MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL
REQUEST FOR FUNDING UNDER THE GEF Trust Fund
FINANCING PLAN ($)
PPG
Project*
GEF Total
US$ 1,000,000
(provide details in Section b:
Co-financing
Co-financing)
GEF IA/ExA
Government
US$ 266,400
Others
US$ 3,895 ,000
Co-financing
US$ 4,161,400
Total
Total
US$ 5,161,400
Financing for Associated Activities If Any:
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3292
IA/ExA PROJECT ID: 3728
COUNTRY: Macedonia
PROJECT TITLE: Strengthening the Ecological,
Institutional and Financial sustainability of
Macedonia’s Protected Area system
GEF IA/ExA: UNDP
OTHER PROJECT EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): Ministry
of Environment and Physical Planning
DURATION: 3 years
* If project is multi-focal, indicate agreed split between
GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity
focal area allocations
GEF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: SO 1- To catalyze
Sustainability of Protected Area Systems
FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP**
GEF STRATEGIC PROGRAM: SP 3 – Strengthening
GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($)
Terrestrial Protected Area Networks
IA/ExA FEE: $100,000
CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS IDENTIFIED IN
THE FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES:
*** Projects that are jointly implemented by more
- Terrestrial ecosystem coverage in national protected than one IA or ExA
area systems (formally proclaimed PA’s contribute
MILESTONES
DATES
>50% to country PA representivity targets)
PIF APPROVAL
November 2006
- Extent of habitat cover maintained in protected area
PPG APPROVAL
n/a
systems (175,581ha)
MSP EFFECTIVENESS
1 November, 2007
- Protected area management effectiveness (22 PA’s
MSP START
15 January, 2008
exceed METT score of 30)
MSP CLOSING
30 January, 2011
TE/PC REPORT*
30 March, 2011
- Total revenue and diversification in revenue streams
*Terminal Evaluation/Project Completion Report
(>US$300,000 government budget allocation to PA
management)
Approved on behalf of the United Nations Development Program This proposal has been prepared in
accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the Review Criteria for GEF
Medium-sized Projects.
Deputy Executive Coordinator a.i.
UNDP-GEF
Date: 14 September 2007
Ms Adriana Dinu
Regional Technical Advisor: Biodiversity
UNDP-GEF Europe and the CIS
Tel. and email: +421 2 59337 332 adrianadinu@undp.org
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................6
1.
a)
b)
PROJECT SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................6
PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUPUTS AND ACTIVITIES ............................. 6
KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS .................................................................................. 8
a)
b)
COUNTRY OWNERSHIP ....................................................................................................................9
COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY ......................................................................................................................... 9
COUNTRY DRIVENNESS ....................................................................................................................... 9
a)
b)
PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY .................................................................................... 10
PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY ............................................................................... 10
PROJECT DESIGN ................................................................................................................................ 12
2.
3.
(i) Project Context ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Environmental Context .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Socio-economic context ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Policy and legislative context ................................................................................................................................ 15
Protected Areas ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Institutional Context .............................................................................................................................................. 19
(ii) The Baseline - Threats, Root Causes and Barriers ................................................................................................ 21
Threats and root causes .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Normative situation ............................................................................................................................................... 22
Barriers .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
The Baseline Scenario ........................................................................................................................................... 25
(iii) The GEF Alternative ............................................................................................................................................ 26
(iv) Global Environmental benefits – incremental reasoning ...................................................................................... 36
(v) Innovation ............................................................................................................................................................. 37
c)
d)
e)
f)
SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY) ..................................................... 37
REPLICABILITY .................................................................................................................................... 38
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................ 39
MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 41
a)
FINANCING......................................................................................................................................... 47
FINANCING PLAN, COST EFECTIVENESS, CO-FINANCING, CO-FINANCIERS ........................... 47
4.
(i)
Project costs...................................................................................................................................................... 47
(ii) Project management Budget/cost ..................................................................................................................... 47
(iii)
Consultants working for technical assistance components: ......................................................................... 48
(iv) Co-financing Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 49
(v) Cost-effectiveness ................................................................................................................................................. 49
5
a)
INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT .................................................................. 49
CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES ........................................................................................... 49
(i) Linkages with other GEF-financed project in Macedonia ...................................................................................... 50
b)
IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................... 51
a)
b)
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (ATTACHED AS SEPARATE FILES) .................................................... 52
COUNTRY ENDORSEMENT LETTER (RAF ENDORSEMENT LETTER IF BD OR CC PROJECT) . 52
CONFIRMED LETTERS OF COMMITMENTS FROM CO-FINANCIERS (WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATIONS) ................................................................................................................................... 52
6.
PART III – RESPONSE TO REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 53
A
B
C
CONVENTION SECRETARIAT ...................................................................................................... 53
OTHER IAS AND RELEVANT EXAS ............................................................................................. 53
STAP ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
-Page 2-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURES ......................................................................................................................................................... 54
ANNEXURE I
ANNEXURE II
ANNEXURE III
ANNEXURE IV
ANNEXURE V
PROJECT LOGFRAME ................................................................................................ 54
TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN ......................................................................... 57
MAP OF PROTECTED AREAS IN MACEDONIA ..................................................... 60
BASELINE METT SCORES FOR MACEDONIA’S PROTECTED AREAS ........... 61
FINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED
AREAS…...……………...……………………………………………………………….63
ANNEXURE VI TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROJECT
STAFF AND CONSULTANTS ....................................................................................... 72
ANNEXURE VII INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX ............................................................................... 78
ANNEXURE VIII CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR SCORECARD FOR PROTECTED
AREA INSTITUTIONS IN MACEDONIA..................................................................................................... 80
-Page 3-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ACRONYMS
APR
AWP
BSPSM
CARDS
CBD
COP
DEX
DI
EA
EIA
EIS
ENR
EOP
EU
GDP
GEF
GIS
GM
GPS
GUI
IA
IC
IR
IUCN
IW
KfW
LEAP
M&E
MAFWE
MDG
MEIC
MEPP
MES
METT
NBSAP
NEAP
NGO
NR
OP
PA
PC
PIR
PMU
POC
RCU
REC
RM
Annual Project Report
Annual Work Plan
Bird Study and Protection Society of Macedonia
EU Program for Balkan Countries, “Community Assistance for Reconstruction,
Development and Stabilisation
Convention on Biological Diversity
Conference of Parties (CBD)
Direct Execution
Designated Institution
Executing Agency
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Information System
Ezerani Nature Reserve
End of Project
European Union
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Geographic Information System
Government of Macedonia
Global Positioning System
Graphic User Interface
Implementing Agency
Incremental Cost
Inception Report
World Conservation Union
Inception Workshop
KfW Development Bank – Financial Cooperation from the German Federal
Government
Local Environmental Action Plan
Monitoring and Evaluation
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy
Millennium Development Goals
Macedonian Environmental Information Centre
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
Macedonian Ecological Society
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
National Environmental Action Plan
Non-governmental Organization
Nature Reserve
Operational Program
Protected Area
Project Coordinator
Project Implementation Review
Project Management Unit
Project Oversight Committee
Regional Coordinating Unit (UNDP)
Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Republic of Macedonia
-Page 4-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
SEPA
SDC
SGP
SIDA
TBD
TPR
TTR
UNDP
UNDP-CO
WB
Strategic Environmental Policy Assessment
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
Small Grants Program (GEF)
Swedish International Development Agency
To be determined
Tripartite Review
Terminal Tripartite Review
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Development Programme – Country Office
World Bank
-Page 5-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT
1.
PROJECT SUMMARY
a)
PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUPUTS AND ACTIVITIES
1. A general characteristic of the biodiversity of the Republic of Macedonia (RM) is its high levels of
taxonomic diversity, relictness and endemism. Some 30 plant communities in Macedonia are
considered seriously endangered and threatened with extinction, or considerably reduced in their
populations and biological viability, while 252 individual plant species are locally endemic and at least
70 species are threatened. Macedonia also hosts 602 faunal species and 72 sub-species (7 % of the total
current number of recorded taxa) that are locally endemic and 113 species that are considered
threatened. Although the entire territory of Macedonia encompasses only 0.5% of the European
continent and 5% of the Balkan Peninsula, a disproportionately large portion of European biodiversity
is concentrated within this small country, ranging from approximately 34% of vascular plants, 12% of
the freshwater fish species, 29% amphibians, 29% reptiles, 62% birds and 50% of mammal species.
Due to the disproportionately high concentration (70-90%) of the biodiversity of the Balkan region
concentrated in Macedonia, the country is widely recognized as the top European ‘Biodiversity
Hotspot’1.
2. National legislation, strategies and sector development plans emphasize that one of the key
mechanisms to secure this unique biodiversity is the establishment and management of a formal
protected area network. As a country in transition, Macedonia is currently seeking to align its
legislation and the design, planning and management of its protected area network with global and
European best practice.
3. The threats to Macedonia’s protected areas are primarily linked to: their insecure legal and
institutional tenure; the extremely limited skills and capacity of the responsible national environmental
and local protected area agencies; illegal development and resource use in protected areas; the general
lack of political and civil support for protected areas as an economically viable land use; and the
inappropriate management and unsustainable use of protected areas to meet individual protected area
agencies economic imperatives; and. The country is severely under-resourced and under-capacitated in
the protected area management sector and has had to adopt a utilitarian, focused and incremental
approach to addressing the considerable constraints to the effective management of its protected areas.
4. With the recent promulgation of more modern enabling legislation for its protected areas,
Macedonia is currently embarking on a process of developing a more representative network of
protected areas, re-evaluating and re-proclaiming all the individual protected areas within the network,
appointing properly capacitated institutions to manage these protected areas and instituting a planning
framework for their management. Under the ‘normative’ situation, Macedonia will comprehensively
implement all the requirements of the new Law on Nature Protection (2004). This will result in: (i) the
design of a more representative protected area network; (ii) the demarcation, classification and formal
proclamation of all protected areas within the network; (iii) the establishment of new, or expansion of
existing, protected areas to address key gaps in the network; (iv) the delegation to capacitated and
resourced institutions of management authority for each protected area; (v) the drafting of an integrated
management plan for each protected area, directed by a coordinated policy framework for the national
network; (vi) the development, and effective operational management, of protected areas; and (vii) the
ongoing assessment and monitoring of the effectiveness of the protected area estate.
1
Crivelli, 1996; Gasc et al., 1997; Harrison, 1982; Mitchell-Jones et.al, 1999
-Page 6-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
The barriers to achieving this ‘normative’ situation include: (i) A significant disjuncture between the
legal and policy framework and the actual institutional capacity to implement the legislation and
associated policies; (ii) No, or severely limited, planning and operational capacity and resources in most
protected areas; (iii) Unclear boundaries, ownership and use rights within protected areas; (iv) Underrepresentation of lowland habitats in the protected area network; (v) Institutional duplication and
overlaps in functions in protected areas; and (vi) Sub-optimal knowledge management systems for the
protected area network.
5. The project strategy is specifically directed toward supporting the Government of Macedonia (GM)
in meeting the rigorous protected area system planning and proclamation requirements of the Law on
Nature Protection. The proposed project will develop the institutional and systemic capacity of the
country’s protected area agencies to: (i) strengthen the national knowledge systems, and apply
appropriate technologies, to support the design and development of a more representative and viable
protected areas network; (ii) strengthen the decision-support tools needed to secure the legal tenure of,
and expand, the protected areas in the network; and (iii) locally test these decision-support tools and
mechanisms in the formal re-proclamation processes of two pilot protected areas. The project will seek
to ensure that the protected area estate in Macedonia graduates in status from poorly managed
(ineffective in protecting biodiversity) toward well managed (effectively mitigating threats).
6. The proposed project will align itself with Strategic Objective 1 - ‘Catalyzing sustainability of
protected area systems’ of the Biodiversity Focal Area: Strategic Programming for GEF-4. It will seek
to achieve the following characteristics of a sustainable protected area system: (i) ‘includ(ing) coverage
of ecologically viable, representative samples of ecosystems’; and (ii) ensur(ing) adequate individual,
institutional and systemic capacity … to manage protected areas such that they achieve their
management objectives’, while it will seek to support the GM in: (iii) identifying mechanisms to ensure
that ‘sufficient and predictable revenue available to support protected area management costs’ are
available. It will explicitly address Strategic Program 3 of the Biodiversity Focal Area - ‘Strengthening
terrestrial protected area networks’ - by ensuring that the protected area network in Macedonia better
represents, and more effectively conserves, the diversity of the country’s ecosystems and habitats. The
project will develop a legal, planning and institutional framework for protected areas and protected area
agencies to facilitate the rationalization, consolidation and expansion of the protected area network.
The project will support the design of an ‘ecological network’ for Macedonia, within which a
representative protected area network will be developed. The project will seek to then strengthen
protected area institutions, and develop decision-support tools, to enable the incremental expansion of
the protected area estate toward meeting the national protected area expansion targets. At a local level,
the project will develop the capacity in protected area institutions to consolidate/rationalize/expand,
proclaim, and plan two pilot protected areas. The proposed project will also contribute, in part, to
supporting Strategic Program 1 (‘Sustainable financing of protected area systems’).
7. The Government of Macedonai has requested UNDP assistance for the design and implementation
of this project, due to UNDP’s proven record globally and in the Europe and CIS region in developing
the enabling environment for protected area establishment and management in terms of policy,
governance, institutional capacity and management know-how. The comparative advantage of UNDP
Macedonia in implementing the proposed project lies in the fact that UNDP Macedonia is the only
agency, among other GEF implementing agencies, that is locally present and works extensively in the
area of environmental protection. Furthermore, UNDP Macedonia’s existing in-depth local knowledge,
positive working relationships with local authorities and partners and extensive operation network in
the area of environmental protection in the country will certainly ensure the quality and sustainability of
project outputs and outcome.
-Page 7-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
b)
KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS
8. The key indicators for the project objective/outcome are as follows2:
Objective/Outcome
Key indicators
Objective:
A comprehensive, representative and
effectively managed national protected
area system is in place
Outcome 1: A representative national
protected area system is designed
1. Increase in number, and extent (ha), of protected areas formally
proclaimed in terms of the Law on Nature Protection
2. Increase in number of protected areas with an effective and properly
resourced management institution
3. % contribution of formally proclaimed PA estate to meeting the
country representivity targets
4.Financial scorecard for national systems of protected areas
1. % of viable populations of endemic and threatened taxa occurring
within the formally proclaimed protected area network
2. Extent (as a % of total area) of different habitat types/ biome
represented within the formally proclaimed protected area network
Outcome 2: Improved systemic and
institutional capacity provides the
enabling framework for establishing
and managing a representative
protected area network
3. % alignment of land use planning and land uses in Macedonia with
ecological network requirements
1. Number of protected areas with approved management plans
2. Total government operational budget (including HR and capital
budget) allocation for protected area management
3. Increase in competence, levels and standards of the protected area
institutions
1. % increase in competence levels of protected area institutions for
pilot PA’s
Outcome 3: PA establishment and
planning processes field tested and
replicated across the PA network
2. Number of protected areas with delegated management institutions
3. Number of protected areas exceeding a minimum baseline METT
score of 30
4. Additional resources (US$) allocated by the GM to fund the reproclamation processes in other (non-funded) protected areas
9. The potential risks, their rating and the mitigation strategy proposed by the project are as follows:
Risks
There are delays in the
drafting and promulgation of
regulations/bylaws related to
the Law on Nature Protection
There is a lack of
Risk
Rating
Low
Low
Risk mitigation strategy
The Government is already committed to approximate the legal
framework to the EU framework, and has developed a time-bound action
plan to implement this. The bylaws/regulations related to the Law on
Nature Protection are on the priority list of the Ministry of Environment
and Physical Planning and they have already started the process,
supported by the donors present in the country.
The project will establish a Project Oversight Committee (POC), chaired
2
The GEF Biodiversity Programme outcome indicators, and the associated CBD 2010 targets, have been
integrated into the table.
-Page 8-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
coordination across, and
collaboration between, key
stakeholder groups
Conflicts arising during reproclamation processes
cannot be timeously
addressed and resolved
by MEPP, to facilitate the coordinated implementation of project
activities across affected organizations.
Medium
The Government fails to
commit sufficient financial
support to protected area
planning and operations, and
protected areas are unable to
finance the subsequent
shortfall
Medium
Current institutions do not
have the capacity or resources
to manage protected areas
High
2.
The project will develop consultation and conflict-resolution tools,
processes and procedures and test the efficacy of these in the two pilot
protected areas. The project will specifically seek to develop
consultation and conflict resolution skills in MEPP and the different
protected area agencies.
The project will review the cost-effectiveness of the current institutional
arrangements for the protected area network and identify, where
appropriate, restructuring options to increase cost-effectiveness. Based
on the preferred institutional model/s, the project will also broadly assess
the financing mechanisms and projected income streams for the
protected area network, with a specific focus on attaining a level of
financial autonomy for protected area institutions and limiting the
dependency on an annual allocation of government funding. The project
will test the implementation requirements for these financial mechanisms
at the level of the pilot protected areas with lessons learnt directing the
roll-out of these in other protected areas. The project will further seek to
negotiate increased financial commitments from government to support
protected areas, with this financial commitment being phased out over
time as the PA network develops its own income streams and reaches an
agreed level of financial sustainability. During the 2007/2008 financial
year the government has, for the first time in its history, committed a
dedicated budget allocation - albeit at a moderate level - for ‘Nature
Protection’.
The project will review the current institutional arrangements, and
institutions responsible for protected area management. It will
specifically seek to identify the most effective institutional model, and
the most appropriate institution/s, needed to strengthen the management
effectiveness of the PA network. The project will then project the
anticipated human resource capacity needs (staffing, skills, competence
levels, knowledge) of the institution/s and define the requisite resources
(financing), training and development requirements needed to address
the capacity gaps. The project will directly support MEPP in the
identification, delegation and capacity building of the management
authorities for Matka Canyon and Tikvesh.
COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
a)
COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY
10. The Republic of Macedonia (RM) ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1997
(Official Gazette of RM 54/97) and became Party to the Convention on 2 March, 1998. The RM meets
the eligibility criteria decided by the Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings, and is eligible for
UNDP country assistance.
b)
COUNTRY DRIVENNESS
11. The project activities conform to many of the country priority needs initially identified in the
Country Study for Biodiversity of the Republic of Macedonia (2003) prepared for the First National
Report (2003) to the CBD. The project activities more specifically align with the priorities identified in
the thematic National Report on Protected Areas (2003), and the updated priorities identified in the
recent Third National Report (2005), prepared for the CBD. The project objective and activities will
support the implementation of a number of priority activities identified in the National Capacity Needs
Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management (NCSA, 2005).
-Page 9-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
12. The project design, and identification of specific project activities, have been extrapolated from,
and are directly linked to, the priorities identified in national and sector development plans. These
include: (i) the National Environmental Action Plan I (NEAP 1, 1997), and the updated National
Environmental Action Plan II (NEAP 2, 2006); (ii) the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(NBSAP, 2004); (iii) the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Macedonia (2004); and (iv) the Strategy for
Sustainable Development of Forestry in the Republic of Macedonia (2006). A National Strategy for
Sustainable Development in the Republic of Macedonia is also currently in preparation, while a
National Strategy for Nature Protection will be commissioned shortly. The project will seek to ensure
that project activities are directly linked to the priority activities emerging from the development of
these national and sectoral development strategies. Conversely the project will also seek to guide and
direct the development of these strategy documents.
13. The RM is a signatory to bilateral Agreements/ Memoranda of Understanding/ Contracts for
Cooperation, that deal with biodiversity conservation issues, with: Albania; Austria; Bulgaria; Croatia;
Greece; Italy; Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden. The
multilateral Stabilization and Association Agreement between the RM and the EU establishes that both
parties to the agreement will develop and strengthen ways for cooperation in environmental
management and biodiversity conservation. The national reports, national and sector development plans
and inter-governmental agreements all focus on the need to: (i) design and establish a representative
national system of protected areas, particularly focused on including under-represented habitats into this
network of protected areas; (ii) secure the legal and institutional tenure of the protected areas within the
network; (iii) develop the skills, resources and knowledge of the responsible protected area institutions,
notably those outside the national park system; (iv) secure the financial security of protected areas,
notably those outside the national park system; (v) better incentivise and integrate stakeholder
involvement, and their interests and needs, into protected area management; and (vi) develop methods,
standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating the management effectiveness of protected areas.
14. The project will support the GM in achieving the targets it has set in the relevant national reports
and the national and sector development plans, specifically with respect to the improvement of the
representivity, extent, security of tenure, and the management effectiveness of its protected area
network.
3.
PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
a)
PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY
Fit with Focal Area Strategy
15. The project is consistent with the Biodiversity Focal Area: Strategic Programming for GEF-4
(Final Draft dated April 27, 2007). The project will contribute to one of the objectives of the Focal Area
– ‘improving the sustainability of protected area systems’ - by enhancing ecosystems representation in
the design of the protected area system in Macedonia, securing the legal and institutional tenure of the
protected area estate and strengthening the planning and management capacity of the protected areas to
become more politically, socially and financially sustainable. The project will adopt an integrated
landscape approach in the planning of a representative PA network in order to: to link the protected area
system in Macedonia to the country’s ecological network; link the PA system to the regions network of
greenbelts; and secure viable biological corridors, and physical connectivity between individual
protected areas. The project has, as a key focus, the strengthening of the systemic and institutional
capacity of the protected area institutions in Macedonia.
Conformity with Priority Programming Areas
-Page 10-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
16. The project will align itself with Strategic Objective 1 (‘Catalyzing sustainability of protected area
systems’) of the Biodiversity Focal Area: Strategic Programming for GEF-4 (Final Draft dated April
27, 2007). It will seek to achieve the following characteristics of a sustainable protected area system: (i)
‘includ(ing) coverage of ecologically viable, representative samples of ecosystems’; and (ii) ensur(ing)
adequate individual, institutional and systemic capacity … to manage protected areas such that they
achieve their management objectives’, while it will seek to support the GM in: (iii) identifying
mechanisms to ensure that ‘sufficient and predictable revenue available to support protected area
management costs’ are available. The project seeks to ensure that a representative protected area estate
in Macedonia graduates in status from poorly managed (ineffective in protecting biodiversity) toward
well managed (effectively mitigating threats).
17. It will address Strategic Program 3 of the Biodiversity Focal Area (‘Strengthening terrestrial
protected area networks’) by securing better terrestrial ecosystem coverage design of the protected area
network in Macedonia. The project will specifically support the GM in developing an ‘ecological
network’ for Macedonia that links with the regional European ecological networks. The project will
support the identification of targets for habitat and ecosystem representation in Macedonia and design a
protected area network, within the spatial framework of the larger ‘ecological network’, to realize these
targets. At the national level, the project will strengthen the institutional capacity of protected area
agencies and develop decision-support tools to more effectively manage, and expand, the protected area
network in Macedonia. At the local level, the project will support and develop the capacity of protected
area institutions to consolidate/rationalize/expand, proclaim and plan a pilot IUCN Category I and
IUCN Category III protected area. It will also contribute, in part, to supporting Strategic Program 1
(‘Sustainable financing of protected area systems’) and will explicitly address the cross-cutting theme
of ‘Capacity-Building’ at the institutional and systemic level.
18. The project will contribute to the achievement of GEF’s main indicators under this priority
programming area as follows:
Relevant GEF-4 BD
Strategic objective
(SO)
Expected impacts
(long-term)
SO-1: Catalyzing
Sustainability of
Protected Area Systems
Biodiversity conserved
and sustainably used in
protected area system
Relevant GEF-4 BD Indicators


Relevant GEF-4 BD
Strategic Program
(SO)
Expected outcomes
Sustainable Financing of
Protected Area Systems
at National Level
(i) Protected area system
secures increased revenue
and diversification of
revenue streams to meet
total expenditures required
to meet management
objectives
Extent of habitat cover
(hectares) by biome type
maintained as measured by
cover and fragmentation in
protected area system
Protected area management
effectiveness as measured by
protected area scorecards that
assess site management,
financial sustainability and
capacity
Relevant GEF-4 BD Indicators

(ii) Reduction in financing
gap to meet protected area
-Page 11-
Total revenue and
diversification in revenue
streams
Project contribution
to GEF-4 BD
Indicators
175,581ha
22 PA’s exceed METT
score of 15
Financial scorecard total =
55%
Project contribution
to GEF-4 BD
Indicators
>US$300,000 government
budget allocation to PA
management
- Terrestrial ecosystem
coverage in national
protected area systems
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Strengthened Terrestrial
Protected Area Networks
management objectives
(i) Improved ecosystem
coverage of underrepresented terrestrial
ecosystems areas as part
of national protected area
system
(ii) Improved management
of terrestrial protected
areas


Terrestrial ecosystem
coverage in national protected
area systems
Protected area management
effectiveness as measured by
individual protected area
scorecards
Formally proclaimed
PA’s contribute >50% to
country PA representivity
targets
22 PA’s exceed METT
score of 15
Operational Programme conformity
19. The project is consistent with the Operational Programs for Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems (OP 1)
and Forests (OP 3). It will meet the requirements of OP 1 and OP 3 through: (i) the identification of
priority areas for protected area expansion to meet representivity targets; (ii) the formal demarcation
and gazetting of the current protected areas in term of the requirements of the new Law on Nature
Protection; (iii) the development of tools, techniques and technologies to support the validation,
categorization, demarcation and management planning of the protected area network, and individual
protected areas within the network; and (iv) the strengthening of capacity at the systemic and
institutional levels to improve conditions for, and better enable, the development of functional
partnerships between government, communities and the private sector in the expansion and operational
management of protected areas.
CBD Conformity
20. The project is designed to support Article 8 (in situ conservation of biodiversity) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD). The project will contribute to the CBD Protected Areas Programme of
Work through the ‘establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive, effectively managed, and
ecologically representative national system of protected areas’ in Macedonia under Programme Element
1. The project will more specifically address Goals 1.1, 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1 and 4.4 of the CBD COP
VII /Decision 28 (Protected Areas, Articles 8 a)-e)) and the requirement to develop ‘tool kits to support
the identification, designation, management, monitoring and evaluation of national and regional
systems of protected areas’ contained in the CBD COP VIII/Decision 24 (Protected Areas). The project
also follows the guidance and decisions provided to the financial mechanisms by the Conference of the
Parties to the CBD.
b)
PROJECT DESIGN
(i) Project Context
Environmental Context
21. Macedonia is a land-locked southeast European state situated in the central part of the Balkan
Peninsula. It borders Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, Albania to the west and Serbia to the
north. The total land area of Macedonia covers some 25,713 km2.
-Page 12-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Relief map of the Republic of Macedonia
22. The RM is predominantly a mountainous country, cut by valleys, gorges, plateaus, and highlands.
Altitude ranges from about 60m at the lowest point to 2,764m at the highest point. It has about 15
mountain ranges higher than 2000m. The country falls within three watersheds: the Adriatic Sea (~15%
of the territory); the Aegean Sea (~85% of the territory); and the Black Sea (<1% of the territory). The
Vardar River, with a length of 300km within the borders of Macedonia is the largest river, containing
some 80% of water flow leaving Macedonia. A number of natural tectonic lakes occur in the country, of
which the most significant are Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran. Two main climate types occur – modified
Mediterranean and continental – with weather conditions characterized by cold, wet winters and dry,
hot summers.
23. Although the entire territory of Macedonia encompasses only 0.5% of the European continent and
5% of the Balkan Peninsula, a disproportionately large portion of European biodiversity is concentrated
within this small country, ranging from approximately 34% of vascular plants, 12% of the freshwater
fish species, 29% amphibians, 29% reptiles, 62% birds and 50% of mammal species. At the regional
scale the biodiversity of Macedonia encompasses 70-90% of the entire Balkan biodiversity. Based
upon an analysis of biodiversity richness among the countries of Europe, the RM holds the top position
on the "European Hotspot" list. (Crivelli, 1996; Gasc et al., 1997; Harrison, 1982; Mitchell-Jones et. al.,
1999).
24. The vegetation of Macedonia comprises a diverse mosaic of plant communities, with more than
260 discrete plant assemblages recorded, a number of which are rare, relictual (tertiary, glacial, boreal
and steppe relicts) and/or endemic. Some 30 plant communities are considered seriously endangered
and threatened with extinction, or considerably reduced in their populations and biological viability. Of
special importance are those with restricted distribution among the aquatic, wetland, meadow,
halophytic, steppe-like, forest, sub-alpine, highland pastures and alpine vegetation communities. There
are some 1,580 lower plant organisms (algae, fungi, lichens), of which algae is represented by the
-Page 13-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
greatest level of endemism, with 135 endemic algal taxa (8.5% of total algal flora). The flora of the
higher plant groups (angiosperms, mosses, ferns, gymnosperms) is moderately rich (3,700 species),
with 117 endemic species. Although the country has not yet formally compiled a list of endangered
plant species, preliminary data suggests that the country is home to at least 70 plant taxa, of which 18
are local endemics. (NBSAP, 2004)
25. A general characteristic of the fauna of Macedonia is its high degree of taxonomic diversity,
relictness and endemism. The fauna of Macedonia is represented by 9,339 species and 228 sub-species,
of which 674 taxa, including 602 species and 72 subspecies (7 % of the total current number of
recorded taxa), are local endemics. The invertebrate fauna, dominated by Arthropods, comprise 8,833
species while the vertebrate fauna comprises 506 species (58 fish species, 15 amphibian species, 32
reptile species, 319 bird species and 82 species of mammals). One hundred and thirteen (22% of total
species composition) of the vertebrate faunal species are considered threatened. (NBSAP, 2004)
26. Many of the lower order floral endemics and invertebrate faunal endemics are dependent on the
healthy functioning of the aquatic ecosystems of Macedonia, notably the tectonic lake systems, the
watershed of the Vardar river and remnants of lowland marshes and swamps. By example, the three
lakes, Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran, are characterized by exceptionally rich biodiversity, with 216, 24 and
12 resident endemic taxa respectively. (NBSAP, 2004)
Socio-economic context
27. Macedonia is a small country with a total population of 2,022,547 inhabitants (2002 census). It has
an average population density of 78.6 inhabitants/ km2, of which roughly 60 percent are concentrated in
urban areas. While the processes of industrialization and urbanization in Macedonia have had a positive
influence on the development of towns and their nearby villages, they have negatively impacted upon
the rural hill and mountain villages. Demographic, economic, social and environmental characteristics
within the population thus demonstrate significant rural-urban differences. An important demographic
feature of the country is also its multi-ethnic composition - roughly two thirds of the inhabitants are
ethnic Macedonian (largely orthodox Christian faith) and one quarter ethnic Albanian, (largely Muslim
faith), Turks, Serbian, Roma, etc.
28. With a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.796, Macedonia is ranked 66 of 177 countries in the
2004 Global Human Development Report, firmly placing it in the group of countries with a mid-level
human development ranking. The estimated GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in Macedonia in
2005 was around EUR 6,000. One of the main weaknesses of the Macedonian economy is the
continuously high level of unemployment, officially at 37.3% in 2005.
29. Being a small country Macedonia has a relatively open economy, with foreign trade accounting for
over 90 percent of GDP. It is thus highly vulnerable to external developments and the economy has
been negatively impacted by regional instability a number of times since the Country’s independence in
1991. The economic performance of the Macedonian economy during the period 2004-2006 has
stabilized, with average GDP growth of around 4%. This growth has, during the last two years, been
driven largely by services such as: trade, transport and telecommunications (60% of GDP); industries
(25% of GDP); and agriculture (12% of GDP). Expenditures are driven largely by exports (US$2 billion
in 2005) and investments. Over the 2000 - 2005 period the trade deficit was, on average, equivalent to
20 per cent of GDP. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), in 2006 was low and
stable at 0.5%. Central government budget deficit in 2006 was only 0.5% of GDP, with surpluses on
foreign accounts and the current account deficit around 1% of GDP. The main economic indicators for
the period 2000-2005 are tabulated below (Republic of Macedonia: National Development Plan 20072009).
-Page 14-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
30. Macedonia was the first country in South East Europe to sign the Stabilization and Association
Agreement with the European Communities and it’s Member States on 9 April 2001. To achieve the
objective of joining the European Union (EU), Macedonia submitted an application for EU membership
in 2004. On 17 December 2005, the European Council granted the RM official candidate status for EU.
Membership of the European Union is a high socio-economic strategic priority for the RM.
Policy and legislative context
31. A Strategic Environmental Policy Assessment (SEPA) completed in 2001 identified national needs
in the environmental sector with respect to legislative reform and policy development in Macedonia. As
part of the National Programme for Approximation of the National Legislation, the RM has sought to
align its environmental legislation, policy and strategies specifically with both the EU requirements and
the country obligations contained in relevant international agreements and conventions. A number of
new laws on environment, nature, air quality and waste management have recently been passed by
Parliament, while a draft law on waters is in the latter stages of development. The drafting of secondary
regulatory legislation in the environmental sector is however still in the early stages of development.
32. There are two key national laws of relevance to the management of Macedonia’s protected areas.
(i) The Law on Nature Protection (2004) establishes an integrated framework for the protection of
species, their habitats and ecosystems. It replaces the Law on the Protection of Natural Rarities, Law on
the Protection of National Parks and Law on the Protection of the Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran Lake. It
incorporates the relevant EU standards into the national legislation, including the Council Directive
(1992/43) on the preservation of natural habitats. The Law on Nature Protection specifically provides
for the establishment, management and monitoring of a network of different IUCN category-compliant
protected areas. A key obligation of the law is the re-validation, re-classification and re-proclamation (=
-Page 15-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
the ‘re-proclamation process’ as referred to in this MSP) of all protected areas in Macedonia within 3
years of gazetting.
(ii) The Law on Environment (2005) provides for the protection and improvement of the quality and
condition of the environment. With regards protected areas, it specifically provides for: the
development and maintenance of an environmental information system; the establishment and
maintenance of ‘environmental cadastre’; the development and implementation of NEAP 2, and local
EAP’s; the ‘strategic environmental assessment’ of protected area plans; and the regulation of access to
government ‘environmental funds’ for nature protection.
33. Various policy documents frame government policy for biodiversity conservation and the
establishment and management of protected areas.
34. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2004) identifies a number of strategic
objectives for biodiversity conservation for the period 2004-2008. This project will seek to support
objective 4 (“to establish a database for … protected areas …”) and objective 6 (“to improve the
management system within the existing protected areas…”) of the NBSAP. The project will more
specifically align with the following NBSAP high priority activities: (i) the design of a representative
network of protected areas; (ii) the evaluation and categorization of the existing protected areas in the
context of this protected area network; (iii) the strengthening of institutions responsible for protected
area planning and management; and (iv) the expansion (‘extension’) of the system of protected areas.
35. The medium-term policy of the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MEPP) is outlined
in Vision 2008. The strategic focus of MEPP is directed at reforming the legal, policy and planning
framework for conservation. This includes the implementation of the Law on Nature Protection, the
development of a National Strategy for Nature Protection and the preparation of plans for protected area
management. This project will provide support to MEPP in implementing the Law on Nature
Protection, with specific reference to the design of a protected area network, the expansion of protected
areas, and the validation, re-categorization, re-proclamation and management planning of protected
areas.
36. The ‘natural resources’ theme of the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Macedonia (2004) targets the
formal preservation of 265 areas and sites by 2020, including: 5 national parks (total area of 188,196
ha), 8 strictly natural reservations (total area of 13,682 ha), 38 scientific-exploration natural reservations
(total area of 11,836 ha), 6 regions with special natural characteristics (total area of13,966 ha), one
characteristic scenery (200 ha), 26 special natural reservations (total area of 5,155 ha), 14 various plant
and animal species (total area of 2,645 ha), and 167 monuments of nature (total area of 62,886 ha). This
project will seek to strengthen institutions, and develop tools and mechanisms, in order to support
progress toward meeting this target.
37. The second National Environment Action Plan (2006) defines the environmental problems and the
measures and activities required to address these over a six year time frame. It establishes a flexible
framework for achievement of the main goals of the NEAP: continuation of the process of
approximation with the EU environmental policy; management of an integrated policy framework;
establishment of directions for environmentally sustainable management; strengthening compliance
with regional and global conventions and agreements; and the development of links with other regional
environmental management systems. Under the ‘Nature and Biodiversity’ theme, NEAP 2 identifies
three priority actions that provide a point of entry for the project: (i) ‘Re-valorization’, and
‘categorization’, of the ‘natural heritage’; (ii) Strengthening capacities of, and development of
guidelines for preparation and implementation of management plans for, protected areas with the
emphasis on financial mechanisms for nature protection (pilot project); and (iii) Establishment of a
national environmental network.
-Page 16-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
38. The Strategy for Sustainable Development of Forestry in the Republic of Macedonia (2006) seeks
to enlarge the extent and quality of forests, optimize the socio-economic benefits from the use of these
forests and improve the sustainable management and funding of forests. Key medium-term priority
measures in the strategy that are linked to this project include: analyzing the state of the ‘protected
forest networks’; identifying the most appropriate institutional arrangement for management of
‘protected forests’; strengthening the capacity, and defining the jurisdictions, of institutions responsible
for protected forest management; and strengthening cross-sectoral integration in forest management.
The project will also seek to promote the re-classification of protected forests to align with the new
classification system in the Law on Nature Protection (2004).
Protected Areas
39. The RM currently has 80 protected areas covering an area of approximately 188,081 ha or 7.32% of
the land surface of Macedonia. The table below indicates the numbers, and extent, of the different
categories of current protected areas.
IUCN
Category
I
II
III
III
IV
V
Current classification (‘natural
rarities’) a
(i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature
Reserve, Strict Nature Reserve
(ii) Nature Reserve: Common Nature
Reserve, Scientific Research Reserve
(i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature
Reserve, National Park
(i) Natural Monument
(i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature
Reserve, Sites of Special Natural
Character
(i) Areas Outside Nature Reserves
Containing Certain Plant and Animal
Species
(i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature
Reserve, Characteristic Landscapes
Equivalent new
classification (‘natural
heritage’)
Strict Nature Reserves
Number
of areas
Total size
4
12,855
% of
surface
area
0.5
3
108,338
4.21
Natural Monument
543
61,680
2.4
Natural Monument
4
2,338
0.1
Nature Park
15
2,897
0.11
Protected Landscape
0
0
0
80
188,081
7.32
National Park
TOTAL
a. Classification in terms of the Law on Protection of Natural Rarities and the Laws on the Protection of National Parks. These laws have now
been superseded by the Law on Nature Protection 67/2004 but the current reserves have not yet been re-classified.
b. Proposed categorization in terms of the Law on Nature Protection currently in the process of implementation. The formal re- categorization
and re-proclamation of the protected areas will be supported by this project
40. Macedonia has four strictly protected areas: (i) Ezerani, on Prespa Lake is a 2,080ha wetland area
and also designated as a RAMSAR site; (ii) Tikvesh, in the Crna Reka gorge, is a 10,650ha
mountainous forested area; (iii) Lokvi-Golemo Konjare is 50ha; and (iv) Ploce litotelmi is 75ha.
Although the management of Ezerani and Tikvesh has been entrusted to water management companies
(Resen and Kavadarci water management companies respectively), and NGO’s (Ezerani) they do not
have the capacity, skills or resources to effectively manage these areas for biodiversity conservation.
41. There are three national parks in Macedonia, all in forested, mountainous areas: (i) Pelister
National Park is the oldest national park and is 12,500ha in extent; (ii) Mavrovo National Park is the
largest protected area in the country with a total area of 73,088 hectares; and (iii) Galicica National
3
Nineteen of the IUCN category III protected areas constitute very old, individual trees protected by the state and classified as
Natural Monuments
-Page 17-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Park is situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa and is 22,750ha in extent. Each national park is
managed by a separate legally constituted public institution, a ‘National Park’. Each public institution is
in turn headed by a Park Director, is fairly well staffed and generates its own income. The park
institution is directly responsible to a cooperative governance structure, the National Park Management
Board (see institutional context).
42. There are 54 natural monuments and 4 sites of special natural character in Macedonia. The most
important of these, in terms of their biodiversity significance and size, are the three tectonic lakes –
Ohrid Lake (23,000ha), also a Natural and Cultural World Heritage Site; Prespa Lake (17,690ha); and
Dojran Lake (2,730ha). The lakes are shared with neighboring countries, Albania (Ohrid), Albania and
Greece (Prespa), and Greece (Dojran) respectively. Although the Ministry of Environment and Physical
Planning (MEPP) is responsible for the protection of these lakes and the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Economy (MAFWE) for the water management of the lakes, there are still
considerable overlapping and unclear, jurisdictions between these ministries and the local
municipalities, resulting in poor management of the biodiversity of these lakes. The remaining 26
natural monuments and sites of special natural character vary in size from Matka Canyon (5,433ha) to
Konce (<1ha) and in type from paleontological, (Prevalec, Monastir, Karaslari, Kale Banjichko) to
caves (Mlechnik, Ubavica), geomorpohological features (Markovi Kuli, Duvalo, Zvegor), swamps
(Ostrovo), waterfalls (Koleshinski,Smolarski), ornithological sites (Demir Kapija) and special forest
assemblages (Murite, Mokrino). Despite the conservation significance of these sites they remain largely
unplanned and unmanaged. The management of a few natural monuments has been delegated to NGOs
(e.g. Bird Study and Protection Society of Macedonia in Ezerani NR, Peoni in the Caynon Matka),
public enterprises (e.g. Institute of Old Slavic Culture) and local municipalities (e.g.Municipality of
Novo Selo), while the remaining PAs have no responsible management institution. Two natural
monuments – Markovi Kuli and Slatina – have been preliminarily proposed by the GM as Natural
World Heritage Sites.
43. There are 15 areas ‘outside nature reserves containing certain plant and animal species’ in
Macedonia, ranging in size from 428ha (Cam Ciflik) to <2ha (Rucica). These PAs provide protection to
specific individual species including spruce, fir, birch, beech, a variety of pine species (Crimean pine,
Black pine), wild chestnut, plane and spawning freshwater fish. There is however little or no active
planning and/or management of these PAs.
44. The majority of land within the current protected area estate constitutes public landholdings, with
land ownership largely vested in the state or local municipalities. In a number of instances, the
management authority for this state or municipally owned public land is then delegated on to a special
public institution, public enterprise or NGO (where appropriate). In a number of protected areas,
privately owned land has been incorporated into the areal extent of a proclaimed protected area under
the relevant gazette without changing the title of the property. The tenure of this land, and its use,
typically then continues to remain with the landowner (e.g. agricultural use) but the land is planned and
administered as an integral part of the protected area (e.g. Mavrovos National Park). In other instances,
land has been voluntarily expropriated with financial compensation (e.g. Ezerani Strict Nature Reserve)
for incorporation into the protected area estate.
45. The Spatial Plan of the Republic of Macedonia envisages 11.6% of the country's territory to be
placed under formal protection by 2020, while the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(2004) establishes an optimistic target of increasing the protected area estate by 50% by 2008. The
proclamation of two additional National Parks - Jakupica and Sar Planina – has been prioritized in both
plans, although the representivity rationale for their prioritization is weak. The resources and capacity to
achieve these optimistic targets is weak and under-developed. The current PA estate is currently poorly
managed and any new areas proclaimed will currently expand the extent of a dysfunctional PA estate.
-Page 18-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
46. A large amount of the biodiversity in Macedonia is still concentrated outside of protected areas. In
terms of biodiversity significance, forests are the most important, with a total area allocated as publicly
owned ‘economic forests’, of 859,427 ha. These economic forests comprise pure broadleaf stands
(mostly oak and beech), mixed broadleaf stands, pure conifers (mostly Black pine and Scots pine),
mixed broadleaf/coniferous stands and mixed coniferous stands. Some 17,617 ha of forests have been
declared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWE) as ‘protected
forests’ and are managed by the National Parks institutions and public forest enterprises. Protected
forests do not however fit into the current categorization of protected areas, with the management
objective for these forests primarily focused on resource harvesting, recreation, tourism and hunting.
The management of protected forests is currently somewhat ineffectual, with a lack of incentive for
managers to manage these protected forests more effectively.
47. The current financial sustainability of the current national protected area system is summarized in
the Financial Scorecard attached in Annexure V. The current national government budget allocation of
US$64,000/annum for protected areas falls far short of the basic operational expenditure needs for the
protected areas of at least US$4-5m/annum. Some of this shortfall (US$2.1m) is taken up by external
donor funding agencies, and income generated from resource use of, and recreational activities in, the
three national parks. The large majority of protected areas in the protected area system however have no
dedicated budget for capital and operational expenditure, and are largely managed as ‘paper parks’ and
by ‘benign neglect’.
Institutional Context
48. The responsibility for biodiversity conservation, and specifically protected area management, lies
with the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MEPP). The MEPP is also the national focal
Point for the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Ministry primarily fulfils a policy, planning,
regulatory and monitoring role for protected areas in Macedonia except in the case of Strict Nature
Reserves, where it is the designated responsible management authority in terms of the Law on Nature
Protection (2004). Under the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning there is an Office for
Environment that includes a Department of Nature. This Department has three divisions that are dealing
with protected areas: Division for Natural Heritage Protection, Division for Biodiversity and Division
for Geo-diversity and Physical Planning of protected areas. However, the resources, staffing (6
permanent and 4 contractual staff in total) and capacity of these divisions is extremely limited. Due to
this lack of capacity, MEPP may, in terms of the Law on Nature Protection, delegate the management
authority for Strict Nature Reserves to another public entity (municipality, NGO, etc.).
49. Article 145-147 of the Law on Nature Protection provides for the establishment and functioning of
a National Council for Nature Protection, as an advisory body to the Minister of Environment and
Physical Planning. In respect of protected areas, the Council will ‘issue opinion on’: (i) the
identification, proclamation, management and measures and activities for protection of the
environmentally important areas, ecological network and the system of ecological corridors; and (ii) the
acceptability of the proposal for proclamation of a protected area. The Council has however not yet
been constituted by the Minister.
50. Each of the three national parks is managed by a separate special public institution – a ‘National
Park’ as a legal entity. The Law on Nature Protection regulates: (i) the requirements of the founding act
for each of the National Park institutions; (ii) the expertise and competence of staff; (iii) the
representivity and functions of a ‘Management Board’ for each National Park; (iv) the appointment
process for the National Park Director and staff; (v) the functions of a ‘Board’ to control financial
operations; (vi) the establishment and functions of an ‘Expert Collegium’; and (vii) mechanisms for
joint management. The national parks do not receive a subsidy from the GM and generate their own
-Page 19-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
revenue streams, the income of which is largely sourced from the exploitation of natural resources, with
timber harvest revenue being the primary source. Limited income is also generated from concession
fees from hotels and/or ski resorts within the park boundaries. Each National Park Authority then acts
largely as an independent enterprise. There is limited cross-collaboration or communication between
the individual National Park institutions. The National Park Directors have a limited term of office,
although the appointment may be renewed for the following term by the Management Board and
MEPP. In terms of the Law on Nature Protection, the MEPP provides a formal monitoring and
oversight function over the management and operations of each of the national park institutions,
although in practice this is not rigorously implemented.
51. The management of multipurpose areas is designated to public enterprises (established in terms of
Law on Public Enterprises, 1997), while the remaining categories of protected areas (natural
monuments, nature parks and protected landscapes) are managed by ‘entities’. The current situation is
that the majority of PAs, outside of national parks, are not managed at all for biodiversity conservation
objectives.
52. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWE) is involved in the
regulation of (e.g. harvesting of timber in national parks) and operations in (e.g. water management of
Prespa, Dojran and Ohrid Lakes) protected areas, although the technical and professional expertise in
biodiversity conservation is extremely limited. Three public enterprises within the Ministry “Macedonian Forests”, Water Economy in Macedonia and “Public Enterprise for Pastures” - also have
operational responsibilities (forest management and timber harvesting activities; watershed
management; and pasture management respectively) within the protected areas, notably in the national
parks.
53. The Law on Local Self-Government (2002) provides that Municipalities in Macedonia must
develop general competencies in environmental management, although environmental expertise and
knowledge in municipalities is currently non-existent or very low. The Law on Environment however
specifically mandates municipalities to develop and implement Local Environmental Action Plans
(LEAPs) that are aligned with NEAP 2, and capacities will need to be developed within local councils.
With respect to protected areas, the Law on Nature Protection specifically provides a mechanism for the
representation of affected local municipalities in a National Park Management Board. In limited cases,
local municipalities also administer access to, and use of, IUCN category III and IV PAs (e.g, Novo
Celo Municipality – Smolari Waterfalls Natural Monument), although they generally undertake no or
limited conservation activities within these PAs.
54. There are a large number of environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in
Macedonia. However, the majority of these NGOs are primarily focused on broad environmental
awareness and advocacy programs, and less on biodiversity conservation and PA establishment and
management. NGO’s specifically involved in national and local biodiversity conservation issues include
the Macedonian Ecological Society (MES), Bioeko, Bird Study and Protection Society of Macedonia
(BSPSM), Peoni, Bisfera, Fokus, Planetum, Macedonian Society for Nature Conservation, etc. while
the Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is a regional non-profit
organisation that encourages co-operation between NGO’s, government and business in environmental
decision-making.
55. Important donor agencies involved in PA planning and management in Macedonia include EU,
KfW, Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation, Swiss Government, SIDA, USAID, ADA,
Austrian Government and the Italian Government.
-Page 20-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
56. With the limited institutional capacities and resources available in protected area agencies,
academic and research institutions play a critically important role in supporting both the planning,
operations and monitoring of protected areas and protected area institutions. These academic and
research institutions include: University Sv. Kiril I Metodij” (Faculty of Natural Science and
Mathematics, Faculty of Biology, Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Forestry, Faculty of Geography,
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and, Faculty of Pharmacology); Hydro-Biological Institute – Ohrid;
Macedonian Academy of Science and Art; and Institute of Agriculture.
(ii) The Baseline - Threats, Root Causes and Barriers
Threats and root causes
57. The current threats to the biodiversity of Macedonia have been well documented (see NBSAP, 2004
and NEAP, 2006) and are largely symptomatic of a lack of political commitments for environment
protection, high levels of poverty, poor forward planning, inappropriate land uses and unsustainable
levels of exploitation.
58. Within the protected area estate, the threats are largely linked to: illegal and unsustainable
developments in protected areas; illegal harvesting of natural resources; insecure legal and institutional
tenure; weak societal support for protected areas; weak management institutions; and improper
management and use of protected areas by protected area agencies. Potential threats to the biodiversity
both within the protected area estate, and in areas identified for protection, in Macedonia include the
incremental spread of invasive alien species and the negative impacts of climate change.
59. The threat of the loss, modification and fragmentation of habitats in protected areas is largely
attributable to increasing developmental pressures from the illegal (and legal) spread of recreational
facilities and holiday homes at the ‘destination nodes’, where these PA’s are also often located. This is
further exacerbated by the increasing demand for bulk infrastructure such as roads, electricity, bulk
water supply and waste management to service this growth.
60. The threat of unsustainable and illegal natural resource use has been driven largely by the
increasing poverty and unemployment levels in the rural areas, where many of the PA’s are located.
Unsustainable levels of natural resource use is particularly prevalent in the freshwater protected areas
(notably the 3 tectonic lakes and their catchments), where a drastic decline in the population densities of
a number of fish species has been documented in the natural lakes and river systems due to overfishing. The over exploitation of water from the natural lakes of Dojran and Prespa (for irrigation
during ‘dry years’) has also seriously impacted on the fish and benthic fauna of the lakes. Although
hunting is reasonably well regulated, the administration and management of hunting areas and hunting
leases in these areas is often not properly aligned with biodiversity conservation objectives, while
illegal hunting and local poaching in protected areas is common, and poorly enforced. The extent of
illegal harvesting of timber is not well documented but is reportedly significant in many unmanaged
protected areas. The local collection of other wild plants (e.g. mushrooms, tea, berry species, dogrose,
blackthorn, chestnut, orchids, etc.) and animals (e.g. European Souslik, Striped Snail, Roman Snail) for
commercial and medicinal purposes in is also poorly enforced, with limited scientific knowledge on the
sustainable harvesting levels for each species.
61. With the enactment of the Law on Nature Protection, all protected areas are in a state of legal and
institutional transition. The Law on Nature Protection requires that, for all protected areas: they are revalidated in terms of their biodiversity significance; the boundaries are properly defined; they are
reclassified according to the new protected area classification scheme; and they are formally
promulgated in terms of the new law. A number of conflicts about ownership, boundaries and use
however need to be resolved during this re-proclamation process; management plans need to be
-Page 21-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
prepared; PA’s properly demarcated; and the management authority for the PA delegated to a capable
and adequately resourced entity. In most instances, ‘capable and adequately resourced’ management
entities do not exist, while the systemic and institutional capacity in MEPP to initiate and complete the
re-proclamation process is very low, resulting in a threat to the immediate conservation and institutional
tenure security of the current PA estate.
62. The threat of the over-development and unsustainable natural resource use of protected areas is, in
part, driven by the economic imperative for protected areas, and their management authority, to become
financially independent. Without the requisite expertise, PA institutions (primarily the National Parks
entities) are resorting to low risk - low investment - high return activities such as timber harvesting to
generate immediate income streams for the PA entities. Staff capacity and resource allocations are, in
turn, directed at maintaining these income generating opportunities while conservation-based activities
(a perceived drain on the budget) are only prioritized when external investments are leveraged to
support these interventions. The converse of this threat is that where PAs cannot generate income
streams to offset management costs, they continue to be managed largely by ‘benign neglect’, as public
entities avoid delegation of management authority for these ‘non-productive’ PAs.
63. The weak political and public support of protected areas is increasingly isolating the PAs from the
socio-political and economic development agenda of the country. The PAs are generally perceived as
having limited value as a productive land use and generate no, or limited benefits, to local communities.
Government resource allocations to PA management reflect this perception. The linkage of PAs to rural
development programs is negligible. Political interference in PA management often overrides
biodiversity conservation objectives, with no support from the broader public to limit this political
interference. Conversely, Macedonian society largely consider land within the PA as land freely
available for resource use and residential development, much of which is illegal in terms of prevailing
legislation, but not enforced by public institutions.
64. The potential threats of climate change will be most felt in the ‘refugial zones’ of Macedonia – Tair
Gorge, Treska River Gorge, Crna River, Jama, Mavrovo-Radika, Pelister, Ohrid-Prespa and NidzeKozhuf. The GM has yet to develop a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the impacts of climate
change4. As an initial demonstration of the threat of climate change in Macedonia, an increasingly drier
climate recorded over the past 20 years has resulted in an increasing frequency of forest desiccation and
resulting forest fires, with the concomitant impacts on forest biodiversity.
65. Although not well documented, the potential threat of invasive alien species is increasing, with a
number of aquatic (e.g. Elodea canadensis) and lowland (e.g. Alianthus altissima) plant species
aggressively out–competing native species in both the protected areas and areas of high biodiversity
significance targeted for inclusion into the protected area estate.
Normative situation
66. Under the ‘Normative Solution’, Macedonia will implement the specific legal requirements for
protected areas contained in the new Law on Nature Protection. The consolidation and expansion of the
protected area estate in Macedonia will be guided by a systematic spatial biodiversity planning
framework, with prioritized targets for a more representative protected area network. The legal
regulatory framework will support and enable the effective planning and management of protected
areas. Each protected area within the protected area network will be demarcated, classified and formally
proclaimed. An adequately capacitated and resourced institution will be appointed for each protected
area. Each protected area will be directed by an approved management plan. Options to improve the
sustainable financing of each protected area will be explored and developed as part of the management
planning process. Visitor and tourist facilities and services will, where viable, be established within
4
The draft Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change is however expected to be finalized in the second half of 2007.
-Page 22-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
each protected area. The feasibility of public–private partnerships in the establishment and operation of
the protected area, and commercial enterprises within the protected area, will be assessed and developed
if feasible. A local pride in the unique values of the biodiversity significance of the protected areas will
be engendered through the development and roll-out of ‘experiential learning’ programs within each
protected area. The illegal activities in protected areas will be effectively monitored and controlled. Key
information on the network of protected areas will be maintained. The effectiveness of the protected
areas within the protected area network will be assessed and monitored on an ongoing basis, with
feedback loops enabling adaptive management of PAs. Opportunities for the expansion of the protected
will be prioritized and implemented in concordance with a protected area expansion strategy and
program. Communication, education, marketing and awareness programs about the protected area
network will be properly coordinated, and form part of a strategic, sustained and focused intervention.
Barriers
67. A number of barriers are currently impeding efforts to realize the normative solutions required to
establish a representative network of secure, effectively managed protected areas. These are: (i)
Disjuncture between the legal and policy framework and the institutional capacity to implement; (ii)
Limited planning and operational capacity for protected areas; (iii) Unclear boundaries, ownership and
use rights within protected areas; (iv) Under-representation of lowland habitats in the protected area
network; (v) Institutional duplication and overlaps in functions in PAs; and (vi) Sub-optimal knowledge
management systems.
(i) Disjuncture between the legal and policy framework and the institutional capacity to implement
68. Although the enabling legal and policy framework for biodiversity conservation and protected area
management in Macedonia is generally sound, the institutional capacity of MEPP and the existing
protected area management entities (finances, human resources, skills, knowledge and databases) to
meet the rigorous legal requirements, and achieve the optimistic policy targets, is extremely limited.
The MEPP has limited resources and skills base to design a representative network of PAs, re-classify
and re-proclaim all protected areas, expand the PA estate, develop national tools and strategies for PAs,
promulgate secondary supporting legislation, maintain an Environmental Information System and
review and monitor the management effectiveness of the PAs, as required by the Law on Nature
Protection. Local PA institutions are further operationally hampered in meeting their legal and policy
mandates by the lack of key supporting regulations and by-laws to enable enactment of the framework
policies and legislation.
(ii) Limited planning and operational capacity for individual protected areas
69. Although there is a moderate level of operational management capability in the three national parks,
the remaining protected areas either have no delegated management authority in the majority of cases or
are managed by institutions with critically low levels of in situ conservation skills and expertise. Of the
current institutions in Macedonia (other than the National Parks institutions whose mandate is limited to
the relevant national park) it is unclear whether government departments, local municipalities, public
enterprises, NGOs or private business have the immediate capacity and resources to take operational
responsibility for the currently unmanaged protected areas or to take responsibility for new protected
areas. With a few exceptions, most protected areas are not even directed by a management plan, there
are no resources available for their management, there is limited data on their operations and virtually
no monitoring and evaluation is taking place. The GM also currently allocates no funding from the
central fiscus for the expansion and management of PAs, despite the Law on Environment providing for
a budget allocation for ‘nature protection’5. Even within the existing management institutions (e.g.
National Park), there are key professional management skills gaps in PA staff, including in the areas of
protected area expansion, community liaison and conflict resolution, ecological systems and processes,
5
A small budget allocation has recently been made for nature protection in the 2007/8 government budget, the
first allocation for nature protection made by the GM.
-Page 23-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
monitoring and evaluation, data management, project management and strategic and operational
planning. The collaboration between existing PA management institutions and the sharing of tools and
expertise across these institutions is severely under-developed. The working relationships across the PA
management institutions and with the MEPP and MAFWE are generally also very poor.
(iii) Unclear boundaries, ownership and use rights within protected areas
70. Under previous protected area legislation (Law on Protection of Natural Rarities and Law on
National Parks) most protected areas were proclaimed with only a general description of the
boundaries, limited reference to land ownership and no framework for the administration and
management of use rights. As a consequence, boundary conflicts are common with incremental
encroachment frequently occurring into PAs. A historical culture of the (now illegal) informal
occupation and use of state land is deeply entrenched in society, with the construction of holiday homes
and the (illegal) harvesting of natural resources particularly prevalent within many protected areas.
Local municipalities have limited capacity to develop and administer land use planning schemes, while
PA management agencies either do not exist for many PAs or do not have the personnel to effectively
enforce PA legislation. A number of large bulk infrastructure facilities and services such as hydroelectric schemes, dams, overhead power lines, roads and waste-water treatment plants have been
imposed on, and developed in, PAs with little or no reference to the management objectives of the
affected PA.
(iv) Under-representation of lowland habitats in protected area network
71. Despite the setting of explicit targets in the National Spatial Plan (2004), no systematic spatial
biodiversity plan or protected area network currently exists for Macedonia. As in many other parts of
the world, the highland areas that have been set aside as protected areas were less for reasons of
biodiversity conservation than for watershed, scenic or other opportunistic reasons. Despite this, the
highland protected areas in the diverse western region of the country, and the three tectonic lakes, host
high concentrations of biodiversity. However, lowland areas with biodiverse areas such as wetlands and
Mediterranean forests are severely under-represented in the protected area network. The lack of
biological corridors across the lowlands has also tended toward the creation of isolated biodiversity
‘islands’ in the highlands. Although priority areas have preliminarily been targeted, mostly in mountain
regions, for protected area expansion the lack of a dedicated and resourced protected area management
authority will largely result in the establishment of ‘paper parks’.
(v) Institutional duplication and overlaps in functions in PAs
72. Within the few protected areas that are under some form of conservation management (e.g. the
tectonic lakes to some extent and the national parks), there is still considerable duplication and
ambiguity, and lack of coordinated effort, between the local municipalities, MAFWE, public enterprises
and MEPP. Although the Law on Nature Protection provides for a single management authority for
each PA, there remains in practice a lack of clarity about who is actually responsible for the different
activities undertaken within a PA (such as waste management, water supply management or public road
maintenance) and which enabling law prevails in such instances, especially where there is clear conflict
between laws. Although the Law on Nature Protection provides for the drafting of formal management
agreements with entities operating within a PA, the regulatory framework and pro formas for these
agreements have not yet been drafted.
(vi) Sub-optimal knowledge management systems
73. Although Macedonia has iteratively developed a moderate level of information on its biodiversity,
there are key informational gaps remaining, including data on some invertebrate groups, plant
communities and habitats, status of rare and threatened plants, and ecological systems and processes.
The quality of data on the different categories of protected areas range from moderate (national parks
and tectonic lakes) to poor (natural monument, areas outside nature reserves containing special plant
-Page 24-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
and animal species). Although a national framework for an Environmental Information System (EIS)
exists, the biodiversity and protected area component of this EIS does not exist, and existing
biodiversity datasets have not been integrated into the central database. Existing datasets are currently
hosted by a number of different individuals and organisations, at a range of scales and in multiple
formats. The existing biodiversity data has not been optimally used to identify the priority areas for
protected area expansion, with the selection process for expansion still largely driven by opportunism.
The Baseline Scenario
74. The Baseline is the “business-as-usual” scenario that would take place in the absence of the
interventions planned under the project. In the business-as-usual situation, a range of activities relating
to legislative and policy reform, strategic planning, re-proclamation processes, institutional
strengthening, co-operative governance, tourism and recreational development of national parks,
education and awareness programs and sustainable financing will be undertaken in the protected area
sector, although this is on a prioritised basis according to available resources and capacity. Many of
these activities will be funded by external donor agencies at the local protected area level and will be
characterised by limited co-ordination of effort and lack of sharing of resources and tools across the
protected areas.
75. The legal requirements of the Laws on Nature Protection (2004) and Environment (2005) and the
policy frameworks of the NEAP 2 (2006), the National Spatial Plan (2004), MEPP Vision 2008 and the
MAFWE Strategy for Sustainable Development of Forestry (2006) will continue to frame the GM
activities in the protected area network, albeit within the existing limited capacity and resource
constraints of MEPP and the protected area management institutions. This broad strategic direction will
be further directed and focussed with the subsequent drafting of a National Strategy for Nature
Protection in 2007/2008. The National Strategy for Nature Protection will then form the basis for
prioritized investments in protected area planning and management. The preparation of the Red Book
for Endangered Flora and Fauna Species will also be developed during the period 2007-2009 to support
the preparation of species-specific strategies and regulations in terms of the Law on Nature Protection.
MEPP will continue to update and develop the requisite laws, bylaws and regulations that support the
effective management of the existing protected area network, with funding support from the EU. The
EU will also continue to support the strengthening of the capacity of MEPP in environmental policy
development, legislative reform and strategic planning through the CARDS programme.
76. The GM will start to secure modest fund allocations from the central fiscus in 2008/09 to finance
protected area planning and management undertaken by MEPP, while a small income stream (20% of
income) from other protected areas will also be used to cross-subsidise MEPP protected area support
activities. The current lack of incentives to national parks and other protected areas to provide this
cross-subsidizing income will however keep these income streams low, while the perception that
protected areas are a non-productive land use and a drain on the economy of Macedonia will continue,
with persistent budget cuts under sustained political pressure. The funding of most protected area
institutions (where they exist) will continue to be insufficient to effectively manage and maintain the
values of the protected areas (except in the case of the National Parks). In the absence of donor and
government funding, these protected area institutions will seek to opt out of delegated management
authority for protected areas.
77. The validation, identification of boundaries, classification, re-proclamation and management
planning process will be strategically focussed on the externally funded PAs – the three National Parks
(Galicica, Mavrovo and Pelister), protected areas within the Prespa Lakes Basin (Ezerani and Lake
Prespa) and Lake Ohrid. The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation will build on its first
phase investment in Pelister National Park of CHF 966,000 (support to re-proclamation processes,
management planning, pilot eco-tourism ventures, interpretative trails and community-based
-Page 25-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
enterprises) with a further second phase investment of CHD 1,6m to support the implementation of the
management plan. KfW will co-finance (EUR 1.53m) the improvement of the management of Galicica
National Park through support to the re-proclamation process, management planning, strengthening
governance arrangements, monitoring and the acquisition of equipment. It is expected that the
Government of Italy will source funding support of EUR 540,000 to support environmental protection,
economic development and eco-sustainable tourism in the National Park Mavrovo and the Valley of
Radika River. The UNDP/GEF – funded trans-boundary Prespa project, will support the reproclamation, management planning and operational management of Ezerani Nature Reserve. The GM
will source funding of US$80,000 from the state budget to support the revalorization and reproclamation of Lake Ohrid, as well as valorisation and proclamation of Alshar as a new PA. They will
also continue to seek resources and financing to support the re-proclamation processes of the remaining
protected areas in the country and opportunistically identify potential institutions to manage and
administer these protected areas. However the focus of this resource allocation may often be strongly
linked to donor priority areas and available expertise within existing and potential management entities.
The expansion of the protected area estate will be very limited and largely opportunistic. The
establishment and development of a new protected area in Osogovo Mountain, implemented by the
Macedonian Ecological Society, will be funded by the Frankfurt Zoological Society (EUR 40,000)
while co-financing will be sought from Pro Natura Friends of the Earth (Switzerland).
78. The GM will continue to actively participate in complementary European conservation planning
initiatives (NATURA 2000, European Greenbelt Initiative, Pan-European Ecological Network), but the
development of a country-based network to align with these regional networks will remain underdeveloped due to poor country-based knowledge management systems.
79. The protected areas will continue to be administered as separate autonomous entities with little or
no co-ordination or cooperation between them. The capacity of MEPP to effectively monitor the
performance of the different management entities will be limited. Conservation interventions in the
protected areas estate will continue to be largely donor-directed, while the protected area institutions
will focus management activities on generating sufficient income streams from protected areas to
sustain the basic human resource, administration, operating and capital costs of the institution. Due to a
lack of capacity in MEPP, cross-cutting protected area activities such as marketing, central bookings,
awareness raising, commercialization, system planning and data management will remain costinefficient. The roles and responsibilities of MAFWE, MEPP, local authorities and the protected area
management institution will continue to be unclear across different protected area categories and
responsible institutions, with the concomitant impact on management effectiveness.
80. Donor funding and government resources will be allocated to remedial measures in environmental
‘hotspots’ to mitigate the impacts of pollution on the biological integrity of a number of protected areas
located within the upstream areas of water catchments.
(iii) The GEF Alternative
The project goal is: To conserve the biological diversity of Macedonia by strengthening the planning,
establishment and management of Macedonia’s national system of protected areas.
The project objective is: A comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national protected
area system is in place.
The project aims to achieve its objective through the following three outcomes:
(i)
Outcome 1 – A representative national protected area system is designed
-Page 26-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(ii)
(iii)
Outcome 2 – Improved systemic and institutional capacity provides the enabling framework for
establishing and managing a representative protected area network
Outcome 3: PA establishment and planning processes field tested and replicated across the PA
network
Outcome 1 – A representative national protected area system is designed
Output 1.1: The biodiversity data for Macedonia is collated into a consolidated database, and integrated
into the national Environmental Information System
Work under this output is designed to strengthen the MEPP’s decision-support systems in biodiversity
conservation and to build the biodiversity data management capabilities of the Ministry.
The Law on Environment (2005) requires the establishment and maintenance of an Environmental
Information System (EIS). The MEPP is the focal point for environmental data in the RM. The direct
responsibility for the country’s EIS lies with the Macedonian Environmental Information Center
(MEIC) within the MEPP, supported by the GIS department. The National Environmental Data
Management Strategy (2004) in turn provides the institutional and technical framework for
implementing the EIS. This framework includes strategies, policies, procedures, data management,
communication tools and networking mechanisms. The Environmental Data Management Strategy has
however only been implemented in the sectors of air and water pollution n to enable the GM to report
compliance with EU policy and legislation, while the biodiversity sector remains largely undeveloped.
This output is however critical to achieving outcome 1, as the underlying data will be required in a
standardized format to enable the design of the ecological network and protected area system. In the
current government resource allocation framework, this activity has not been prioritized for funding in
the immediate to short-term.
The activities under this output are then directed at:
(i) Identifying the data requirements (e.g. land uses, vegetation and habitat types, species distribution,
protected area cadastre, hydrology, topography, fire records, ecological processes, natural
resource use patterns, tourism enterprises, visitor use patterns etc.) required to support broad and
local-scale conservation planning in the biodiversity sector;
(ii) Listing the data sources that address the biodiversity sector data requirements (e.g. National Parks,
MAFWE, Macedonian Academy of Science and Arts, Macedonian Museum of Natural History,
Faculties of Agriculture and of Forestry, Institute of Biology, etc), and the available electronic or
hard copy format of that data (GIS, database, text, image, etc.);
(iii) Identifying biodiversity data gaps, and cost-effective mechanisms to address these gaps (e.g.
cadastre of protected areas - GPS, fire history – satellite imagery, etc.);
(iv) Defining data structure for biodiversity data in the EIS;
(v) Designing a database (and metadata) structure for biodiversity data that integrates seamlessly into
the existing EIS, and meets EU standards;
(vi) Acquiring the hardware and software to host, maintain and access database;
(vii) Sourcing, and validating, biodiversity data from data providers – this may include the
development of data-sharing agreements;
(viii) Developing simple user-driven graphic user interfaces (GUI) to enable ease of access to
biodiversity datasets;
(ix) Developing data access and data maintenance protocols for biodiversity data;
(x) Supporting the development/collection of key biodiversity datasets for input into the database (e.g.
vegetation map, protected area cadastre).
The work will largely be undertaken by the MEIC of MEPP, supported by the GIS department and a
contracted specialist consultant (biodiversity information management and system design) who will
-Page 27-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
assist the department in sourcing and converting data, defining the data structures, designing the
database structure and developing user-friendly GUI’s. The MEPP6 will assist the MEIC in identifying
data requirements and data sources. The biological specialist/s contracted under output 3.1 will support
the sourcing, collation and interpretation of the biodiversity database. Once the biodiversity database
has been established, the MEPP have committed to maintaining the biodiversity data as part of its larger
EIS.
Output 1.2: A national ecological network is designed to link environmentally important areas and
endangered habitats
Work under this output will assist the country in identifying priority areas required for the long-term
survival of its biodiversity and heritage features. It will specifically seek to spatially focus, and align,
the biodiversity and heritage conservation priorities of MEPP, MAFWE and other institutions. The
skills and capacity for conservation planning will be transferred to MEPP under this output.
The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires the MEPP to identify and map ‘environmentally
important areas’ – an area that contributes significantly to the conservation of biological diversity in
Macedonia – and ‘international environmentally important area(s)’ - an area that contributes to meeting
regional or global conservation targets. The Law on Nature Protection further requires the MEPP to
establish a ‘coherent ecological network7 of special areas of conservation’ using the concept of
‘ecological corridors’, in order to maintain landscape scale systems and processes. However, the
country does not have the immediate capacity or resources to identify the environmentally
important areas and configure an ecological network design.
Using an optimization algorithm, MARXAN8, the activities under this output are then directed at:
(i) Assessing and mapping the types of habitats (vegetation types, wetlands) in Macedonia, and the
extent to which they are endangered or threatened;
(ii) Assessing and mapping the species distributions for endemic and threatened taxa (where
practicable);
(iii) Assessing and mapping spatial surrogates of ecological and evolutionary processes (such as
highland-lowland gradients as a surrogate for movement of biota and response to climate change);
(iv) Mapping the different categories of protected areas;
(v) Defining and mapping the current, and projected, degree of landscape transformation;
(vi) Setting explicit quantitative conservation targets for habitats and species;
(vii) Identifying biodiversity priority areas on the basis of an analysis of species, habitats and
ecological processes;
(viii) Producing an initial map of ‘environmentally important areas’ (the overall priority areas for
biodiversity conservation) in Macedonia;
(ix) Identifying criteria and assessing options for ecological corridors that link priority areas for
biodiversity conservation with key landscape-scale ecological processes(e.g. animal movements,
macro-climatic gradient, upland-lowland gradients) and buffer the impacts of destructive land
uses;
A project coordinator will be appointed within the MEPP’s Office for Environment. This coordinator will be the directly
responsible person for activities described in this MSP as the responsibility of the MEPP.
7 An ecological network is ‘A coherent system of natural and/or semi-natural landscape elements that is configured and
managed with the objective of maintaining or restoring ecological functions as a means to conserve biodiversity while also
providing appropriate opportunities for the sustainable use of natural resources’ (IUCN, 2001).
8 MARXAN is used widely by conservation organizations to develop networks for biodiversity protection. Biodiversity
conservation planning using MARXAN typically involves developing four sets of input variables - feature definition and
mapping; stratification of the study area; setting quantitative targets; and defining ‘suitability’ of areas for conservation. With
all the input variables in place, one iteratively runs MARXAN to select priority conservation areas that collectively comprise a
conservation network.
6
-Page 28-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(x) Producing an initial map of, and developing an implementation strategy for, an ‘ecological
network’ for Macedonia; and
(xi) Integrating the ecological network into the Coherent European Ecological Network (“NATURA
2000”) and the development of the National Strategy for Nature Protection.
The work will be undertaken by a conservation planning service provider comprising national and
international expertise. The contracted service provider will need to actively involve a wide range of
stakeholders (including research institutions, university faculties, local municipalities, other ministries,
NGO’s and individual specialists) in the collation or mapping of ‘feature’ data, the development of
conservation targets and the selection of the preferred network of biodiversity priority areas. MEPP will
support the service provider in facilitating this institutional and specialist consultative process.
Output 1.3: Directions for a national protected area system are developed
Work under this output will assist the country in developing a strategic national approach in the
establishment, management and monitoring of a comprehensive, adequate and representative protected
area system for Macedonia.
The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires the MEPP to establish a ‘system of protected areas’ that
adequately represents the bio-physical diversity, ecosystem processes and landscapes. Further, the
proclamation of any new protected areas must be evaluated in terms of its contribution to meeting
national representivity targets for habitat types and ecosystems. However, the country has not yet
established targets for habitat and ecosystem representation, nor has it designed a network of protected
areas based on these targets. The re-proclamation of existing protected areas, and proposals for the
establishment of new protected areas, are being further delayed in the absence of this decision-support
tool. There is also no consistency in approach to the management of protected areas by the different
management institutions, making the comparable monitoring and reporting required by the act complex
and cumbersome.
The activities under this output are then directed at:
(i) Describing the current protected area system context and briefly summarizing global reviews of
best practice in protected area establishment, planning and management;
(ii) Establishing explicit short- and long-term spatial targets for a representative protected area
network design (based on the ‘ecological network’ developed in Output 1.2) that: (i) aims to
contain samples of all ecosystems at the appropriate scale; (ii) aims to contain areas which are
refugia or centers of species richness or endemicity; (iii) considers the ecological requirements of
rare or threatened species, communities or habitats; and (iv) takes account of special groups of
organisms (e.g. ranging or migratory species);
(iii) Developing a standard approach to the establishment of protected areas. This will include drafting
an agreed set of minimum standards which different categories of protected areas must meet to be
incorporated in the National Protected Area System. It will also provide protected area
establishment guidelines on: (i) the mechanisms to secure the legal conservation tenure of
different types of land ownership; (ii) mechanisms for the delineation of protected areas; (iii)
options for delegating management authority (see output 2.1); (iv) accreditation of the protected
area management institution (see output 2.1); (v) the information requirements and flow of
relevant park establishment information (see output 1.1); and (vi) the participative requirements
and processes.
(iv) Identifying a set of common broad management principles for protected areas, which embody
contemporary thinking on protected area management, to ensure the on-going maintenance and
management of their primary biodiversity and heritage conservation values. This will include: (i)
requirements for management planning (see output 2.2); (ii) responses to common management
issues such as fire, invasive alien species, neighbor relations, tourism/visitor facilities and
-Page 29-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
services, resource use and stakeholder engagement; and (iii) requirements for co-operative
governance;
(v) Identifying the broad options for the sustainable financing of protected areas (see output 2.3) ;
(vi) Identifying the role of the private sector in protected area establishment and management (see
output 2.1 and 2.3);
(vii) Identifying the reporting requirements to monitor management effectiveness of protected areas
and the protected area system;
(viii) Identifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the MEPP, other ministries, public
enterprises and protected area institutions (see output 2.1);
(ix) Collating all the information into a ‘Directions for the Macedonian Protected Area System’ report;
and
(x) Integrating protected area system targets and strategies into the national ‘Strategy for Nature
Protection’.
The work will be facilitated by a protected area management service provider comprising both national
and international protected area planning and management expertise. MEPP will co-ordinate the
drafting of the consolidated Directions report and the incorporation of the targets and strategies into the
drafting of the Strategy for Nature Protection. An extensive participative process will be undertaken by
the service provider in the iterative drafting of the directions, including focal issue-based workshops
with research institutions, university faculties, local municipalities, other ministries, NGO’s and
individual specialists. The contracted service provider will liaise with selected counterpart conservation
agencies to benchmark the directions against global best practice. The MEPP will ensure the integration
of the protected area system targets and strategies into the drafting of the ‘Strategy for Nature
Protection’.
Outcome 2 – Improved systemic and institutional capacity provides the enabling framework for
establishing and managing a representative protected area network
Output 2.1: Effective institutional models for protected area management are identified and
implemented
Work under this output is designed to assess the effectiveness of the current institutional arrangements
for protected area management and provide MEPP with practical, workable options to: strengthen the
current protected area institutions; enable better integration of different spheres of governance; optimize
opportunities for co-management; develop partnerships; and support co-operative governance
structures.
The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires that: (i) strict nature reserves are managed by MEPP,
who may in turn delegate this function to another body, institution or organization; (ii) each national
park is managed by a separate autonomous special public institution – a ‘National Park’; (iii) natural
monuments, nature parks and protected landscapes are managed by ‘entities’; and (iv) the management
of multipurpose areas is designated to public enterprise. The nature of these entities and what
constitutes a competent management entity is not explicitly defined in the act. Each body, institution,
organization, entity, public enterprise and national park institution will then seemingly operate
independently of each other and be largely dependent on the individual protected area to recover its
capital, human resource and operating costs. The country however has extremely limited institutional
skills, resources and expertise to manage protected areas and it is unclear which other body, institution,
organization or ‘entity’, other than the national park institution, will be able to effectively manage the
protected areas. Further, the complete institutional dependence on the protected area to generate income
could invariably lead to destructive exploitation of the area. The act also provides clear direction on the
co-operative governance structures for national parks but makes no provision for co-operative
governance of other categories of protected areas.
-Page 30-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
The activities under this output are then directed at:
(i) Reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current institutional
arrangements for protected area management;
(ii) Reviewing equivalent global best practice in the institutional arrangements for protected areas
management, and their efficacy in the Macedonian context;
(iii) Identifying options for the national planning, coordination, supervision, monitoring and auditing
of protected areas, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the current institutional
arrangements;
(iv) Identifying options for the operational planning and management of the different IUCN protected
area category protected areas, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the current
institutional arrangements;
(v) Identifying options for the co-operative governance structures for the protected area network and
individual protected area, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the current
institutional arrangements;
(vi) Identifying options for operational partnerships in protected area management (public-private,
public-private-community, private-community, etc.) with practical guidelines and tools based on a
best practice review;
(vii) Projecting the anticipated human resource capacity needs (staffing, skills, competence levels,
knowledge) at the different institutional levels and defining the requisite resources (financing),
training and development requirements to address the capacity gaps;
(viii) Collating all the information into an ‘Institutional options analysis of protected area planning and
management in Macedonia’; and
(ix) Integrating relevant recommendations from the institutional options analysis into the drafting of
the national ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’.
The work will be facilitated by the same protected area management service provider contracted under
output 1. MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the institutional options analysis and integrating key
recommendations of this report into the drafting of the ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’. MEPP will also
integrate any institutional changes into subsequent amendments to the Law on Nature Protection. The
contracted service provider will conduct a series of focused workshops with all bodies, institutions,
organizations, entities and national park institutions that currently, or could potentially, plan, supervise
and manage the protected area networks or individual protected areas.
Output 2.2: Norms and standards for protected area management planning are developed
Work under this output is designed to ensure consistency across Macedonia’s protected areas in the
approach to the drafting, and formatting, of management plans. The activities under this output will
further provide under-capacitated protected area institutions with clear guidelines, templates and tools
to enable them to meet their legal obligations for the drafting of protected area management plans.
The Law on Environment (2005) requires that, prior to proclamation; a management plan is prepared
for each protected area within the six categories of protected area provided for in the act 9. However the
act does not specify the format or content of the management plan, except in the case of the zoning
requirements for the protected area. Although only the Pelister National Park has completed its
management planning process with support from donor funding (SDC), the remaining protected areas
(beside the few protected areas falling within the Prespa trans-boundary area) have limited capabilities
and resources to support their management planning processes.
The activities under this output are then directed at:
9
Although the act seemingly contradicts itself by later stating that a management plan must be drafted within two years of
proclamation.
-Page 31-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(i)
Summarizing selected regional and global samples and best practice/lessons learnt reviews of
management plan formats and processes, and extrapolating relevant best practice for Macedonia’s
protected areas;
(ii) Reviewing the lessons learnt from, and efficacy of, management plans and management planning
processes for the national parks of Pelister (and Galicica and Mavrovo if already underway) and
other Macedonian protected areas (where underway);
(iii) Developing generic guiding principles for the development of management plans;
(iv) Describing the management plan, its component parts (e.g. policies, strategic plan, detailed
subsidiary plans, annual work plan), and the integration of these component parts;
(v) Describing the minimum and optimal stakeholder consultation process in the drafting of the
management plan;
(vi) Identifying the mechanisms for the mitigation of the environmental impact of the management
plan;
(vii) Describing the formal approval and adoption processes of the management plan;
(viii) Describing the adaptive management plan process and the iterative performance monitoring and
review mechanisms for the management plan;
(ix) Developing detailed generic templates, and guidelines for drafting the component parts of a
management plan for the different IUCN category protected areas;
(x) Collating the information into a ‘Norms and standards for protected area management planning in
Macedonia’; and
(xi) Integrating the basic tenets of the norms and standards into the ‘Directions for the Macedonian
Protected Area System’ and any subsequent amendment of the Law on Nature Protection.
The work will be facilitated by the same protected area management service provider contracted under
output 1.3 and 2.1. MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the norms and standards for management
planning report and the key elements of this report into the drafting of the ‘Directions for the
Macedonian Protected Area System’. MEPP will integrate these norms and standards with any
subsequent amendments to the Law on Nature Protection. The contracted service provider will conduct
focused workshops with technical and professional specialists in the iterative drafting of the norms and
standards, and consult with the EU to benchmark the norms and standards against regional best
practice.
Output 2.3: Options to sustainably finance the management of the protected area network are developed
and implemented
Work under this output is designed to provide MEPP and the protected area institutions with the tools to
identify and implement a range of affordable and sustainable financing options and mechanisms that
could fund the planning and management of the protected area network.
The Law on Environment (2005) provides for the financing of protected areas from: (i) the national
fiscus; (ii) entry fees; (iii) parking fees; (iv) resource harvesting and hunting fees; (v) license fees; (vi)
accommodation fees; and (vi) ‘other sources’ (including concession fees, fines, grants and loans).
However, the knowledge levels, experience and tools to identify and implement the appropriate
financing mechanisms is very limited across all institutions responsible for protected area management.
The act also requires MEPP to set the fee structures for entry to, and use of the protected areas. While
considerable knowledge of fee structures for some natural resource harvesting and hunting have been
developed over a number of years, the information to guide ‘fair’ value estimation, and willingness to
pay, for the other protected areas services is poor. Further, the drafting of secondary legislation
(regulations) to support the implementation of protected area financing activities has not been
undertaken to date.
The activities under this output are then directed at:
-Page 32-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Identifying the current financing mechanisms for national parks and natural monuments in
Macedonia and lessons learnt from their implementation;
Identifying the range of appropriate financing mechanisms for the protected area network and
individual protected areas;
Analyzing each financing mechanism in terms of:
a. A general description (what is it, how does it work)
b. The affected stakeholders (who pays, who receives)
c. Regulatory requirements (enabling legal requirements)
d. Structural considerations (institutional arrangements and controls for collection and
distribution of benefit flows)
e. Optimal pricing and payment systems
f. Projected operating costs and income flows
g. Likelihood of acceptance of mechanism (risks, willingness-to-pay, political support)
h. Possible mitigation measures (to overcome low probability of implementation or
acceptance of mechanism);
Development of a broad financing plan for the protected areas network, and a detailed financing
plan for individual protected areas (on a piloted, prioritized basis only);
Identification of further applied monitoring and research requirements to support the iterative
ongoing development of the protected area network financing plan;
Collating the information into an ‘Assessment of financing mechanisms for protected areas in
Macedonia’ report; and
Drafting the secondary legislation required to implement key financing mechanisms
The work will be undertaken by a environmental economics specialist, with technical and information
support from the protected area management service provider contracted under output 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2.
MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the ‘Assessment of financing mechanisms for protected areas in
Macedonia’ report. MEPP will draft the secondary legislation required to enable implementation of key
financing mechanisms with support from a national legal consultant. The environmental economics
specialist will liaise directly with the relevant ministries and protected area institutions.
Output 2.4: The capacity of the MEPP to support protected area establishment and management
planning processes is developed
Work under this output is designed to build the institutional capacity of the MEPP and protected area
management institutions to establish, plan and manage the protected area network, and individual
protected areas within the network.
The Law on Nature Protection (2004) and the Law on Environment (2005) provides for the
appointment of ‘Inspectors for Nature Protection’ within the State Inspectorate for the Environment, to
supervise the implementation (‘enforcement’ as provided for in the acts) of the Law on Nature
Protection. The acts also determine the explicit qualifications, experience, responsibilities and rights
and duties of these Inspectors. However, the current formal under-graduate and post-graduate training
in Macedonia does not adequately offer sufficient skills in protected area planning and management and
there are currently no bridging courses, or specialized training, available to develop these skills.
The activities under this output are then directed at:
(i) Advertising for, and appointing, a full time project coordinator and part time project administrator
within the MEPP Office for the Environment, for the term of the project;
(ii) Collating or developing a skills compendium for protected area management in the EU, and
Macedonia;
(iii) Development of the required competence, levels and occupational standards for effective
protected area planning and management in Macedonia;
-Page 33-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(iv) Collating or developing reviews of human resource development and training in protected area
institutions in the EU, and Macedonia;
(v) Assessing and identifying options for human resource development and training programs in
protected area institutions in Macedonia in order to address key gaps in competence standards;
(vi) Piloting a priority training and development program for key competency requirements in
protected area institutions in Macedonia;
(vii) Collating information on competence, levels and occupational standards into a ‘Competence
standards for Macedonia’s protected area management’ report; and
(viii) Integrating relevant recommendations from the assessment into the human resource training and
development program into the drafting of the national ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’.
The work will be undertaken by a human resources development specialist, with technical support from
the protected area management service provider contracted under output 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2. The specialist
consultant will develop and pilot a training programme to address the key competency requirements for
PA management staff. MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the ‘Competence standard for
Macedonia’s protected areas’ report. MEPP will integrate key recommendations of this report into the
drafting of the ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’. The specialist consultant will liaise extensively with the
relevant ministries and protected area institutions, and host focus workshops with a wider range of
stakeholder groups, including research institutions, university faculties, local municipalities, other
ministries, civil society and individuals.
Outcome 3: PA establishment and planning processes field tested and replicated across the PA
network
The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires that all protected areas in Macedonia are re-proclaimed
within three years of promulgation of the act. The re-proclamation process is prescribed in the act and
includes: (i) The validation of each protected area in terms of its biodiversity significance and
contribution to meeting national representivity targets for habitat types and ecosystems; (ii) The
classification of the protected area to align its conservation objectives with the new IUCN-compliant
protected area categories contained in the act; (iii) The explicit mapping of the cadastre boundaries of
the protected area; (iv) The appointment of a responsible management institution; (v) The requisite
stakeholder consultation; (vi) The gazetting of the protected area; (vii) The establishment of cooperative governance structures (in the case of National Parks); (viii) The drafting of a management
plan; and (viii) The drafting of any required formal management agreements.
Despite two years since the adoption of the act, only one protected area - Pelister National Park – has
made any significant progress in meeting the rigorous re-proclamation requirements of the act, with
funding support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. There are currently no
national guidelines or procedures in place to direct and support the re-proclamation process, and no
documented test cases for the re-proclamation of IUCN protected area categories I, III, IV, V and VI.
The focus of this outcome then is to directly pilot the re-proclamation process in two pilot protected
areas, support and capacitate MEPP and the delegated management institutions during the process and
document lessons learnt from the pilot project areas for replication across the protected area system.
Opportunities for rationalization of protected area boundaries, and developing stronger relationships
with local communities will be actively sought.
The table below provides a brief overview of the two selected pilot protected areas:
Tikvesh - Strict Nature Reserve (Category 1) and
Matka Canyon - Natural Monument (Category 3):
-Page 34-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Name of
protected
area
IUCN
category
Size
(ha)
Location
Biodiversity features
Tikvesh Strict
Nature
Reserve
I
10,650
The reserve is
located 30 km
from Kavadarci,
on the river Cma
Reka.
The reserve is hilly and mountainous
and includes mountain, forest,
grassland, riverine and lake
ecosystems. The reserve's plant
communities are represented by woody,
shrubby and grassy species, of which
seventy-one species (ten woody
species, twenty-four shrub species,
thirty grassy species, and seven species
characteristic to rocky regions) are
classified as ‘ecologically important’.
The reserve constitutes a globally
Important Bird Area (IBA). The
reserve, with 23 species of predatory
birds recorded, represents one of the
most significant localities for predatory
birds in Europe. Three bird species
reported from the reserve are on the
World Red List, and fourteen are on the
European Red List.
The reserve represents a gorge breakthrough along the lower flow of the
river Treska. The gorge is considered
one of the biggest refugium centres
from the glaciation period. A large
number of relict and endemic plant and
animal species are represented in the
reserve, with 20% of the 1000 plant
species in the reserve considered
endemic or relictual. Two new spider
species and five psuedoscorpions have
been discovered in the reserve. Almost
260 butterfly species have been
recorded from the reserve, of which 18
are new to science and 77 are Balkan
endemics
Matka
Canyon
Natural
Monument
III
5,443
The reserve is
located 15km
south-west of
Skopje
Delegated,
and partner,
management
entity
Municipal
partner:
Municipality
Kavadarci
Public
Enterprise:
Water
Economy in
Macedonia
NGO partner:
“ODEK”
NGO’s: Peoni
and Fagricom
Municipal
partners: City
of Skopje and
Municipality
of Saraj
As part of the activities under the umbrella of this outcome, a rapid review of lessons learnt and best
practice in the implementation of part, or all, of the re-proclamation processes will be undertaken to
support the development of outputs 3.1.
Output 3.1: Secure the legal and institutional tenure of Tikvesh Strict Nature Reserve and Matka
Canyon Natural Monument and document lessons learnt
Work under this output is designed to facilitate the re-proclamation process for Tikvesh Strict Nature
Reserve and Matka Canyon Natural Monument. Based on lessons learnt, the project will create the
enabling environment for the GM to replicate this process for the other protected areas in the system.
The activities under this output are directed at:
(i) Developing, and implementing a focused stakeholder engagement program for the reproclamation and PA planning phase for each protected area;
-Page 35-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(ii)
Mapping the habitats on the PAs, collating the species data for the reserve, classifying the
national, regional and international status of species and habitats, and identifying ecological
processes;
(iii) Identifying the heritage significance, physical features and landscape characteristics of the PAs;
(iv) Assessing the contribution of the PAs to meeting national conservation and protected area targets
(see Output 1.2 and 1.3);
(v) Identifying opportunities for rationalization of the PAs boundaries and areas for expansion;
(vi) Identifying the most appropriate institutional option for the PAs (see Output 2.1) and negotiating a
performance-based agreement with the management entity;
(vii) Formally gazetting the PAs proclamation;
(viii) Identifying, and establishing, the most appropriate co-operative governance option for the PAs;
(ix) Drafting and adopting a management plan for the PAs (see Output 2.2);
(x) Identifying the capacity and resource requirements to implement the PAs management plans (see
Output 2.4);
(xi) Implementing a training and development program for the management entity for each PA;
(xii) Identifying sustainable financing sources to fund the implementation of the management plans
(see Output 2.3);
(xiii) Negotiating management agreements with other institutions operating within the PAs, where their
impacts can be mitigated and controlled; and
(xiv) Documenting lessons learnt.
The work will be undertaken by MEPP, in partnership with the existing delegated management
authority and their partners. The stakeholder consultation processes to be adopted will be designed at
the outset. As an integral part of the stakeholder consultation process, the capacity of local
communities, and key institutions, will be developed to enable them to participate as an equitable
partner in the re-proclamation processes. National biological specialists will be contracted to collate
bio-physical and heritage features of the Pas. A national conservation planning service provider will be
contracted to draft the management plans, identify the resource and capacity needs and identify
sustainable financing sources. The training specialist contracted under output 2.4 will develop and
implement focused training programs for the management entities. The MEPP will iteratively adopt the
lessons learnt into the ‘Directions’ report for protected areas (see Output 1.3).
(iv) Global Environmental benefits – incremental reasoning
81. Although comprising only 5% of the extent of the Balkan Peninsula, Macedonia hosts 70-90% of
its biodiversity and large numbers of globally and regionally threatened, relictual and/or endemic
species and habitats. Macedonia is considered the most important biodiversity ‘hotspot’ in Europe.
Macedonia has recognised that the long-term conservation of a representative sample of this globally
significant biodiversity can be maintained, in part, through the establishment and management of
individual protected areas, within a cohesive network of protected areas, in Macedonia. To support this
recognition, Macedonia has recently developed a number of general and specific enabling policies,
legislation and strategies to guide and direct the establishment, development, operations and monitoring
of this network of protected areas.
82. Despite this enabling legal and strategic framework, Macedonia’s protected areas remain poorly
managed, and many protected areas in the country effectively constitute ‘paper parks’. This can largely
be attributed to severe resource and capacity constraints in the protected area sector. Currently the
protected areas, and the protected area system is not considered sustainable as: (i) the protected area
system does not adequately conserve a representative sample of the country’s species, habitats and
ecosystems; (ii) the protected areas are not formally defined and proclaimed (in terms of the new Law
on Nature Protection) and enjoy only temporary protection under old, outdated legislation; (iii) the
-Page 36-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
protected areas are not properly financed; (iv) the institutional capacity to manage protected areas is
non-existent or very weak; (v) the human skills and capacity to plan and manage protected areas is
limited to national park entities, and even then is weak; (vi) management systems are largely nonexistent or sub-optimal; and (vii) there is no cohesive planning, management and monitoring framework
for the protected area system.
83. Although the GM has clearly articulated its intent to redress these shortcomings and develop a more
sustainable protected area network, this constitutes a massive challenge in the light of limited resources.
As a country in transition, the GM is also facing considerable challenges in the socio-economic
development of the country, and the linked provision of basic infrastructure and services. Current
government resource allocations are thus directed toward the countries socio-economic development
while budget allocations to support the implementation of the Law on Nature Protection will, in the
short to intermediate term, continue to be modest. In the light of this, the MEPP has strategically
directed its limited resource allocation and capacity to complement donor-funded protected area
interventions, most of which are generally in or proximate to the three national parks. The unsustainable
status quo of the remaining protected areas will, in the interim, largely remain constant.
84. GEF grant funding is sought to secure the immediate legal and institutional tenure of protected
areas with high biodiversity significance, and to develop a more sustainable management system for
these protected areas. The proposed project is thus directed at improving the sustainability of the
protected area system, and the individual protected areas within the system that are poorly managed.
The project will support the realisation of GEF Strategic Programme objectives that are linked to
strengthening protected area networks and improving the sustainable financing of protected area
systems. The GEF investment in the project will specifically strengthen the capacity of the GM to
develop and implement the decision-support tools to secure the legal and institutional tenure of the
protected areas, and better plan and develop a more representative network of protected areas. This
intervention will then contribute to increasing the number of protected areas in Macedonia that more
effectively contribute to conserving the globally unique habitats and species contained within them. For
each protected area, the project will seek to ensure that: (i) the contribution of the protected area to
meeting national and regional conservation targets is well understood; (ii) the protected area is formally
proclaimed in terms of the requirements of the new Law on Nature Protection; (iii) a capacitated
institution is appointed to manage the protected area; (iv) a plan of management is developed for the
protected area; (v) the protected area staff are sufficiently skilled to implement the plan of management;
and (v) a financing plan is implemented to fund the implementation of the plan of management.
85. An incremental cost matrix is presented in Annexure VII.
(v) Innovation
86. Macedonia is still in the process of establishing a basic, but solid grounding for the planning and
management of its protected area network. This project will thus not specifically target innovation in its
design and implementation. However, with a plethora of different management arrangements, and a
range of public, civil and private institutions, responsible for individual protected areas, the project will
seek to explore innovative institutional mechanisms to more effectively align their activities toward a
common national objective. Although global and regional best practice will guide the options for
institutional models, it is conceivable that the idiosyncratic and complex institutional history of
Macedonia may result in the need to develop a unique institutional arrangement.
c)
SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)
87. The project has been carefully designed to optimize prospects for achieving the sustainability of the
protected area network at three levels: financial, institutional and social.
-Page 37-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
88. The project will provide resources to assess the efficacy of different financial mechanisms10 that
could be implemented by the country to help subsidize the capital and recurring operational costs of
protected areas. The project will specifically identify the structural requirements needed to implement
these financing mechanisms, assess ways to ensure their acceptance by protected area users and
estimate the anticipated income streams from each mechanism. At a local protected area level, the
project will provide resources to more explicitly identify the medium-term expenditure requirements for
two pilot protected areas, and program the roll-out of the appropriate financing mechanisms to generate
the income streams needed to meet these anticipated costs. A key element of the financial sustainability
of the project is securing the commitment of the GM to commit an ongoing annual resource allocation
to the management of its protected area system.
89. Institutional sustainability will be enhanced in the project through the design of the most effective
institutional arrangements for protected area planning and management in Macedonia. This will
include: (i) identifying the most cost-efficient (social-environmental-financial) institution/s to manage
the operations of individual protected areas; (ii) structuring the MEPP to provide a more enabling
environment for the planning, management and monitoring of the national protected area network; (iii)
describing the co-operative governance arrangements for both the protected area system, and individual
protected areas; and (iv) identifying opportunities and institutional mechanisms for co-management of,
and partnerships in, protected areas. The project will specifically identify the competence, levels and
occupational standards for the responsible institutions that will be required to meet their institutional
mandates for protected areas. At the national level, resources will be allocated to build the capacity of
the MEPP to provide an enabling legal, planning and decision-support framework for the protected area
system. At a local protected area level the project will provide resources to develop and implement a
tailored training program for the staff of the delegated management authority of the piloted protected
areas.
90. Social sustainability will be enhanced through the implementation of a number of individual
stakeholder engagement processes developed for each of the project activities in both the protected area
system planning and the re-proclamation processes in the individual pilot protected areas. Robust
stakeholder engagement plans for the respective project activities will be drafted to direct broad-based
stakeholder involvement in all aspects of protected area system planning and development. These
stakeholder engagement plans will also make strong provision for conflict management. The project
will further identify mechanisms for the ongoing constructive engagement of communities and the
public sector in protected area planning, development and operations, notably though partnerships, comanagement and co-operative governance. Mechanisms for optimizing the beneficiation of local
communities from protected areas will be identified at the level of the protected area system, and
further developed in detail in the two pilot protected areas.
d)
REPLICABILITY
91. The project has been specifically designed to support MEPP in meeting the rigorous protected area
system planning and re-proclamation requirements of the Law on Nature Protection (2004). The project
strategy is thus directed at developing protected area system decision-support tools, and documenting
lessons learnt at the level of individual protected areas, to enable the MEPP and other protected area
management entities to replicate these across Macedonia’s remaining protected areas. The planning
tools, operational guidelines and best practices developed by the project will be translated and widely
disseminated to inform the re-proclamation processes across the country. All of the projects protected
area system outputs will be consolidated, and integrated into the national ‘Strategy for Nature
10
The financing mechanisms are broadly categorized into: public goods (e.g. grants and subsidies, debt-related instruments);
corrective or stimulative actions (e.g. environmental fines, user fees/charges, environmental offsets, tradeable permits); and
business applications (e.g. venture capital for ‘green business’, low-interest credits and loans).
-Page 38-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Protection’ and the complementary ‘Directions for the Macedonian Protected Area System’. This will
enable ease of reference, continuity in maintenance and stability of replication.
Strategy
Outcome 1: A
representative national
protected area system is
designed
Outcome 2: Improved
systemic and institutional
capacity provides the
enabling framework for
establishing and managing
a representative protected
area network
Outcome 3: PA
establishment and
planning processes field
tested and replicated
across the PA network
Anticipated replication strategy
The consolidated biodiversity database will be integrated into the national
Environmental Information System (EIS). It will be made available to other public
agencies to, through the EIS, to support better environmental decision-making at
the national and local level.
The lessons learnt in the design of a national ecological network will be
documented and shared with the other Balkan states through the EU CARDS
Program and forums hosted by the REC.
The directions for the national protected area system will ensure consistency and
conformity by the different protected area management entities in the
establishment, planning, management and monitoring of the different categories of
protected areas in Macedonia.
The identification of effective institutional models for protected area management
will direct MEPP in the delegation of the management authority for the different
categories of protected areas. The preferred model/s will be iteratively
implemented during the re-proclamation process for each protected area in the
network.
Norms and standards for PA management planning will guide and direct the
development of management plans for each PA in the network. Although the
generic management plan templates and processes developed will accommodate
the idiosyncratic context of each PA, the standardization of the management
planning products and processes will ensure that management plans meet regional
and international best practice. The individual management plans will be iteratively
developed during the re-proclamation process for each PA in the network.
The financial mechanisms for protected areas will explore and adopt innovative
sources of income for the protected area network and individual protected areas, as
well as the required legal framework for their implementation. The assessment of
the financial mechanisms, and their anticipated contribution to financing the
management of the protected area network, will be shared via the EU CARDS
Program and REC with the wider Balkan and EU network of governmental, nongovernmental and private sectors involved in protected area management.
The identification of the capacity needs assessment for protected areas, and the
development and implementation of a pilot training program will enable the
iterative implementation of a skills development program for protected area
planners and managers beyond the timeframe of the project.
The lessons learnt from the re-proclamation processes undertaken in Matka Canyon
and Tikvesh will be disseminated through the MEPP, Project Oversight Committee
and the National Council for Nature Protection, for implementation across the
entire network of protected areas. Replication of these lessons will then be
iteratively implemented during the re-proclamation process for each protected area
in the network, and overseen by MEPP.
e)
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
92. Significant stakeholder participation and assistance has been sought and provided during the project
development phase. Several focused meetings with different stakeholder groups (MEPP, MAFWE,
protected area institutions, municipalities, NGO’s, business, academia, project management units and
funders) and two stakeholder workshops stakeholder meetings were held during the preparatory phase
of the MSP. An iterative process of the drafting of the MSP was adopted, with stakeholders
commenting, and providing input, on drafts at different stages of its development. This involvement of
national (protected area system) and local (pilot protected areas) stakeholders will continue, and expand
through the participatory management process envisaged by this project. The projects key stakeholder
groups are briefly described in the table below:
-Page 39-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Stakeholder
Ministry of Environment and Physical
Planning (MEPP)
Department
of
Legislation
and
Standardization
Macedonian Environmental Information
Centre
Office for Environment
Division of Natural Heritage
Protection
Division of Biological Diversity
Division of Geo-diversity and
physical planning of protected areas
State Inspectorate for Environment
Fund of Environment
Public Institutions
National Park Galicica
National Park Mavrovo
National Park Pelister
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Economy
Unit for Forest Protection
Unit for Organization and Use of Forests
Public Enterprise (PE)
PE Macedonian Forests
PE Water Economy of the Republic of
Macedonia
Local Government
City of Skopje
Municipality of Saraj
Municipality Kavadarci
Academic and Research Institutions
Universities of St Cyril and Methodius
Faculty of Natural Science
Faculty of Agriculture
Faculty of Forestry
Institute of Biology
Botanical Garden
Macedonian Academy of Science and
Arts
Anticipated role in project implementation
Project implementation
Chair of POC
Financing the operational costs of the PMU
Inter-institutional coordination
Drafting and adoption of supporting legislation
Integration of project outputs into national strategies, plans
and guidelines
Development and maintenance of biodiversity information in
the EIS
Liaison with Pan-European planning and conservation
initiatives and programs
Drafting the national Strategy for Nature Protection
Maintaining the Directions for the Macedonian Protected
Area System
Guiding the re-proclamation processes in the pilot protected
areas
Implementing the project outputs, and replicating lessons
learnt, in the remaining protected areas across the country
Co-financing
Co-financing
Providing information on lessons learnt and best practice
Technical and professional support to PMU
Engage in individual project activity consultation processes
Supporting data for EIS
Participate in POC
Co-financing
Supporting data for EIS
Permit issue for use of forest resources
Engage in individual project activity consultation processes
Drafting and adoption of supporting legislation
Institutional re-structuring and capacity building to support
implementation of project plans and strategies
Demarcation of forests
Integration of project plans, strategies and guidelines into the
National Forestry Strategy
Participate in POC upon request
Institutional partner in re-proclamation process for Tikvesh
Engage in individual project activity consultation processes
Participate in POC upon request
Institutional partner in re-proclamation process for Matka
Canyon
Supporting data for EIS
Engage in individual project activity consultation processes
Participate in POC upon request
Specialist inputs into project activities
Providing information and guidance on best practice
Supporting data for EIS
Engage in individual project activity consultation processes
Support to institutional training and development of
protected area institutions
Contractual service providers
-Page 40-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Macedonian Museum of Natural History
Zoological Gardens – Bitola and Skopje
Hydro-Biological Institute - Ohrid
Institute of Old Slavic Culture, Prilep
NGO’s:
Macedonian Ecological Society (MES)
Bioeko, Biosfera, Bird Study and
Protection Society of Macedonia
(BSPSM), Fagricom, DEM (Macedonian
Environmental Movement), Vila Zora
Kladenec, Izgrev, Ambienti, Areal
Natura, Grasnica, Ekolosko Limnolosko
Drustvo, ODEK, Peoni, Fokus, Planetum
Macedonian
Society
for
Nature
Conservation, Regional Environment
Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
(REC), IZVOR, Kratovo
Donor agencies:
EU, Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, KfW, Italian Government
USAID, ADA
UNDP
Providing information on lessons learnt and best practice
Institutional partners for Tikvesh and Matka Canyon pilot
sites, and other protected areas
Engage in individual project activity consultation processes
Co-financing
Aligning funded projects with GEF project outputs
Providing information on lessons learnt and best practice
Access to technical and professional expertise
Integrating project outputs into future funding and
investments in protected areas
Participate in POC
Providing support for procurement, recruitment and financial
management
Monitoring and Evaluation
Policy advice and knowledge sharing
Lease with the GEF
f)
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
93. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and
GEF procedures and will be provided the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from
UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit in Bratislava Regional Center and the Ministry of
Environment and Physical Planning.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
Project Inception Phase
94. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government
counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit, as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as appropriate. A fundamental objective of this
Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s
goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis
of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of
verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise
finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a
manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. Additionally, the purpose and objective
of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded
team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional
Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of
UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF
reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual
-Page 41-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR),
Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an
opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews,
and mandatory budget re-phasing.
95. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and
responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication
lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decisionmaking structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party’s
responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.
96. Monitoring responsibilities and events A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be
developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and
stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will
include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant
advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.
97. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project
Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The PMU will inform the UNDPCO and the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of any delays or difficulties faced during
implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and
remedial fashion.
98. The Project Manager will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in
consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and
assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor. Specific targets for the first year
implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this
Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and
in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. The national implementing agency
will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be
established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the
internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team. Measurement of impact
indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception
Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative Impact Measurement Template at the end of this
Annex. The measurement, of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant
institutions (e.g. vegetation cover via analysis of satellite imagery, or populations of key species
through inventories) or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities or periodic
sampling.
99. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through
quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow
parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to
ensure smooth implementation of project activities. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as
appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often based on an agreed
upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception Report / Annual Work Plan to assess first hand
project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the
SC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the CO and circulated no less than one month after the
visit to the project team, all SC members, and UNDP-GEF.
100.
Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policylevel meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be
subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within
-Page 42-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an
Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least
two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments. The APR will be used as one of the basic
documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the TPR,
highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The project
proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR
preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also
be conducted if necessary.
101.
The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The project
proponent is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LACGEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the
TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal
tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to
whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental
objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of
project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other
projects under implementation of formulation. The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if
project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks are provided will be developed at the
Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.
102.
Project Monitoring Reporting: The Project Manager in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF
extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form
part of the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring,
while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be
defined throughout implementation. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately
following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year/Annual Work Plan divided in
quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation
during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits,
support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well
as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include
the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual
Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project
performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. The Inception Report will include a more
detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms
of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project
establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect
project implementation. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be
given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this
circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will
review the document.
103.
The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight,
monitoring and project management. It is a self -assessment report by project management to the CO
and provides input to the country office reporting process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key
input to the Tripartite Project Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the
Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and
assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership
work.
-Page 43-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
104.
The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following: (i) An analysis of project
performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on
the status of the outcome; (ii) The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the
reasons for these; (iii) The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results; (iv) AWP, CAE
and other expenditure reports (ERP generated); (v) Lessons learned; and (vi) Clear recommendations
for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress.
105.
The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential
management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting
lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project
Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project. The PIR can be
prepared any time during the year (July-June) and ideally prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be
discussed in the TPR so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the
executing agency, UNDP CO and the concerned RC. The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and
analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters.
The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF M&E Unit analyse the PIRs by focal area, theme
and region for common issues/results and lessons. The TAs and PTAs play a key role in this
consolidating analysis.The focal area PIRs are then discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task
Forces in or around November each year and consolidated reports by focal area are collated by the GEF
Independent M&E Unit based on the Task Force findings.The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and
content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both APR and PIR, UNDP/GEF has prepared a
harmonized format for reference.
106.
Quarterly Progress Reports: Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be
provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project
team. Periodic Thematic Reports: As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing
Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of
activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by
UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be
used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises
to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its
requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their
preparation by the project team. Project Terminal Report: During the last three months of the project
the PMU will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all
activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved,
structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities
during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken
to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.
107.
Technical Reports (project specific- optional): are detailed documents covering specific areas
of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the
PMU will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared
on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this
Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may
also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly
defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will
represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in
efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels.
108.
Project Publications (project specific- optional): will form a key method of crystallizing and
disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or
-Page 44-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles,
multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon
the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of
Technical Reports and other research. The PMU will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit
formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant
stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format.
Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a
manner commensurate with the project's budget.
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
109.
The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows. An
independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the first year of implementation.
The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes
and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and
timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will
present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this
review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of
the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be
decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this
Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional
Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months
prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term
evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the
contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final
Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for
this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating
Unit and UNDP-GEF.
AUDIT CLAUSE
110.
UNDP will engage legaly recognized auditor to conduct regular audit of the project according
to UNDP Rules and Procedures and provide a copy of the Audit Report to the Implementing Agency
i.e. the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning.
LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
111.
Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone
through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition: The project will
participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior
Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number
of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will
largely function on the basis of an electronic platform. The project will identify and participate, as
relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit
to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons
learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify
and analyzing lessons learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one
of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every
12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting
and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated
for these activities.
-Page 45-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget11
Type of M&E activity
Inception
(IW)
Workshop
Inception Report
Measurement of Means
of
Verification
for
Project
Purpose
Indicators
Measurement of Means
of
Verification
for
Project Progress and
Performance (measured
on an annual basis)
APR and PIR
TPR and TPR report
Responsible Parties


Project Manager
UNDP CO, UNDP GEF



Project Team
UNDP CO
Project Manager will oversee
the hiring of specific studies
and institutions, and delegate
responsibilities to relevant
team members
Oversight by Project GEF
Technical Advisor and Project
Coordinator
Measurements by regional
field officers and local IAs
Project Team
UNDP-CO
UNDP-GEF
Government Counterparts
UNDP CO, Project team
UNDP-GEF
Regional
Coordinating Unit (RCU)
Project Coordinator
UNDP CO
Project team








Steering
Committee
Meetings
Periodic status reports



Technical reports






Audit


Project team
Hired consultants as needed
Project team
UNDP- CO
UNDP-GEF RCU
External
Consultants
(evaluation team)
Project team,
UNDP-CO, UNDP-GEF RCU
External
Consultants
(evaluation team)
Project team
UNDP-CO
External Consultant
Project team
UNDP-GEF RCU (formats for
documenting best practices)
UNDP-CO
Project team
Visits to field sites
(UNDP staff travel costs
to be charged to IA fees)


UNDP CO, UNDP-GEF RCU
Government representatives
Mid-term
Evaluation
External
Final External Evaluation



Terminal Report





Lessons learned
11
Budget US$
Excluding project team
Staff time
6,000
None
To be finalized in
Inception Phase and
Workshop. Cost to be
covered by targeted
survey funds.
TBD as part of the
Annual Work Plan's
preparation. Cost to be
covered by field survey
budget.
None
Time frame
Within first two
months of project
start up
Immediately
following IW
Start, mid and end of
project
Annually prior to
APR/PIR and to the
definition of annual
work plans
Annually
None
Every year, upon
receipt of APR
None
Following IW and
annually thereafter.
TBD by Project
team and UNDP CO
TBD by Project
team and UNDP-CO
At the mid-point of
project
implementation.
1,000
8,000
10,000
25,000
None
At the end of project
implementation
At least one month
before the end of the
project
Yearly
1,000
3,000
1,000
Yearly
Yearly average one
visit per year
Note: All costs include a budget for the translation (English-Macedonian) of key reports and information
-Page 46-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Type of M&E activity
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Excluding project team
Staff time
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST
Excluding project staff time, UNDP staff and travel expenses.
Time frame
US$ 55,000
112.
The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's
Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full
definition of project staff M&E responsibilities. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex I provides
performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of
verification and risks and assumptions. These will form the basis for the project's performance
Monitoring and Evaluation. The baseline METT scores for all the protected areas in the current network
are presented in Annexure IV, while the 2007 baseline financial scorecard for the national system of
protected areas is presented in Annexure V.
4.
FINANCING
a)
FINANCING PLAN, COST EFECTIVENESS, CO-FINANCING, CO-FINANCIERS
(i)
Project costs
Project Components/Outcomes
Co-financing
($)
GEF ($)
Total ($)
65,000
200,000
265,000
1,106,000
322,000
1,428,000
2,594,000
324,000
2,918,000
0
396,400
55,000
99,000
55,000
495,400
4,161,400
1,000,000
5,161,400
1. A representative national protected area system is
designed
2. Improved systemic and institutional capacity provides the
enabling framework for establishing and managing a
representative protected area network
3. PA establishment and planning processes field tested and
replicated across the PA network
4. Monitoring, learning, adaptive feedback and evaluation
Project management budget/cost*
Total project costs
* This item is an aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of this aggregate amount is presented in table ii)
below.
(ii)
Project management Budget/cost
113.
The terms of reference for the local consultants used for functions related to the management of
the GEF project are presented in Annexure VI. In accordance with both UNDP and GEF policies no
GEF project resources will be used to pay any government, agency, or NGO staff or personnel for
functions related to the management of the project.
Component
Local consultants*
(Project Manager)
(Administrative Assistant)
Estimated
consultant
weeks
350 weeks
(185)
(165)
-Page 47-
GEF($)
Other sources
($)
Project total
($)
90,000
(56,000)
(34,000)
156,000
(15,000)
(5,000)
246,000
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Component
Office facilities, equipment,
vehicles and communications12
Travel (National/local)
Miscellaneous
Total
Estimated
consultant
weeks
GEF($)
Other sources
($)
Project total
($)
-
3,000
182,400
185,400
350
6,000
0
99,000
24,000
34,000
396,400
30,000
34,000
495,656
* Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the management of
project. Consultants who are hired to do a special task are referred to as consultants providing technical assistance (see
details of these services in iii) below)
(iii)
Consultants working for technical assistance components13:
114.
The terms of reference for the local and international consultants providing technical assistance,
and paid for by GEF funds, are presented in Annexure VI. In accordance with both UNDP and GEF
policies no GEF project resources will be used to pay any government, agency, or NGO staff or
personnel for provision of these specialist services.
Component
Local consultants
 Information management and
system design specialist
Main outputs: (i) biodiversity database
linked and integrated into the national
Environmental Information System; (ii)
biodiversity metadatabase; (iii)
biodiversity data structure design,
maintenance protocols and management
procedures.
 Training and capacity building
specialist
Main outputs: (i) Compendium of
competence levels and occupational
standards; (ii) skills gap assessment; (iii)
human resource development and
training programs required to address
skills gaps; (iv) pilot training and
development program for protected area
staff in Matka Canyon and Tikvesh.
 Biodiversity specialist
Main outputs: (i) Database of
Macedonian biodiversity;(ii)
biodiversity status and significance of
pilot project sites
International consultants
 Environmental Economics
specialist
Estimated
consultant
weeks
220
54
GEF($)
Other sources
($)
Project total
($)
154,800
27,000
56,000
26,000
210,800
53,000
56
46,800
4,000
50,800
110
81,000
26,000
107,000
36
36
106,500
106,500
0
0
106,500
106,500
12
For the GEF component: Two computers @ US$1,400 each and color printer @ US$400. For the other sources
component: computer equipment, GPS, data projectors, office space, vehicles, office furniture, internet
connectivity, office equipment, etc.
13
ToRs are attached only for those consultants which are paid using GEF funds
-Page 48-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Main outputs: (i) Valuation of
Macedonia’s protected area system; and
(ii) financing mechanisms for a more
effective protected areas system in
Macedonia;
Total
256
261,300
56,000
317,300
(iv) Co-financing Sources
Name of co-financier
(source)
MOEPP
MOEPP
KFW
SDC
Cooperation Italian
Municipality of
Skopje
Sub-total co-financing
Classification
Execu. Agency
Execu. Agency
Bilat. Agency
Bilat. Agency
Bilat. Agency
Local Gov’t
Type
Cash
In-kind
Cash
Cash
Cash
Cash
Amount ($)
198,000
68,400
1,074,000
796,000
2,000,000
25,000
4,161,400
Status
Confirmed
unconfirmed
198,000
0
68,400
0
1,074,000
0
796,000
0
2,000,000
0
25,000
0
4,161,400
0
(v) Cost-effectiveness
115.
The project focus is to create an enabling planning, legal and institutional environment for
securing the legal and institutional tenure of protected areas in Macedonia. Using lessons learnt from
the two pilot protected areas, and development of generic national decision-support tools, the project
interventions will then enable the GM to complete the re-proclamation process for the remaining
protected areas. It is estimated that, on average, the complete re-proclamation of each protected area
would cost between US$10,000 (small PA) – US$ 200,000 (large, complex PA). With a least 59
protected areas requiring formal re-proclamation, the re-proclamation process would cost upward of
US$10m. The cost of project investments is then modest in light of the derivative global and national
benefits, and replication potential.
5
INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
a)
CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES
116. UNDP in Macedonia has a consolidated experience in improving national capacities for
sustainable development, environmental protection and management of natural resources. In the
previous period UNDP assisted the Government to identify capacity constrains in regards to the
implementation of the three global environmental conventions related to biodiversity, climate change
and desertification and land degradation, and to strengthen the institutional arrangements for their
implementation, enhancing at the same time the inter-governmental collaboration. UNDP also assisted
the Government to introduce the concept of sustainable development in the development plans in the
country as well as to map the steps that will lead to the development of a National Strategy for
Sustainable Development, and to strengthen the environmental management capacities of selected
governmental institutions. Assistance was provided to the national and local governments to take a lead
and coordinate integrated trans-boundary water management in the Prespa Park region.
117. UNDP has also created partnerships and alliances around the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). The MDG platform in Macedonia includes nationalization and localization of all MDG targets
and indicators. Their combined effort promotes and increases the use and the understanding by decision
makers of the sustainable human development and MDG concepts in policy formulation,
implementation and monitoring.
-Page 49-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
118. One of the four areas of cooperation for the UN in the country as stated in the UNDAF 20052009 is natural resources protection and management. The outcome linked to this area is: Effective and
equitable management of natural resource and environment ensured based on the principles of
sustainable development.
119. The UNDP 2005-2009 Country Programme for Macedonia concentrates on promoting a longterm development agenda, in line with the MDGs and the process of EU integration. The Programme
focuses on: a) Capacity-building for good governance and rule of law; b) Policy advocacy and creation
of an enabling economic environment for poverty reduction; c) Sustainable development, environmental
protection and management of natural resources. The proposed project will directly support the
achievement of the CPD/CPAP outcome 4.3. The country obligations related to the ratified
environmental conventions met.
120. UNDP’s support to the environmental sector in Macedonia focuses on three main areas: a)
Support the country to meet its obligations under the ratified environmental conventions – UNDP’s
assistance focuses on strengthening capacities of national and local governments for implementation of
the global environmental conventions with particular attention on the climate change, biodiversity, and
desertification. The project interventions in these areas should further contribute to reaching national
economic, social, environmental and sustainable development objectives among the other through
potential transfer of technologies and increased foreign investment flow; b) International Waters –
UNDP interventions in the watershed of the Prespa Lake (Macedonia, Albania and Greece) are aimed at
integrating ecological, economic, and social goals in conserving globally significant biodiversity and
reducing pollution of the trans-boundary lake and its contributing waters. The Prespa Park project shall
also serve as a model for successful partnership and collaboration between the neighboring countries,
national and local government, NGOs, and donors, and its best practices could be replicated in other
regions that share international waters; c) Good environmental governance – Strengthening the
capacities of the national institutions for implementation of the environmental laws and a follow up
actions on the main strategic documents in the field of environment is another area in which UNDP is
providing its support. The key interventions are focused on some of the “hot spots” that are recognized
as threatening the environment, public health and safety, both in local and a trans-boundary context.
Lojane and Bucim Mines are pilots that should demonstrate successful measures on reducing the
significant risk associated with both non-operational, abandoned mine and an active mine. The main
objective is to achieve significant improvement of environmental situation and quality of life for
citizens living in and around polluted areas through least cost measures, and improved local and
national policy dialogue and integration.
(i) Linkages with other GEF-financed project in Macedonia
121.
UNDP-GEF Full Size project “Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of
Albania, Macedonia and Greece (2006 – 2010). UNDP Macedonia has overall responsibility for the
implementation of this trans-boundary project. The project objective is to catalyse the adoption and
implementation of ecosystem management interventions in the Prespa Lakes Basin. The project is
designed to strengthen the capacity for restoring ecosystem health and conserving biodiversity by
piloting ecosystem-oriented approaches to spatial planning, water use management, agriculture, forest
and fishery management, and conservation and protected area management. One of the outputs of the
project is related to “Ezerani” Nature Reserve (ENR). The project will support the activities for reproclamation of this protected area according to the new Law on Nature Protection, as well as the
development of a management plan for the reserve. Activities in ENR are focused on education and
awareness raising and short-term, in-country PA-focused training programs. The project will also
develop a tourism plan for the reserve. The intervention at ENR will directly supplement the proposed
project by technically supporting the current process of re-proclamation and establishing a sustainable
-Page 50-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
management system at this particular location, closely in line with the objectives of the proposed
project.
122.
WB-GEF Full Size project “Lake Ohrid Conservation Project” (1998 – 2004). This already
finished project had catalyzed the implementation of effective water-governance interventions at Lake
Ohrid, encompassing parts of Macedonia and Albania to conserve and protect the natural resources and
biodiversity of the lake by developing and supporting an effective cooperation between Albania and
Macedonia for the joint environmental management of the Lake Ohrid watershed. The project
interventions included activities for strengthening the conservation efforts at the adjacent Galicica
National Park through upgrading its tourist interpretation services and facilities to increase its selfincome-generation capacities. The project activities, results and lessens-leant from this project will be
reviewed and taken into consideration in the proposed project.
123.
UNDP-GEF Enabling Activities for the Preparation of Second National Communication to the
UNFCCC (2005 – 2008). UNDP has supported the Government of Macedonia to make progressive
steps towards implementing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by
providing technical assistance for preparation of the First and now Second National Communication on
Climate Change in its effort to raise public awareness and national expertise on the issue. One of the
project activities has focused on the assessment of potential impacts of Climate Change on the most
vulnerable sectors, which include biodiversity. The assessment results will be taken into consideration
in the proposed project.
b)
IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS
124.
The project will be implemented over a period of two years. Project execution will adhere to
UNDP national execution (NEX) project requirements. UNDP is the Implementing Agency (IA) for the
project. Designated Institution: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the focal point for coordinating
UNDP’s technical cooperation in Macedonia. The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
(MEPP) will serve as the National Executing Agency (EA) responsible for project implementation. The
EA is accountable to the focal point and UNDP for the government’s participation in the project. The
EA will ensure that internal monitoring and review systems are in place. The EA will prepare the
Project Oversight Committee (POC) meetings, and with input from POC members, will provide overall
guidance and support to implementation of all project activities. The EA staff and/or experts will be
utilized when needed in accordance with UNDP guidelines, and will facilitate interaction among
relevant public organizations, research institutions and private organizations. The EA will be
responsible for project implementation and the timely and verifiable attainment of project objectives.
The EA will be designated to deliver specific inputs (e.g. services, expertise, and operating costs for
PMU) to the project and produce specific outputs through an agreement with the UNDP CO. The EA is
accountable to the Project Oversight Committee (POC) and UNDP for the proper use of funds provided
to it and for the quality, timeliness and effectiveness of the services it provides and the activities it
carries out. The EA will nominate a high level official from who will serve as a National Project
Director (NDP). Among the other the NPD ensures that all Ministries’ inputs committed to the project
are made available in a timely fashion and ensures that all applicable rules and procedures are fully met
in the course of the project implementation.
125.
UNDP: Working closely with the EA, the UNDP Country Office (CO) will be responsible for:
the recruitment and appointment of the Project Coordinator and of an Administrative assistant in
consultation with MEPP; overseeing project budgets and expenditures; project evaluation and reporting;
result-based project monitoring; and organizing independent audits to ensure the proper use of
UNDP/GEF funds. Procurement, Recruitment, Financial transactions, auditing and reporting will be
carried out in compliance UNDP procedures for national execution, based on the Agreement for
-Page 51-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
provision of Support Services signed between UNDP and the ministry of Environment and Physical
Planning.
126.
Day-to-day Project Management and Implementation: The Project Manager will assume the
day-to-day management responsibility for the MSP implementation, and coordination among partner
organizations. The Project Manager will report to National Project Director (nominated by MEPP).
Salaries of the Project Manager and the Administrative Assistant will be financed from GEF funds, and
operating costs financed by the MEPP. They will be located in administrative offices in Skopje
provided by MEPP. The team will be technically supported by contracted national and international
service providers. GEF funds will be used to pay the costs associated with international and national
specialist input to the project. Recruitment of specialist services for the project will be done by the PM,
in consultation with MEPP and UNDP, and through an open and fair competition following standard
UNDP hiring procedures. The team will prepare and implement annual work plans and budgets and will
also prepare the technical and financial reports to UNDP and GEF. The PM will work closely with the
EA staff to coordinate project activities, and link the project with complementary national programs and
initiatives.
127.
A Project Oversight Committee (POC): The EA will establish and chair the POC. Membership
in the POC will consist of one member from each of the following institutions or stakeholder groups:
the MEPP, the National Biodiversity Committee, MAFWE and UNDP as a permanent members and
local governments and NGOs from the proposed pilot PAs sites, and academic/research institutions
upon request, The POC’s role will include: (i) providing technical input and advice; (ii) overseeing
project implementation; (iii) approving any major changes in project plans or programs; and (iv)
facilitating the implementation of project activities in their respective organizations. The POC will meet
on a bi-annual basis to review project progress and approve project work plans and on demand
whenever there are issues for which the decision should be made by the POC. The Implementing
Agency will report to the POC at each meeting, with technical and administrative support from the
PMU.
6.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (attached as separate files)
a)
COUNTRY ENDORSEMENT LETTER (RAF ENDORSEMENT LETTER IF BD OR
CC PROJECT)
b)
CONFIRMED LETTERS OF COMMITMENTS FROM CO-FINANCIERS (WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS)
-Page 52-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
PART III – RESPONSE TO REVIEW
A
CONVENTION SECRETARIAT
B
OTHER IAS AND RELEVANT EXAS
C
STAP
-Page 53-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I
PROJECT LOGFRAME
Project Strategy
Goal:
Project Purpose
Objective:
A comprehensive,
representative and
effectively managed
national protected area
system is in place
Objectively verifiable indicators
To conserve the biological diversity of Macedonia by strengthening the planning, establishment
national system of protected areas.
Indicator
Baseline
Target by
Sources of
EOP
verification
1. Increase in number, and extent (ha),
1
79
National register of
of protected of protected areas formally
12,500ha
175,581ha
protected areas
proclaimed in terms of the Law on
Nature Protection
Gazettes of
proclamation
2. Increase in number of protected
3
22
areas with an effective and properly
National EIS
resourced management institution
3. % contribution of formally
proclaimed PA estate to meeting the
country representativity targets
4. Financial scorecard for national
systems of protected areas
-Page 54-
<5%
43.55% - see
Annexure V
>50%
>55% by EOP
State of
Environment
Reports
National Reports to
CBD
Financial scorecard
and management of Macedonia’s
Risks and Assumptions
Assumptions:
The Law on Nature Protection is
amended to extend the time
frame for re-proclamation
processes to be completed
All current PAs are reproclaimed, albeit with
rationalized boundaries and/or
different classification
Risks:
Conflicts arising during reproclamation processes cannot
be satisfactorily addressed and
resolved
Appropriate, and capacitated,
institutions cannot be identified
as the management entity for
each PA
PA management entities are not
effectively coordinated at a
national level
The regulations in terms of the
Law on Nature Protection are
not promulgated within the time
frame of the project
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Project Strategy
Goal:
Project Purpose
Outcome 1: A
representative national
protected area system is
designed
Objectively verifiable indicators
To conserve the biological diversity of Macedonia by strengthening the planning, establishment
national system of protected areas.
Indicator
Baseline
Target by
Sources of
EOP
verification
1. % of viable populations of endemic
<15%
25% by end of National EIS
and threatened taxa occurring within
year 2
the formally proclaimed protected area
60% by EOP
National land use
network
database
2. Extent (as a % of total area) of
Forest: 6%
Forest: 10%
State of
different habitat types/ biome
Dryland/
Dryland/
Environment
represented within the formally
grassland: 2%
grassland: 6%
proclaimed protected area network
Mountain: 4% Mountain: 7% reports
Wetland: 7%
Wetland: 9%
National and
3. % alignment of land use planning
0%
60% alignment Regional Spatial
Plan
and land uses in Macedonia with
of land use
ecological network requirements
planning by
Regional
EOP
Development Plans
>40%
alignment of
Local
actual land
Environmental
uses by EOP
Action Plans
Annual reports of
protected area
management
institutions
MEPP auditing and
monitoring reports
Outcome 2: Improved
systemic and institutional
capacity provides the
enabling framework for
1. Number of protected areas with
approved management plans
-Page 55-
1
12
MEPP auditing and
monitoring reports
and management of Macedonia’s
Risks and Assumptions
Assumptions:
Organizations with data make
this information available for
wider dissemination
The law on the implementation
of the National Spatial Plan is
drafted and adopted by the GM
The MEPP and municipalities
can enforce compliance with
spatial plans
Risks:
Protected area institutions do not
have adequate technological
resources and capacity to access
and use data
The MEPP does not have
adequate capacity and resource
allocation to monitor the
performance of protected area
institutions
Other
ministries and other public
agencies do not cooperate to
align strategies, plans and
projects
Assumptions:
National service providers are
available to assist protected area
agencies in drafting management
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Project Strategy
Goal:
Project Purpose
establishing and managing
a representative protected
area network
Outcome 3: PA
establishment and planning
processes field tested and
replicated across the PA
network
Objectively verifiable indicators
To conserve the biological diversity of Macedonia by strengthening the planning, establishment
national system of protected areas.
Indicator
Baseline
Target by
Sources of
EOP
verification
2. Total government operational budget
<160,000
> 300,000
Financial audit
(including HR and capital budget)
US$/annum
US$/annum
reports of protected
allocation for protected area
area institutions
management
3. Increase in competence, levels and
34
46
HR competence
standards of the protected area
See Capacity
audits of MEPP
institutions
Development
Indicator
Annual Capacity
Scorecard
Development
(Annexure
Indicator Scorecard
VIII)
1. % increase in competence levels of
protected area institutions for pilot
PA’s
2. Number of protected areas with
delegated management institutions
3. Number of protected areas exceeding
a minimum baseline METT score of 30
4. Additional resources (US$) allocated
by the GM to fund the re-proclamation
processes in other (unfunded) protected
areas
-Page 56-
34 (see above)
3
8
US$ 30,000
10% increase
by year 2
40% by EOP
22 by EOP
22 by EOP
US$50,000 by
year 1
US$60,000 by
year 2
HR competence
audits of protected
area institutions
METT Annual
Report
National EIS
Annual METT
analyses
Audited annual
financial report for
the MEPP
and management of Macedonia’s
Risks and Assumptions
plans
Risks:
The MEPP does not develop the
enabling regulations for
protected area agencies to
implement financing
mechanisms
The GM does not allocate an
annual budget to support
protected area management
Risks:
The MEPP does not develop the
capacity or allocate adequate
resources, to monitor the
performance of protected area
institutions
The GM does not allocate an
annual budget for protected area
management
Appropriate, and capacitated,
institutions cannot be identified
as the management entity for
each PA
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE II
Award ID:
Award Title:
Business Unit:
Project Title:
Implementing Partner
(Executing Agency)
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Activity
OUTCOME 1:
A representative
national protected area
system is designed
TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN
Tbd
PIMS 3728 Macedonia, Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Tbd
PIMS 3728 Macedonia, Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
UNDP (Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning)
Responsible
Party/
Implementing
Agent
Ministry of
Environment
and Physical
Planning
(MEPP)
Fund
ID
Donor
Name
62000
GEF
OUTCOME 4:
Amount
Year 2
(USD)
Amount
Year 3
(USD)
Total
(USD)
Budget
note
Local Consultants
17,000
10,000
0
27,000
1
Travel
Contractual Services Companies
Equipment
Miscellaneous
Total Outcome 1
International
Consultants
Local Consultants
Travel
Contractual Services Companies
Miscellaneous
3,000
2,000
0
5,000
2
92,500
49,250
4,750
146,500
3
12,500
5,500
130,500
0
2,500
63,750
0
1,000
5,750
12,500
9,000
200,000
4
5
34,000
64,500
7,500
106,000
6
4,500
1,500
23,500
1,000
18,800
500
46,800
3,000
7
8
88,000
61,500
6,700
156,200
9
6,000
3,000
1,000
10,000
10
Total Outcome 2
134,000
153,500
34,500
322,000
71300
Local Consultants
37,000
35,000
9,000
81,000
11
71600
Travel
Contractual Services Companies
Miscellaneous
0
3,000
1,000
4,000
12
46,000
75,000
82,000
203,000
13
1,500
3,000
2,000
6,500
14
Total Outcome 3
91,000
132,500
100,500
324,000
International
Consultants
6,000
7,000
6,000
19,000
72100
72400
74500
71200
71300
71600
MEPP
62000
GEF
72100
74500
OUTCOME 3:
PA establishment and
planning processes field
tested and replicated
across the PA network
Amount
Year 1
(USD)
71600
OUTCOME 2:
Improved systemic and
institutional capacity
provides the enabling
framework for
establishing and
managing a
representative protected
area network
Atlas
Budgetary
Account
Code
71300
MEPP
62000
GEF
72100
74500
62000
GEF
-Page 57-
71200
ATLAS Budget
Description
15
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Activity
Monitoring, learning,
adaptive feedback and
evaluation is achieved
Responsible
Party/
Implementing
Agent
UNDP
Fund
ID
Donor
Name
Atlas
Budgetary
Account
Code
71300
Local Consultants
71600
Travel
Contractual Services Companies
Miscellaneous
Total Outcome 4
International
Consultants
Local Consultants
Travel
Equipment
Total Management
72100
74500
71200
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
MEPP
62000
GEF
ATLAS Budget
Description
71300
71600
72400
PROJECT TOTAL
Amount
Year 1
(USD)
Amount
Year 2
(USD)
Amount
Year 3
(USD)
Total
(USD)
Budget
note
4,000
8,000
8,000
20,000
16
0
1,000
1,000
2,000
17
5,000
5,000
2,000
12,000
18
0
15,000
1,000
22,000
1,000
18,000
2,000
55,000
19
12,000
0
0
12,000
26,000
2,000
3,000
43,000
28,000
2,000
0
30,000
24,000
2,000
0
26,000
78,000
6,000
3,000
99,000
413,500
401,750
184,750
1,000,000
20
21
22
Budget notes:
1. Contract appointment of Information Management and System Design Specialist (refer to Annexure VI for the terms of reference for consultants and the terms of
reference and deliverables for contracted service providers)
2. Travel costs for project management staff and contracted specialists to undertake habitat, species and ecological process mapping/ground-truthing and to assess in situ
the alternative options and scenarios for the ecological and PA network.
3. Contractual appointment of service provider to undertake conservation assessment and protected area gap analysis. Pro rata contribution for appointment of biodiversity
specialist under Outcome 3.1 (see also note 13). Pro rata contribution for the contractual appointment of the service provider (under Outcome 2.1 and 2.2) to develop the
‘Directions’ for the national protected area system (see also note 9). Retainer contracts for translation and interpretation services. Retainer contract for layout, printing
and binding costs.
4. Acquiring hardware and software to host, maintain and access biodiversity database.
5. Costs associated with (communications, facilitation, etc.) organizing focused specialized stakeholder engagement workshops in: (i) the mapping of species, habitats and
ecological processes; (ii) the setting of conservation targets for Macedonia; and (iii) discussion of alternative scenarios for the ecological and PA network and selection
of preferred option. Hosting issue-based stakeholder workshops in the development of ‘Directions’ for the PA network and consolidated workshops to iteratively review
the proposed ‘directions’.
6. Contract appointment of Environmental Economist
7. Contract appointment of Training and Capacity Building Specialist
8. Travel costs for project management staff and contracted specialists to visit individual PA’s and PA institutions.
9. Contractual appointment of service provider to develop the ‘Directions’ for the establishment, planning, governance, management and monitoring of the national
protected area system (see also note 3). Retainer contracts for translation and interpretation services. Retainer contract for layout, printing and binding costs. Contractual
appointment of specialist training service provider.
-Page 58-
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
10. Costs associated with (venue hire, communications, facilitation, catering, secretarial services, etc.) hosting focused, specialized stakeholder engagement workshops in: (i)
institutional assessments; (ii) tools and methodologies for protected area management planning; (iii) criteria for individual capacity assessments; and (iv) the
development of a training program for PA practitioners. Hosting consolidated workshops to iteratively review the proposed institutional arrangements for PA’s.
11. Contract appointment of Biodiversity specialist/s
12. Travel costs for project management staff and contracted specialists to visit pilot PA’s
13. Retainer contracts for translation and interpretation services. Retainer contract for layout, printing and binding costs. Contractual appointment of service provider to
facilitate the rationalization and re-proclamation of the pilot project areas.
14. Capacity building of local communities and other local stakeholder groups to constructively engage in the re-proclamation processes. Costs associated with (venue hire,
communications, facilitation, catering, secretarial services, etc.) hosting iterative stakeholder engagement workshops during re-proclamation and PA planning processes
for 2 pilot project Pas
15. International consultants to be hired for mid-term and final evaluations as per project Log-Frame and M&E Plan.
16. National consultants to be hired for mid-term and final evaluations as per project Log-Frame and M&E Plan. Included are costs of local personnel related to ensuring
project monitoring, evaluation, stakeholder participation, cross-project coordination, lessons dissemination and information sharing.
17. Travel costs for mid-term and final evaluations as per project Log-Frame and M&E Plan.
18. Retainer contract for national service provider to support the design, development and implementation of the monitoring and evaluation program
19. Costs of workshops and meetings to be hosted as part of mid-term and final evaluations as per project Log-Frame and M&E Plan
20. Contract appointment of international and national counterpart service providers to support MEPP at project inception (i.e. inception workshop, development of work
plans, project budgeting, appointment of project management staffs) and ongoing project management (i.e. legal advice, specialist inputs, peer reviews, benchmarking,
branding, marketing, stakeholder communications, etc.)
21. Acquisition of computers and printer for project manager and project administrator.
Summary of
Funds: 14
GEF
MEPP
MEPP in kind
KfW
SDC
Italian Cooperation
Municipality of Skopje
TOTAL
14
Year 1
$413,500
$100,000
$24,000
$350,000
$250,000
$240,000
$5,000
$1,423,000
Summary table should include all other co-financing (cash and in-kind) that is not passing through UNDP.
-Page 59-
Year 2
$410,750
$50,000
$24,400
$600,000
$300,000
$1,200,000
$15,000
$2,569,150
Year 3
$184,750
$48,000
$20,000
$124,000
$246,000
$560,000
$5,000
$1,169,250
TOTAL
$1,000,000
$198,000
$68,400
$1,074,000
$796,000
$2,000,000
$25,000
$5,161,400
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE III
MAP OF PROTECTED AREAS IN MACEDONIA
Pilot project
areas
Page 60
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE IV
AREAS
BASELINE METT SCORES FOR MACEDONIA’S PROTECTED
No.
Name of Protected Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Pelister (National Park)
Mavrovo (National Park)
Cave Mlechnik
Cave Gorna Slatinska
Galichica (National Park)
Kalnica
Prevalec
Demir Kapija
Garska River
Drenachka River
Manastir, Mariovo
Platan, Tetovo
Suvi Dol
Crna Dudinka
Iberliska River
Crni Orevi (Juglans nigra )
Menkova Livada
Tumba
Golem Kozjak
Arboretum
Katlanovsko Blato (wetland)
Popova Shapka
Rechica
Rupa
Neprtka
Kolojzana
Karshi Bavchi
Crn Bor
Platan, Kalishte
Jasika
Chempresovi Stebla 2
Alepski Bor
Platanovi Stebla
Makedonski Dab
Grupa Chempresovi Stebla
Chempresovi Stebla
Bor
Vodno
Cave Ubavica
Cham Chiflik
Ruchica
Stebla od Platan
Ohridsko ezero (Ohrid Lake)
PrespanskoEzero/PrespaLake
Dojransko Ezero/Dojran Lake
Duvalo
IUCN
Category
ll
ll
lll
lll
ll
lll
lll
lll
lV
lV
lll
lll
lV
lll
lV
lll
lV
lV
lV
lll
lV
lV
lll
lV
lV
lV
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lV
lV
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
Area (ha)
(0=Tree
Monument)
12500
73088
1
0
22750
17
50
200
4
2
0
0
287
0
30
0
4
5
0
3
70
5
0
8
9
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1953
2
428
1785
0
23000
17680
2730
0
Page 61
Total METT
Score
69
38
7
5
51
8
7
8
7
8
12
7
7
6
6
5
6
6
9
9
8
9
8
6
6
5
8
6
7
5
6
8
9
6
6
9
9
28
9
8
8
7
47
48
24
7
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Ostrovo
Orashac
Morodvis
Platanovo Steblo
Karaslari
Kale Banjichko
Kozjle
Konopishte
Zvegor
Stebla od Platan I brest
Koleshinski Vodopad (waterfall Koleshino)
Murite
Sostoina od platan
Dab
Gol Chovek
Monospitovsko Blato
Gladnica
Konche
Drenachka Klisura
Katlanovski Predel
Matka Canyon
Zrze
Gradeshka River Canyon
Ezerani
Div Prnar
Tikvesh
Beleshnica River
Kosten
Orlovo Brdo
Markovi Kuli
Smoloarski Vodopadi (Waterfalls Smolare)
Lokvi Golemo Konjare
Ploche Litotelmi
Majden
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lV
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
l
lll
l
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
l
l
III
13
2
1
0
148
97
85
70
75
0
0
10
0
0
5
250
52
1
26
5442
5443
100
0
2080
0
10650
4180
0
0
2300
0
50
75
0
* Detailed data sheets for each PA listed here are in a separate Annex.
Page 62
7
6
7
7
7
7
10
9
7
6
25
6
6
5
6
9
6
7
8
16
36
6
6
38
5
26
11
5
5
12
38
6
11
Inconclusive
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE V
FINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS
PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL SITUATION
Overall Sustainability of a National Protected Area
System
Baseline
2003
(1US$=45M
KD, may
2007)
Year 2007
(1US$=45MKD
, may 2007)
Year 2012
(forecasting)
(1US$=45MKD,
may 2007)
Comments
(i) Total annual expenditure for PAs (operating and investment
costs)
860,000
2,160,000
4,200,000
2007 – KfW for NP
Galicica: 2 mil $ for
next ~3 years.
2007 – Co-operation
Italian for NP Mavrovo:
5mil $ for ~ 5 years
2007 – SDC for NP
Pelister: 1,15mil $ ~ 3
years.
-
800,000
10,000
50,000
2,000,000
40,000
120,000
3,000,000
200,000
1,000,000
(ii) Total annual government budget provided for PA management
(excluding donor funds)
- national protected areas
- national areas co-managed by NGOs
- state/municipal protected areas
- others
30,000
64,000
540,000
30,000
47,000
7,000
10,000
300,000
40,000
200,000
(ii) Total annual government budget provided for PA management
(including donor funds, loans, debt-for nature swaps)
- national protected areas
- national areas co-managed by NGOs
- state/municipal protected areas
- others
860,000
2,160,000
4,200,000
800,000
10,000
50,000
2,000,000
40,000
120,000
3,000,000
200,000
1,000,000
national protected areas
national areas co-managed by NGOs
state/municipal protected areas
others
Page 63
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(iii) Total annual revenue generation from PAs, broken down by
source
a. Tourism (fees, concessions and taxes)
b. Payments for ecosystem services (PES)
No Information
(iv) Net annual surplus/deficit15
(iv) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system
for re-investment16
~ 1%
~ 5%
~ 50 %
(vi) Estimated financing needs for basic management costs and
investments to be covered
3,000,000
5,500,000
(vii) Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs and
investments to be covered
5,000,000
10,000,000
840,000
2,840,000
1,300,000
5,800,000
(v) Projected revenues (over 5 year period)
- national protected areas
- national areas co-managed by NGOs
- state/municipal protected areas
- others
/
/
/
/
(viii) Annual actual financing gap (financial needs – available
finances)
a. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios
b. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios
15
16
This will be more relevant to parastatals and PA agencies with autonomous budgets
This includes funds to be shared by PAs with local stakeholders
Page 64
% of total budget
provided by retained
revenues
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM
Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and
institutional frameworks
Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue
generation by PAs
COMMENT
None
(0)
(i) Laws have been reformed so that they do not constrain or act
perversely towards PA revenue mechanisms
(ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax
breaks are introduced
Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue
sharing within the PA system
(i) Laws, policies and procedures are in place for PA revenues to be
retained by the PA system
(ii) Laws, policies and procedures are in place for PA revenues to be
retained, in part, at the PA site level
(iii) Laws, policies and procedures are in place for revenue sharing at
the PA site level with local stakeholders
A few
(1)
Some
(2)
The Law on Nature
Protection (Official
Gazette 67/04)
especially article
161 and 165 has a
legal base for a
bylaw on revenue
raised in PA. This
bylaw has not been
drafted so far and
the articles 161
and 165 have not
been enacted.
1
0
No
(0)
Yes, but
suboptimal
(1)
Yes,
satisfactory
(2)
0
0
0
Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing
endowment or trust funds17
(i) A Trust Fund have been created to finance the PA system
17
Fully
(3)
No
(0)
0
Yes
(3)
Where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government award full 9 points
Page 65
Yes,
optimally
(3)
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(ii) Trust Funds have been created to finance specific PAs
(iii) Trust Funds are integrated into the national PA financing systems
Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative
institutional arrangements for PA management
(i) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA
management and associated financial affairs for concessions
(ii) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA
management and associated financial affairs for co-management
(ii) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA
management and associated financial affairs to local government
(iv) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA
management and associated financial affairs for private reserves
Element 5 - National PA financing strategies
(i) Policy for revenue generation and fee levels across PAs
(ii) Criteria for allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (business plans,
performance etc)
(iii) Safeguards are in place to ensure that revenue generation does
not adversely affect conservation objectives of Pas
(iii) Policy to require all PA management plans to include financial
sections based on standardized format and criteria
None
(0)
0
Some
(1)
Quite a few
(2)
Fully
(3)
No
(0)
0
Partially
(1)
Quite well
(2)
Fully
(3)
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Full
(3)
2
2
2
0
Not begun
(0)
Completed
(3)
Under
implement
ation
(5)
3
0
0
Rulebook on the
content of the
management plans
for management of
the protected
areas
Official gazette
67/04
1
(iv) Degree of implementation of national financing strategy and
adoption of policies
Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems
In
progress
(1)
1
None
(0)
(i) Economic data on PA values exists
Page 66
Partial
(1)
1
Satisfactory
(2)
Full
(3)
Data only for
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(ii) PA economic values are properly documented
(iii) PA economic values are recognized across government
Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems
(i) Policy of the Treasury towards budgeting for PAs provides for
increased medium to long term financial resources in accordance with
demonstrated needs
(ii) Policy requires budgeting for PAs based on financial need as
determined by the PA business plan
(iii) There are policies that PA budgets should include funds for the
livelihoods of communities living in and around the PA as part of
threat reduction strategies
Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for PA
management and financing
0
No
(0)
0
(i) Sufficient number of positions for economists and financial planners
and analysts in the PA authorities to properly manage the finances of
the PA system
(ii) Laws and regulations motivate PA managers to promote site level
financial sustainability
(iii) PA managers are accountable for balanced budgets
(iv) TORs for PA staff include responsibilities for revenue generation,
financial management and cost-effectiveness
(v) PA managers have the flexibility to budget and plan for the longterm
(vi) Incentives are offered for PA managers to implement business
plans
Yes
(1)
0
0
None
(0)
(i) Mandates of institutions regarding PA finances are clear and
agreed
Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and
incentives at site and system level
National Parks
Only for National
parks
1
Partial
(1)
Improving
(2)
Full
(3)
Almost there
(2)
Full
(3)
1
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
0
1
1
0
Only for NP
(National parks)
1
0
Total Score for Component 1
9
Component 2 – Business planning and tools for
cost-effective management
Page 67
9
SCORE: 18
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Element 1 - Site-level business planning
Not begun
(0)
(i) Business plans, based on standard formats, are developed for up to
four pilot sites
(ii) Business plans implemented at the pilot sites, measured by degree
of achievement of objectives
(iii) Business plans developed for all appropriate sites
(iv) Business plans are directly linked to management plan goals and
objectives
(v) Preparation of participatory management plans including business
plans in use across the PA network
(vi) Monitoring and reporting on business plans through enhanced
activity-based cost accounting that feeds into system wide accounting
and budgeting
0
Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and
auditing systems
None
(0)
(i) Policy and regulations require comprehensive, coordinated cost
accounting systems to be in place
(ii) Transparent and coordinated cost and investment accounting
systems are operational
(iii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational
(iv) Regular monitoring and reporting of PA investments and revenue
generation occurs
0
Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial
management performance
Early
stages
(1)
1
Near
complete
(2)
Completed
(3)
Only Pelister
National Park has
business plan
along with the
management plan.
No other PA in RM
has drafted or
enacted business
plan.
0
Only Pelister NP
1
0
0
Partial (1)
Near
complete
(2)
Fully
completed
(3)
Near
completed
(2)
Done and
operational
(3)
0
0
0
None
(0)
(i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported
and tracked by government and are made transparent
Page 68
Partial
(1)
1
Only for NPs
(responsible
auditing and
inspection
authority is the
Ministry of
Environment and
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
(ii) Positive return on investments from capital improvements
measured and reported
(iii) Financial performance of PAs is evaluated and reported (linked to
cost-effectiveness)
Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA
sites
No
(0)
(i) National PA budget is appropriately allocated to sites based on
criteria agreed in national financing strategy
(ii) Policy and criteria for allocating funds to co-managed PAs
complement site based fundraising efforts
(iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why
funds are allocated across PA sites and headquarters
0
Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable park
managers to operate more cost-effectively
(i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used
by PA managers
(ii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites
complete, available and being used to track PA manager performance
(iii) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place
and feed into management policy and planning
(iv) PA managers are trained in financial management and costeffective management
(v) PA managers share costs of common practices with eachother and
with PA headquarters18
(i) Analysis of all revenue options for the country complete and
available including feasibility studies;
(ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms generating funds
for the PA system
(iii) Increased number of PAs operating effective revenue mechanisms
and generating positive returns
18
Physical Planning
Only for NPs
1
Only for NPs
Yes
(1)
0
0
Not
available
(0)
Partially
done
(1)
1
Almost done
(2)
Fully
(3)
Only NPs
0
Only NP Pelister
1
1
0
Total Score for Component 2
Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation
Element 1 - Increase in number and variety of revenue sources
used across the PA system
1
No
(0)
0
0
0
This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.
Page 69
8
0
Partially
(1)
A fair
amount
(2)
SCORE: 8
Fully
(3)
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the
PA system
(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan complete and
adopted by government for user fees
(ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry is supportive and a
partner in the PA user fee system and programmes
(iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed for PA sites
across the network based on revenue potential, return on investment
and level of entrance fees
(iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate
maximum revenue whilst still meeting PA conservation objectives
Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems
(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan complete and
adopted by PA authorities (including co-managers) for fee collection
Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for
revenue generation mechanisms
(i) Communication campaigns for the public about the tourism fees,
new conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile
Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs19
(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan complete and
adopted by government for PES
(ii) Pilot PES schemes at select sites developed
(iii) Operational performance of pilots is evaluated and reported
(iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway
Element 6 - Operational concessions within PAs
(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan complete and
adopted by government for concessions
(ii) Concession opportunities are identified at the site and system
levels
(iii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot sites
(iv) Operational performance of pilots is evaluated, reported and acted
upon
Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation
19
No
(0)
Yes
(1)
0
Nothing has been
enacted so far
0
0
0
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Towards
completion
(2)
Full
(3)
Partial
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Full
(3)
Partial
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Full
(3)
Partial
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Full
(3)
Limited
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Extensive
(3)
0
None
(0)
0
None
(0)
0
0
0
0
None
(0)
0
0
0
None
(0)
Where PES is not appropriate or feasible for a PA system take 12 points off total possible score for the PA system
Page 70
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
mechanisms
(i) Training courses run by the government and other competent
organisations for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial
administration
0
Total Score for Component 3
SCORE:
0
17
9
0
26
PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS
Total Score for PA System
26
Total Possible Score
Percentage of actual score of total possible score
Percentage scored previous year
62
41.94 %
n/a
Page 71
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE VI
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
PROJECT STAFF, SEPCIALIST CONSULTANTS AND SERVICE CONTRACTS
Project Management Staff
Position: Project Manager (national)
Position level: SC6
Duration: 34 months
Indicative budget: $56,000
Duties and responsibilities:
-
Deliver results and manage funds in line with the work plan approved by POC;
Analyze and evaluate achieved results regularly to ensure that the project is meeting the target
beneficiaries’ needs, and communicating them to all POC members;
Record and resolve project issues occurring during the implementation within the tolerance level
initially defined by POC;
Report issues to POC with recommendations for solutions to project issues that exceed the defined
tolerance level;
Discuss and deal with local and national authorities on matters pertaining to activities described in
the project document;
Ensure timely preparation and submission of yearly/quarterly project work plans and reports;
Lead the recruitment process of the necessary local experts in the areas identified in the project
document in accordance with UNDP rules and regulations;
Collect, register and maintain information on project activities by reviewing reports and through
firsthand sources; and
Advises all project counterparts on applicable administrative procedures and ensures their proper
implementation.
Knowledge and
skills:
Experience:
Languages:
University degree in related field (higher an asset). Excellent computer
literacy (MS Office; Windows XP); excellent communication and
negotiation skills; Good analytical skills.
Three years of professional experience in project management and the
related administrative and/or financial operations, preferably on similar
projects.
Language proficiency in both written and oral English and Macedonian.
Knowledge of Albanian language will be an asset.
Position: Administrative Assistant (national)
Position level: SC 5
Duration: 32 months
Indicative budget: $34,000
Duties and responsibilities:
- Collects, registers and maintains information on project activities by reviewing reports and through
first-hand sources;
- Contributes to the preparation and implementation of variety of progress reports, by providing
information, preparation tables and etc
Page 72
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
-
Monitors project activities by reviewing a variety of records, including control plans, project inputs,
budgets and financial expenditures;
Advises all project counterparts on applicable administrative procedures and ensures their proper
implementation;
Initiates correspondence and communication to verify data, answer queries and obtains additional
information on administrative and financial issues as required;
Supports the preparations of project work-plans and operational and financial planning processes;
Provides recommendations on ways to improve project implementation system;
Initiates procurement process and assists the preparation of Receiving Reports for the procurement
of equipment, other goods and services for the project;
Assists in the preparation of Payments requests (RDP’s) for operational expenses, salaries,
insurance, etc. against project budgets and work plans;
Follow-up on timely disbursements by UNDP CO;
Receives, screens and distributes correspondence and attaches necessary background information;
Prepares routine correspondence and memoranda for supervisor’ signature, checking enclosures and
addresses;
Assists in logistical organization of meetings, trainings, workshops;
Prepares agenda and arranges field visits, appointments and meetings both internal and external
related to the project activities and writes minutes from the meetings;
Maintains files on various subject, in a properly and orderly way;
Provides interpretation and translation of basic documents and correspondence;
Assists in the recruitment processes of supporting staff and consultants under SSA contract
modality, in accordance with the UNDP established procedures;
Maintains records over project equipment inventory; and
Performs other duties as required.
Knowledge and
skills:
Experience:
Languages:
University degree in related field. Excellent computer literacy (MS
Office; Windows).
Three years of relevant experience in administrative line of work.
Language proficiency in both written and oral English and Macedonian.
Knowledge of Albanian language will be an asset.
Specialist Consultants
Position: Information management and system design specialist (national)
Duration: 12 months
Indicative budget: $27,000
Duties and responsibilities:
- Assesses the current system design and data structure of the national EIS hosted by the MEIC;
- Identifies the minimum data requirements for the development of a ‘biodiversity database’ for
incorporation into the national EIS;
- Assesses the current source, and format of electronic and hard copy data required to populate a
biodiversity database;
- Negotiates data sharing agreements with data providers;
- Designs a database system for the biodiversity database;
- Identifies the hardware and software requirements for the biodiversity database;
- Supports the MEIC in sourcing the software and hardware according to the required specifications;
- Defines the required data structure for the inclusion of biodiversity data into the database;
Page 73
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
-
Validates the available biodiversity data, converts it into the requisite format and integrates into the
database;
Develops a simple graphic user interface to enable web-based access to the biodiversity database;
Develops data access and data maintenance protocols for biodiversity data;
Establishes a metadatabase for the biodiversity data.
Knowledge and
skills:
Post graduate qualification in computer science or equivalent.
Excellent skills in database design, data structures, GIS, data conversion,
and Graphic User Interface design.
Experience:
Languages:
At least 5 years experience in database design and development.
Language proficiency in both written and oral English and Macedonian.
Knowledge of Albanian language will be an asset.
Position: Environmental economics specialist (international)
Duration: 6 months
Indicative budget: $34,000
Duties and responsibilities:
- Describes the current financing mechanisms, and levels of income, for protected areas;
- Identifies and describes the range of appropriate financing mechanisms for protected areas that
could be implemented;
- Analyzes the opportunities and constraints of each financing mechanism, with explicit
recommendations of what needs to be done to facilitate and optimize its implementation;
- Assesses the projected expenditure requirements of the protected areas and protected area system;
- Assesses the feasibility of the potential income streams, individually and collectively, in meeting
these projected expenditure needs; and
- Collates the information into an “Assessment of financing mechanisms for protected areas in
Macedonia” report.
Knowledge and
skills:
Experience:
Languages:
Post graduate qualification in environmental economics.
Excellent skills in: cost-benefit analyses; financial planning; risk analyses;
environmental economics; protected area financial planning.
At least 10 years relevant experience in environmental economics and
financial planning. Experience in the protected area sector would be an
added advantage.
Proficiency in English. Working knowledge of Macedonian or Albanian
would be an advantage.
Position: Training and capacity building specialist (national)
Duration: 12 months
Indicative budget: $46,800
Duties and responsibilities:
- Develops a compendium of the competence, levels and occupational standards required for
effective protected area management in Macedonia;
- Based on this skills compendium, collates a skills gap assessment of the current protected area
planning and management staff;
Page 74
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
-
-
Assesses and identifies options for human resource development and training programs that could
address this skills gap;
Pilots the design and implementation of a training and development program for protected area staff
in two protected areas (Matka Canyon and Tikvesh) to test the efficacy of these development and
training programs; and
Collates the information, and lessons learnt into a “Competence standards for Macedonia’s
protected area system” report.
Knowledge and
skills:
Experience:
Languages:
University qualification in human resource development (or equivalent).
Excellent skills in: development of competence standards; development of
training programs; implementation of training programs; and human
capacity building.
At least 5 years relevant experience in capacity building, training and
human resource development. Experience of capacity building in the
environmental sector would be an added advantage.
Language proficiency in both written and oral English and Macedonian.
Knowledge of Albanian language will be an asset.
Position: Biodiversity specialist/s (national)
Duration: 18 months
Indicative budget: $81,000
Duties and responsibilities:
- Sources, assesses and collates biodiversity data for integration into the biodiversity database
- Sources and collates the biodiversity, geodiversity, ecological process and heritage data for the pilot
protected areas;
- Assesses the biodiversity and heritage significance of the pilot protected areas and the contribution
of the pilot protected area to meeting national conservation targets;
- Provide biodiversity inputs into the rationalization of the pilot protected area boundaries;
- Documents lessons learnt.
Knowledge and
skills:
Experience:
Languages:
Post-graduate qualification in natural sciences and/or heritage
conservation;
Excellent skills in: species identification; habitat classification;
documentation of heritage features and ecological process mapping
At least 10 years relevant experience in natural science or heritage
conservation. Extensive knowledge of Macedonian biodiversity and/or
heritage.
Language proficiency in both written and oral English and Macedonian.
Knowledge of Albanian language will be an asset.
Service Contracts
Service contract: Conservation assessment and protected area gap analysis
Indicative budget: $97,400
Terms of Reference:
In intensive consultation with key stakeholder groups:
Page 75
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
-
Assess and map the different type of habitats in Macedonia, and the extent to which they are
endangered or threatened;
Assess and map the species distributions for endemic and threatened taxa;
Assess and map spatial surrogates for ecological and evolutionary processes;
Assess and map the distribution of the different categories of protected areas;
Assess and map the current extent of land transformation;
Analyze species, habitat and ecological process data and identify biodiversity priority areas for
conservation;
Develop explicit and quantitative national conservation targets for habitats and species;
Integrate the collated datasets and conservation targets and generate a map of ‘environmentally
important areas’ in Macedonia;
Assess options for linking these environmentally important areas through ecological corridors to
conserve landscape-scale ecological processes; and
Develop a consolidated map of, and implementation strategy for, a consolidated ‘ecological
network’ for Macedonia that links to regional and European ecological networks.
Deliverables:
 Baseline database – habitats, threatened species, ecological processes, land use, protected areas and
threats
 Map of biodiversity targets and priority areas for conservation (‘environmentally important areas’)
 Map of informal conservation and formal protected area targets (‘ecological network’) and
(representative ‘protected area system’)
Service contract: Directions for the establishment, planning, governance, management and
monitoring of the national protected area system
Indicative budget: $222,000
Terms of Reference:
In extensive consultation with key stakeholder groups:
- Review the current protected area context in Macedonia;
- Compile a succinct review of best practice in protected area establishment, planning and
management in countries with similar challenges to Macedonia;
- Develop spatially explicit short- and medium-term targets for a representative network of protected
areas in Macedonia (based on information generated by the Conservation Planning specialist);
- Develop detailed national guidelines to direct the establishment of a new protected area, or reproclamation of an existing protected area, that operationalize the requirements of the Law on
Nature Protection;
- Identify the management principles for the different categories of protected areas contained in the
Law on Nature Protection;
- Identify the options for the sustainable financing of the different categories of protected areas
contained in the Law on Nature Protection;
- Identify the role of the private and NGO sector in the establishment and management of the
different categories of protected areas that align with the requirements of the Law on Nature
Protection;
- Identify the monitoring, evaluation and review requirements for the protected area system;
- Identify the roles and responsibilities of all the different public institutions and agencies in
protected area management; and
- Collate all the above information into a “Directions for the Macedonian Protected Area System”
report.
Page 76
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
In intensive consultation with key stakeholder groups:
- Review the efficacy of the current institutional arrangements for the different categories of
protected areas;
- Identify and review different institutional options for planning, management, co-operative
governance and monitoring of protected areas at the different spheres of planning and operations;
- Make recommendations on the preferred institutional option for protected area planning and
management;
- Identify the human resource capacity needs for the preferred institutional option
- Identify options for optimizing operational partnerships in protected area management; and
- Collate the institutional information into an “Institutional options analysis of protected area
planning and management in Macedonia” report.
In intensive consultation with key stakeholder groups:
- Assess the current status quo of protected area planning in Macedonia and review this against
international best practice;
- Develop generic guiding principles for the development of management plans of the different
categories of protected areas in Macedonia;
- Develop a detailed description of the component parts of the management plan and standard generic
templates to ensure national consistency and continuity in management planning for protected
areas;
- Describe the minimum processes required to develop the management plan and its approval
requirements in terms of the Law on Nature Protection;
- Describe the iterative performance monitoring and review mechanisms for the management plan;
and
- Collate the management planning information into a “Norms and standards for protected area
management planning in Macedonia” report.
Deliverables:
‘Directions for the Macedonian Protected Area System’, that includes:
 Directions for the planning of the protected area systems and protected areas
 Directions for the establishment of (different categories of) protected areas
 Directions for the governance of protected areas
 Directions for the management of protected areas
 Directions for the training and capacity building of protected area practitioners
 Directions for the resourcing and financing of protected areas
 Directions for the monitoring, evaluation and review of protected areas
Page 77
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE VII
INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX
The baseline, comprising activities that can be justified primarily in the national interest has been
estimated at US$ 11,034,000.00. The Alternative has been costed at US$ 5,166,400. The GEF would
fund incremental costs, amounting to US$ 1 million. The GEF-funded interventions will yield benefits
that will only accrue over the long term, associated with the incremental improvement of the
management effectiveness of the PA estate. These investments would accordingly, not be undertaken in
the short to medium term by the GM, if justified solely on the immediate domestic benefits. GEF
funding amounts to a modest 19% of the Alternative.
Cost/Benefit
Domestic
Benefits
Baseline 20
An enabling and modern
policy and legislative
framework for PA’s that
enables progress towards
meeting EU membership
requirements.
Effectively managed national
parks that are financially selfsustainable
Alternative
Increment
Development of institutional
capacity and individual skills to
implement the legal and policy
framework for all PA’s in
Macedonia.
A comprehensive biodiversity
database integrated into a
national EIS.
Norms, standards and guidelines
for PA planning, management,
institutional development and
financing.
Decision-support tools for the
re-proclamation processes
undertaken in Macedonia’s
PA’s.
Linkage of PA’s to the country’s
socio-economic development
priorities.
Global Benefits
A protected area estate
representing some and
Macedonia’s key biodiversity
priority areas
Upstream integrated waste
management interventions
reduce the impact on the
A more secure legal and
institutional tenure of the PA
estate in Macedonia
A more representative PA
network that seeks to better
conserve Europe’s, the Balkan
region’s and Macedonia’s
20
The baseline situation is defined as activities that can be justified independently of global benefits. For this
project, the baseline situation included: (i) funding from government and donor agencies for environmental and
biodiversity conservation projects that mitigate negative impacts on the integrity of the protected areas (e.g.
catchment management, upstream waste treatment) ; (ii) donor funding for environmental education and
awareness-raising programs that seek to better mainstream protected areas; (iii) financing committed by
government and other funding agencies to develop the enabling legal and policy framework for the planning,
management and monitoring of all protected areas; (iv) financing committed by national park entities, institutions
and funding agencies, to support basic operational management activities in the three national parks, and other
protected areas; and (v) financing committed by external funding agencies to supporting the development and
maintenance of income generating opportunities in the national parks.
Page 78
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Cost/Benefit
Baseline 20
biodiversity of the PA estate
Alternative
Increment
biodiversity.
A more effectively managed PA
estate, under effective
institutional arrangements.
Increased financial viability of
the PA estate through
implementation of innovative
financing schemes
Costs
Outcome 1:
A representative
national
protected area
system
Outcome 2:
Improved
systemic and
institutional
capacity
Outcome 3: The
re-proclamation
processes are
expanded and
reinforced across
the PA network
M&E and
Project
Management
Cost: Totals
MEPP: 85,000
SDC: 15,000
Italian Cooperation: 15,000
EU (Cards): 65,000
KfW: 12,000
MAFWE: 35,000
Total: 227,000
Total: 305,000
GEF: 220,000
MEPP: 60,000
SDC: 1,285,000
Italian Cooperation: 1,260,000
EU (Cards): 80,000
KfW: 1,225,000
Municipalities: 150,000
MAFWE: 35,000
Total: 3,945,000
MEPP: 150,000
SDC: 260,000
Italian Cooperation: 1,850,000
KfW: 1,985,000
MAFWE: 35,000
Frankfurt Zoological Soc:
40,000
Municipalities: 2,500,000
Total: 6,820,000
MEPP: 42,000
Total: 42,000
Total: 1,507,000
Co-Financing
MEPP: 67,000
KfW: 6,000
SDC: 6,000
Italian Co-operation: 6,000
Total Co-financing: 85,000
GEF: 331,000
Total: 3,127,000
Co-Financing
MEPP: 26,000
KfW: 645,000
SDC: 620,000
Italian Co-operation: 465,000
Total Co-financing: 1,176,000
GEF: 295,000
Total: 222,400
Co-Financing
MEPP: 36,600
KfW: 423,000
SDC: 170,000
Italian Co-operation: 1,529,000
Mun. Skopje: 25,000
Total Co-financing: 2,832,000
GEF: 154,000
11,034,000
5,161,400
Co-Financing
MEPP: 68,400
Total Co-financing: 68,400
4,161,400
Page 79
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
ANNEXURE VIII
MACEDONIA
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR SCORECARD FOR PROTECTED AREA INSTITUTIONS IN
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SCORECARD SUMMARY
UNDP has developed this scorecard to assist project teams and governments track progress in terms of developing individual, institutional and
systemic capacities of the national PA system.
The first matrix below indicates the total possible scores of the national PA system’s capacity in three categories: i) Systemic; ii) Institutional; and
iii) Individual in five strategic support areas. The second matrix shows the scores of the Macedonian (MK) PA system, while the MK PA system
scores against the total possible scores are presented as the percentage figures in the third matrix.
The capacity of the MK PA system in conceptualizing and formulating policies, legislations, strategies and programme is much higher at the
systemic level than at the individual level: nearly 70 % of the possible score is scored at the systemic level whereas the score at the institutional
level remains at around 30 %. On the other hand, although all three categories scored less than one third of the possible scores in this area, the
capacity of the MK PA system to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes is relatively lower at the systemic level than at the
institutional and individual levels. In this area, the highest capacity is at the individual level. Similarly, the MK PA system has a much higher
capacity at the individual level, scoring over two third of the possible score, than others, scoring around only one third, to engage and build
consensus among all stakeholders. In terms of the capacity of the MK PA system in mobilizing information and knowledge with reference to the
requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions, the scores for all categories remain low at around one third of the possible score. Finally, the
capacity of the MK PA system to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels is relatively higher at the systemic level,
scoring 50% of the possible score, than the others.
Overall, the capacity of the MK PA system is relatively low for the most part. On average, there are slightly more capacity at both the systemic
and individual levels in general than at the institutional level.
Total Possible Score
Strategic Areas of Support
Systemic
Institutional
Individual
1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme
6
3
2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes
9
27
12
3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders
6
6
3
80
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of
the SPs and associated Conventions
3
3
3
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels
6
6
3
30
45
21
Total
Macedonian PA System Score
Strategic Areas of Support
Systemic
Institutional
1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme
4
1
2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes
3
8
4
3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders
2
2
2
4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the
SPs and associated Conventions
1
1
1
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels
3
2
1
13
14
8
Total
Individual
% of Actual Score of TPS (Average)
Strategic Areas of Support
Systemic
Institutional
Individual
1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme
66.66
33.33
2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes
22.22
29.63
33.33
3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders
33.33
33.33
66.66
4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the
SPs and associated Conventions
33.33
33.33
33.33
81
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels
Total
50.00
33.33
33.33
41.11 %
32.59 %
41.66 %
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR SCORECARD FOR PROTECTED AREA INSTITUTIONS IN MACEDONIA (full
details)
Outcome Indicators (Scorecard)
Strategic Area of
Support
Capacity
Level
Outcome
1. Capacity to conceptualize and
formulate policies, legislations,
strategies and programmes
Systemic
The protected area agenda is
being effectively championed /
driven forward
1. Capacity to conceptualize and
formulate policies, legislations,
strategies and programmes
Systemic
There is a strong and clear legal
mandate for the establishment
and management of protected
areas
1. Capacity to conceptualize and
formulate policies, legislations,
strategies and programmes
Institutional
There is an institution
responsible for protected areas
able to strategize and plan
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Systemic
There are adequate skills for
protected area planning and
management
Worst State
(Score 0)
Marginal State
(Score 1)
Satisfactory State
(Score 2)
Best State
(Score 3)
There are a number of
protected area champions
that drive the protected area
agenda, but more is needed
There is a reasonable legal
framework for protected
areas but it has a few
weaknesses and gaps
Weaknesses: human
recourses, secondary
legislation and creating a
separate Strategic
Documents.
Protected area institutions
do have strategies and
plans, but these are old and
no longer up to date or
were prepared in a totally
top-down fashion.
The Spatial Plan needs
updating. One NP has a
management plan, and two
others are in the process of
developing management
plans.
Some skills exist but in
largely insufficient
quantities to guarantee
effective planning and
management.
Particularly luck of human
82
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
recourses.
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Systemic
There are protected area systems
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Systemic
There is a fully transparent
oversight authority for the
protected areas institutions
Protected area institutions are
effectively led
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
Protected areas have regularly
updated, participatorly prepared,
comprehensive management
plans
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
Human resources are well
qualified and motivated
Institutional
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
Management plans are
implemented in a timely manner
effectively achieving their
objectives
Protected area institutions are
able to adequately mobilize
sufficient quantity of funding,
human and material resources to
effectively implement their
mandate
Institutional
Protected area system is
patchy both in number and
geographical coverage and
has many gaps in terms of
representativeness.
The country is currently
going through a
revalorization process.
There is some oversight,
but only indirectly and in a
non-transparent manner.
Protected area
institutions have a total
lack of leadership
Only the National Parks
are led effectively to
some extent.
Some protected areas have
up-to-date management
plans but they are typically
not comprehensive and
were not participatorially
prepared.
One NP has a
comprehensive
management plan, and two
others are in the process of
developing management
plans.
Human resources are
poorly qualified and
unmotivated
There is very little
implementation of
management plans
Protected area institutions
have reasonable capacity
to mobilize funding or
other resources but not
always in sufficient
quantities for fully
effective implementation
of their mandate.
83
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
This is currently only
applicable to the national
parks.
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
Protected area institutions are
effectively managed, efficiently
deploying their human, financial
and other resources to the best
effect
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
Protected area institutions are
highly transparent, fully audited,
and publicly accountable
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
There are legally designated
protected area institutions with
the authority to carry out their
mandate
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Institutional
Protected areas are effectively
protected
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Individual
Individuals are able to advance
and develop professionally
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Individual
Individuals are appropriately
skilled for their jobs
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Individual
Individuals are highly motivated
The institution is
reasonably managed, but
not always in a fully
effective manner and at
times does not deploy its
resources in the most
efficient way.
This is currently only
applicable to the national
parks.
Protected area institutions
are not transparent but are
occasionally audited
without being held
publicly accountable
There are one or more
institutions or agencies
dealing with protected
areas, the responsibilities of
each are fairly clearly
defined, but there are still
some gaps and overlaps.
Some enforcement of
regulations but largely
ineffective and external
threats remains active.
Largely at the initial stage.
Career tracks are weak
and training possibilities
are few and not managed
transparently.
Only the national parks
have some training
possibilities.
Individuals have some or
poor skills for their jobs.
With some exceptions for
national parks
Motivation uneven, some
are but most are not.
84
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
2. Capacity to implement
policies, legislation, strategies
and programmes
Individual
There are appropriate systems of
training, mentoring, and
learning in place to maintain a
continuous flow of new staff
3. Capacity to engage and build
consensus among all
stakeholders
Systemic
Protected areas have the
political commitment they
require
3. Capacity to engage and build
consensus among all
stakeholders
Systemic
Protected areas have the public
support they require
3. Capacity to engage and build
consensus among all
stakeholders
Institutional
Protected area institutions are
mission oriented
3. Capacity to engage and build
consensus among all
stakeholders
Institutional
Protected area institutions can
establish the partnerships
needed to achieve their
objectives
3. Capacity to engage and build
consensus among all
stakeholders
Individual
Individuals carry appropriate
values, integrity and attitudes
4. Capacity to mobilize
information and knowledge
Systemic
Protected area institutions have
the information they need to
develop and monitor strategies
and action plans for the
management of the protected
area system
Some mechanisms exist
but unable to develop
enough and unable to
provide the full range of
skills needed.
There are some
mechanisms in the
national parks but they are
also in the stage of post
transition.
Some political will exists,
but is not strong enough to
make a difference.
There is limited support
for protected areas.
Except, for the national
parks and other PAs that
are considered tourist
destinations.
Institutional mission
poorly defined and
generally not known and
internalized at all levels.
Only one national park is
mission oriented and other
two are following its path
by developing the Annual
Work Plan and strategic
plans.
Some partnerships in
place but significant gaps
and existing partnerships
achieve little.
NPs, MATKA, Markovi
Kuli and Smolarski
Vodopadi.
Many individuals carry
appropriate values and
integrity, but not all.
Some information exists,
but is of poor quality, is of
limited usefulness, or is
very difficult to access.
But, NPs have some good
quality information but not
comprehensive or
85
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
consistent.
4. Capacity to mobilize
information and knowledge
Institutional
Protected area institutions have
the information needed to do
their work
4. Capacity to mobilize
information and knowledge
Individual
Individuals working with
protected areas work effectively
together as a team
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate,
report and learn
Systemic
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate,
report and learn
Systemic
Protected area policy is
continually reviewed and
updated
Society monitors the state of
protected areas
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate,
report and learn
Institutional
Institutions are highly adaptive,
responding effectively and
immediately to change
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate,
report and learn
Institutional
Institutions have effective
internal mechanisms for
monitoring, evaluation,
reporting and learning
5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate,
report and learn
Individual
Individuals are adaptive and
continue to learn
Some information exists,
but is of poor quality and
of limited usefulness and
difficult to access.
Individuals interact in
limited way and
sometimes in teams but
this is rarely effective and
functional.
This is the case for NPs
currently
Policy is reviewed
regularly but not annually.
There is some dialogue
going on, but not in the
wider public and restricted
to specialized circles.
With an exception of one
NP
Institutions do change but
only very slowly.
Transformation of
institutional arrangement
of NPs in 2006 under a
new law
There are some
mechanisms for
monitoring, evaluation,
reporting and learning but
they are limited and weak.
Only few Protected Areas
(NPs, MArkovi Kuli and
Smolarski Vodopadi) has
mechanisms for
monitoring, evaluation,
reporting and learning.
Performance is irregularly
and poorly measured and
there is little use of
feedback.
Better among National
86
MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system
Parks.
Separate Scorecard:
Total CD Indicator Scorecard:
0 points:
3
1 point:
25
2 points: 5
3 points:
0
35points
87