Executive Council of the Parliament, and pro-
fessional and administrative tasks for the council
were performed by the Republican Secretariat for
Urban Planning, Construction, Housing, and Uti-
lities, the actual republican ministry responsible
for environmental issues.44
Although environmental movements were
initiated in the 1970s, they failed to develop ful-
ly until the mid-1980s. By the mid-seventies, the
socialist system (the “self-management” system)
succeeded in gaining control of (spontaneous) en-
vironmental activities, but ten years later, it was
unable to do this anymore. The environmental
movement helped to pull down the system, but
relations between the opposing parties did not
change for the better.45
Initiated by the Council for the Protection and
Improvement of the Environment of Yugoslavia,
Article 192 was added as an amendment to the
1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Repub-
lic of Yugoslavia, citing a person’s right to a he-
althy environment in which „the social commu-
nity shall provide conditions”. To the best of my
knowledge, this was the first time in the Yugo-
slav constitution that a new constitutional right,
the human right to a healthy environment, was
mentioned. In Article 87, which regulated „the
protection and promotion of the human environ-
ment”, the following wording is found: „Working
people and citizens, organizations of associated
labour, political subdivisions, local communities,
and other self-management organizations and
communities have the right and duty to ensure
conditions for the preservation and develop-
ment of natural and man-made treasures in the
environment, as well as to prevent and eliminate
harmful effects that – by pollution of the air, soil,
water, watercourses, and sea, by noise, or in other
ways – jeopardize these values or endanger the
lives and health of humans.” The constitutions of
some of the constituent republics also had provi-
sions on the protection of the environment and
nature. For example, Art. 276 of the 1974 Consti-
tution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia stated
that „anyone who exploits the land, water, sea, or
other resources shall do so in a way that ensures
conditions for the life and work of humans in a
healthy environment. Everyone is obliged to pro-
tect nature and its resources, natural landmarks,
rarities, and cultural monuments. Criminal abuse
of the natural resources and the introduction of
toxic and other harmful substances in water, sea,
soil, air, food, and practical items are punishable
by law.” After the federal constitution, the natio-
nal and provincial assemblies enacted more than
300 laws and regulations related to environmen-
tal protection; however, they often failed to be
carried out, and there was no effective sanction
for non-performance.46
In Croatia, the first republican ministry that
carried the name of environmental protection,
was the Committee for Construction, Housing
and Utilities and Environmental Protection, es-
tablished under that name in 1982; as a part of it,
there was a Department of Planning and Environ-
mental Protection.47
In Slovakia operated very active environmen-
tal organizations. In 1969, it founded the Slovak
Union of nature and landscape rangers (Slovak
zväz ochrancov prírody and krajiny), gathering
under its wing not only former members of the
Section for the Protection of Nature (founded in
1958) of the National Museum Society, but also a

43
Arhiv Jugoslavije, Beograd: Savet za zaštitu i unapređenje čovekove sredine, box 1.
44
Hrvatski državni arhiv, Zagreb (deinde HDA): Socijalistički savez radnog naroda Hrvatske, Republička konferencija.
Savjet za zaštitu i unapređenje čovjekove okoline i prostorno uređenje, box 1.
45
Oštrić, Zoran: Ekološki pokret u Jugoslaviji 1971–1991. Socijalna ekologija, a. 1, nr. 1 (1992), pp. 85–86.
46
Ustav Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Ustav Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske. Zagreb: Pregled – Novinsko
izdavačka ustanova,1984, pp. 100, 323–324.
47
HDA, Republički komitet za građevinarstvo, stambene i komunalne poslove i zaštitu čovjekove okoline, boxes 1–5.

262 I. dio: xxxxx

variety of non-organized groups of nature lovers.
Slovak Union of nature and landscape rangers
was particularly active in the 1980s and influen-
ced, among others, development of Slovakia‘s
environmental movement. The emergence of en-
vironmental movement in Slovakia was certainly
helped by increased industrialization that upset
the balance of the environment. Slovak environ-
mental activists were members of Tree of Life
(Strom života) organization, founded in 1979, as
a part of the Socialist Alliance Youth This organi-
zation became independent in 1989 and has been
active since.48
In Croatia, the embryo of the first environ-
mental movement appeared in the early 1970s;
however, the socialist self-management system,
successfully prevented their activity, branding
them as „subversive ecology”.49 During the 1980s
there was a need for interdisciplinary and com-
plex processing of environmental impacts and
spatial consequences (e.g., in the building of hyd-
roelectric and thermal power plants, in the pro-
tection of rivers and canyons, etc.), but here, too,
problems emerged. In that period, the most diffi-
cult environmental problems in Yugoslavia were
the reduction of arable land in areas of concen-
trated non-agricultural population; the depopula-
tion of the mountain regions and overpopulation
of the plains and valleys; drought and flooding;
water pollution, causing reduced sources of clean
water; pollution of the basins; forest decline; and
increased use of fertilizers and protective chemi-
cals in agriculture. In the mid-1980s the economic
situation in Yugoslavia began to deteriorate, re-
ducing the chances of more effective prevention
or remediation of pollution sources.50
From the mid-1980s on in Croatia there was
much spontaneous activity of citizens and envi-
ronmentally oriented associations, all of which
took place at the same time. They were based on
ideas that departed from those of the ruling Com-
munist party, and their appearance and self-initia-
tive „from below” was an indicator of the gradual
dissolution of the political monopoly of the Com-
munist Party, a rise in democratization and an in-
crease of environmental awareness in the society.
In Croatia during the 1980s, concerted efforts were
focussed on raising awareness among the people
and the responsible state authorities about the im-
portance of environmental protection. There were
environmental actions „from below”, acting in dif-
ferent manners; one of the more pronounced of
these was the anti-nuclear movement. In 1979, the
municipal assembly of Zadar rejected plans for a
nuclear power plant on the Adriatic island of Vir.
In 1983, the Croatian–Slovenian nuclear power
plant Krško (located on the territory of Slovenia)
commenced its operation. It was the first and only
nuclear power plant in Yugoslavia and was built
as a joint Croatian–Slovenian project. In the years
1985 and 1986, anti-nuclear movements emerged
throughout Yugoslavia and there were a number
of social controversies related to the construction
of new nuclear power plants. After the 1986 disas-
ter in Ukraine‘s Chernobyl nuclear power plant,
the public debated extensively on nuclear power
plants, and the prevailing anti-nuclear attitudes
were supported by some of the professional ex-
perts in the field. Resentment was so strong in
Croatia that, by the end of 1986, the medium-term
plan for energy development denied all previo-
usly reserved locations for the construction of

48
“The environmental movement has a strong historical tradition in Slovakia. The main organization from pre-
Revolutionary times, the Slovak Union of Nature and Landscape Protectors (SZOPK), and the youth organization Tree
of Life (Strom Zivota) were founded in 1969 and 1972, respectively. Both organizations have local branches throughout
the country. After the political changes in the Czechoslovakian Federation, several new NGOs appeared (e.g. Children of
the Earth, the Carpathian Association of Altruistic Environmentalists). Also, a new type of NGO appeared, organized on
the ‚watershed‘ principle (e.g. Vah River Union, Iper River Union, Rudava River Watershed Association, and the Slovak
Rivers Network), as well as other professional and specialized groups. The Slovakian groups SZOPK and Strom Zivota
coordinated their strategy and activities with the Czech CSOP and the Brontosaurus movement, until the splitting of the
Czechoslovakian Federation on 1 January 1993. In contrast with the developments in the Czech environmental movement,
in which the CSOP changed rapidly in accordance with the changed socio-political situation and Brontosaurus missed
the connection with the ‚new‘ Czech society, the Slovakian Strom Zivota has been very successful, while SZOPK lags
behind. At present SZOPK is going through radical changes in its organizational structure to strengthen its position
again. SZOPK had a typical centralized structure, decisions were made top down, and in almost all “higher” positions
sat communists or at least people who could be controlled by the communist party. During the “Velvet Revolution” in
the Czechoslovakian Federation local SZOPK branches, especially those in Bratislava, became strong political opponents
of the communist government. After the changes these political activists left the movement, but in the same time a lot of
new environmental NGOs appeared, mainly coming forth from former SZOPK branches.” http://archive.rec.org/REC/
Publications/BeyondBorders/ch35.html#fn1
49
Oštrić, Zoran: Ekološki pokret u Jugoslaviji, pp. 85–86.
50
Lah, Avguštin: Zaštita i unapređenje čovjekove okoline. In: Enciklopedija Jugoslavije. Zagreb: Jugoslavenski leksikografski
zavod “Miroslav Krleža”, 1990, p. 215.

Hrvoje Petrić: On the Protection of Nature and the Beginnings… 263

nuclear power plants. Additionally, a number of
local movements initiated action to deal with the
problem of waste disposal sites.51
At that time, civil society movements started to
emerge, pointing out problems such as the pollu-
tion of the rivers, etc. A number of local activities
and protests largely targeted issues related to gar-
bage dump sites and hydroelectric power plants.
It was the anti-power-plant protests that were
well-defined and properly organized. In general,
Croatia defined its energy policy by the simple
priority of maximum power production. In pur-
suing energy needs, it often failed to comply with
environmental protection regulations. One of the
characteristic topics of the ad-hoc campaigns that
bloomed into the first alternative environmental
protection movement in Croatia was the struggle
against the construction of hydroelectric plants.
One example of this social environmental move-
ment organized from „below” is the successful
fight against the construction of the Đurđevac
hydroelectric power plant on the Drava River in
the 1980s.52
In a time of social and economic crisis in the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which
intensified in the late 1980s, environmental issues
were not in the main focus of the public. Attem-
pts to unify spontaneous environmental activist
groups were unsuccessful. At the initiative of Uni-
versity Association of Ecological Public in Zagreb,
the First Environmental Parliament of Croatia
was held in March of 1989. It was almost a year
later that Croatia’s Green Union was established,
in February 1990, as a loose federation of local en-
vironmental organizations. But representatives of
professional societies refused to become part of
this organization. From its very beginnings, Croa-
tia’s Green Union had problems, and the next year,
it practically ceased to function. At the end of 1990,
a  new, conservative movement of nature lovers

51
Lay, Vladimir – Puđak, Jelena: Civilno društvo i udruge na području zaštite okoliša u Hrvatskoj 1989.–2014. Ekonomska i
ekohistorija, a. 10, nr. 1 (2014), pp. 27–30; Oštrić, Zoran: Ekološki pokret u Jugoslaviji, pp. 86–93.
52
Arhiv Ekološkog društva Đurđevac (Ecological Society of Đurđevac), Đurđevac, box 1; Arhiv Ekološkog društva
Koprivnica (Ecological Society of Koprivnica), Koprivnica, box 1; In order to initiate the construction of a hydroelectric
power plant near Đurđevac, there was a need for land redistribution and consolidation, taking chunks of arable land
from the local farmers. The biggest problem occurred in the micro-region called Prekodravlje, around the village of
Gola (Koprivnica municipality, northern Croatia), located between the river Drava and the state border with Hungary,
where most settlers were farmers engaged in cattle breeding holding up to 10 hectares (which was the maximum land
ownership in Yugoslavia). In relation to the number of farmers, the total area of arable land here was very limited. This
was the reason for the farmers’ additional sensitivity, as they had to give up the land in the land consolidation process,
and this threatened their livelihood. In 1987, the farmers of this micro-region began to organize public protests against
land consolidation, and the politicians were repeatedly unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the disgruntled
farmers to agree to this process; in August 1987, the protesters even clashed with the police. In early March of 1988,
one hundred rebellious farmers were summoned via their representatives to a meeting with the then president of the
Croatian republican government, but the negotiations failed as the farmers stuck to their claims and continued to oppose
land consolidation. They even prevented the arrival of surveyors on their territory, thus preventing any preparations for
the construction of a hydroelectric power plant. Several farmers were charged and ended up in court. There were two
variants for the building of a hydroelectric power plant: the north-bound variant was supposed to go through Repaš
forest; the south-bound variant would have gone through the village of Repaš, requiring the resettlement of the villagers
and the flooding of the village. Both variants were unacceptable. Investors from Elektroprivreda (the electric company),
meanwhile, managed to get most of the necessary 40 permits, failing to get only two, both related to Repaš forest, which
was resolutely defended by the well-organized forestry profession. The first environmental study of the impact of a
hydroelectric power plant there was not accepted, and in 1987 another study was made. The study’s author, university
professor of forestry Branimir Prpić, negatively assessed the planned hydroelectric power plant and its impact on the
environment. As such a negative assessment prohibited the investors from obtaining approval for the commencement
of the commissioned works, a third study was commissioned and made in March 1989. That study, conducted by
25 scientists and professors from the University of Zagreb’s colleges of Forestry and Agriculture, again under the
coordination of Branimir Prpić, verified the previous findings and earlier arguments. In late March 1988, the Croatian
Ecological Society (founded in 1969 as a branch of the Society of Ecologists of Yugoslavia) organized and held a field
scientific colloquium on the Đurđevac hydroelectric power plant project, in forest terrains (in the vicinity of the Town of
Đurđevac), warning of possible decline in ground waters that would affect 3,500 hectares of common oak forest. One of
the conclusions was that in the future period of five to seven years, after the construction of the hydroelectric power plant,
deforestation would lead to a complete change in the microclimate. The appeal to protect Repaš forest was supported by
experts from the Croatian Institute for Nature Preservation, thus opposing the construction of the hydroelectric power
plant. Very soon, there was a spontaneously organized social response at the local level by a larger group of concerned
citizens unaffiliated with the then one-party political system. In the first half of 1989, two local ecological societies
were founded – one in Đurđevac (in March 1989) and the other in Koprivnica (in June 1989). Both societies resolutely
opposed the construction of the Đurđevac hydroelectric plant. In the fight against the harmful, adverse effects of the
Đurđevac hydroelectric power plant, contacts and collaborations were made with other, more experienced environmental
activists and the environmental movement in Hungary, which had evolved since the mid-1980s. There has yet to be an
investigation of how pressure from environmental activists in Hungary also contributed to Hungary’s withdrawal from
this project and the Hungarian government’s decision not to support the construction of this hydroelectric power plant.
After that, Croatia abandoned all plans to build a hydroelectric power plant in the Đurđevac area.

264 I. dio: xxxxx

was established under the name “Lijepa naša”.
This movement later developed into an association
that has been in operation ever since, focusing the-
ir environmental programs on students.53
Despite all its initiatives and efforts, the envi-
ronmental movement in Croatia never succeeded
in organizing itself as a significant political and
social power. Individual activists fostered the
idea of becoming formally associated, which led
to the establishment of a few Green Parties. In the
first multi-party elections in the Republic of Croa-
tia after the Second World War, held in 1990, only
one representative was elected to the Croatian
parliament – from the local green party in Split.
In the 1990 elections for the Croatian Parliament,
a coalition of the European Greens was formed,
listing the following coalition member parties:
Autonomous Croatian Democratic Union (actu-
ally a „breakaway” part of the Croatian Union
of Socialist Youth); Radical Association for the
United States of Europe; Green Action Zagreb;
Green Party Rijeka; and Women of Medveščak.
Some tried to win parliaments seats independen-
tly, like Green Action Šibenik and Green Action
Split, with several individual (independent) „gre-
en” candidates. Out of all parliament candidates,
there were 23 „green” nominees, who on average
received 4.5 percent of the vote. However, only
one of them became the only „green” member of
the Croatian Parliament – Nikola Visković, a joint
candidate of Green Action Split and the Croatian
League of Communists – Party of Democratic
Change. In local elections, a few „green” candida-
tes were elected as members of local assemblies.54

Table 1. Green political parties (organization) in Croatia at the time of the introduction of multi-party system and the first multi-
party elections

Name Month of establishment Result in multi-party elections in 1990

1 representative in the Croatian Republican
Zelena akcija Split (Green Parliament (joint candidate of Green Action
December 1989
Action Split) Split and Croatian League of Communists –
Party of Democratic Change)

Zelena akcija Šibenik

January 1990 2 deputies in the local assembly
(Green Action Šibenik)

Koalicija Evropska zelena

lista (Coalition European March 1990 –
Green List)

In Czechoslovakia, the Green Party (Strana ze-
lených) was established in late 1989, and the first
Congress of the Slovak part of the party was held
in February 1990 in Banska Bystrica. Throughout
the federation, in October 1991 the Slovak part of
the party broke away and became independent,
changing its name to the Green Party of Slova-
kia (Strana zelených na Slovensku). In the 1990
elections, it received slightly over 3% of the vote
and won six seats in the Slovak National Coun-
cil. The party also won hundreds of seats at the
local government level. Slovakia’s „green” policy
in 1990, with a smaller percentage of votes than
in Croatia, managed to achieve better election re-
sults and greater representation in local and fede-
ral entities. At the time, both Croatia and Slovakia
experienced a separation of the environmental
movement into the political party wings and va-
rious NGO groups.55
Croatia and Slovakia at the time of the Austro-
-Hungarian Empire had a common political fra-
mework in which they developed. The northern
part of Croatia had autonomy, which provided
the opportunity to develop independent initia-
tives for the protection of nature. Initiatives for
the protection of nature that existed in the area of

53
Grdešić, Ivan – Kasapović, Mirjana – Šiber, Ivan – Zakošek, Nenad: Hrvatska u izborima ‚90. Zagreb: Naprijed, 1991, pp.
5–255; Oštrić, Zoran: Ekološki pokret u Jugoslaviji, pp. 96–97.
54
Oštrić, Zoran: Ekološki pokret u Jugoslaviji, p. 100.
55
Sarre, Philip – Jehlicka, Petr: Environmental movements in space-time: the Czech and Slovak republics from Stalinism to
post-socialism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, a. 32, nr. 3 (2007), pp. 346–362.

Hrvoje Petrić: On the Protection of Nature and the Beginnings… 265

present-day Slovakia could only exist as part of the
Hungarian nature protection policy and the initia-
tives of Hungarian societies. After 1918, Croatia
and Slovakia both joined new multinational states.
It was then that new opportunities for nature con-
servation cropped up. The Croatian Initiative for
the Protection of Nature in monarchist Yugoslavia
had a limited effect. After World War II, Croatia
and Slovakia became constituent units in the res-
pective federal states of renewed Yugoslavia and
266 I. dio: xxxxx
Czechoslovakia. After World War II, the protec-
tion of nature in Croatia and Slovakia experienced
a significant improvement. Then began the first
steps of an environmental movement that could
freely develop only with the democratization of
the late 1980s. The author tries to compare the be-
ginnings of the environmental movement in Cro-
atia with developments in Slovakia, questioning
related socialist and ecological ideology, but a de-
eper analysis will have to wait for future research.