PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)
PROJECT TYPE: Medium-sized Project
THE GEF TRUST FUND
Submission Date: 9 April 2009
Resubmission Date: May 19, 2009
PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
GEF PROJECT ID1: 3997
PROJECT DURATION: 60 months
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 4255
COUNTRY(IES): Albania
PROJECT TITLE: Improving coverage and management
effectiveness of marine and coastal protected areas
GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): Ministry of Environment,
Forestry and Water Administration (MEFWA)
GEF FOCAL AREA (S)2: Biodiversity
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(s): BD-S2-Marine PA
NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT): NA
INDICATIVE CALENDAR*
Milestones
Work Program (for FSP)
CEO Endorsement/Approval
Agency Approval Date
Implementation Start
Mid-term Evaluation (if
Expected Dates
mm/dd/yyyy
May 2010
June 2010
June 2010
Dec 2012
planned)
Project Closing Date
June 2015
* See guidelines for definition of milestones.
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Project Objective: To improve coverage and the management effectiveness of the marine and coastal protected areas.
Components
Typeb
Outcomes
Outputs
1. Improved
biogeographical
representation
of marine and
coastal
protected
areas
(MCPA)
TA
35,000 ha of underrepresented marine and
coastal ecosystems
[lagoons, wetlands,
capes, canyons] added
to the national protected
area system.
1.1 Strategic Plan of MCPA (SPMCPA) approved, defining:
the MCPA expansion scenario with a 10-year vision;
monitoring and enforcement tools; by-laws and regulations to
trigger implementation and enforcement; MPA revenuegenerating mechanisms [fees, public-private-partnerships,
engagement of local fishermen, external donor funding].
2. Improved
management
arrangements
for MPAs,
clarifying
institutional
settings and
capacity
building
Stabilization of
indicator seagrass
Posidonia oceanica
along Albanian coasts.
Stabilized populations
of endangered and
threatened sp.:
Loggerhead and
Leatherback turtles,
Mediterranean seal,
Dalmatian pelican,
threatened fish sp.
TA
Improved coordination,
institutional and
individual capacities for
planning and effective
management of MPAs
contributing to
reduction of
biodiversity pressures
[extraction of sand, and
gravel, unregulated
tourism, overfishing,
deforestation. Measured
by METT].
1.2 A new MPA established at Karaburuni area: ecological
inventories completed; boundaries defined; legal articles
drafted; management and business plan in place; PA
officially gazetted and funding secured; management unit
capacitated and equipped [linked to Output 2.6]; conservation
facilities and infrastructure put in place; conservation and
management activities supported.
GEF
Financinga
($) a
%
CoTotal ($)
c =a + b
Financinga
($) b
%
300,000 30
690,000
70
990,000
1.3 Buffer zones for the existing coastal PAs and the new
MPAs identified and demarcated; special protection regime
for the buffer zones agreed local fishermen and land-users.
2.1 Cross-Sectoral Forum for marine and coastal PA
management and capacity building created: ministries
identified and engaged, their interactions, roles and
responsibilities with respect to MPAs clarified; participation
of PA managers, fishermen associations, other industries and
NGOs insured; Secretariat set; Forum integrated in the
Mediterranean PA network; policy on SPMCPA (Component
I) reviewed by the Forum; set of awareness-raising activities
on MPAs carried out by the Forum.
555,000 34 1,044,500 66 1,599,500
2.2 Mechanisms for joint monitoring, enforcement of
conservation measures, and conflict resolution established
between relevant national and local institutions.
2.3 System-level MCPA management effectiveness tool
introduced; all coastal and marine PAs included for regular
measurement; measurement time-table agreed.
2.4 Technical extension services created under the umbrella
1
2
Project ID number will be assigned by GEFSEC.
Select only those focal areas from which GEF financing is requested.
1
Project Objective: To improve coverage and the management effectiveness of the marine and coastal protected areas.
Components
Typeb
Outcomes
GEF
Financinga
($) a
%
Outputs
CoTotal ($)
c =a + b
Financinga
($) b
%
of MFEW or Forum and start to provide guidance to site
managers on cost-effective management and conservation
approaches. Electronic and printed guidance is developed for
PA practitioners on ecological and economic effectiveness of
MCPA management.
2.5 At least 20 central level staff, 15 site managers trained on:
(a) PA management and business planning, (b) setting and
running participatory PA Management Boards, (c) marine
biodiversity conservation measures and monitoring.
2.6 Management and business planning demonstrated at one
marine PA [linked to Output 1.2]: site Management Board
established engaging local fishermen and land-user
communities and entrepreneurs; management and business
plan developed, revenue sources identified and launched,
conservation actions, participatory monitoring and
enforcement piloted.
Project management
95,000 33 193,000 67 288,000
Total project costs
950,000
1,927,500
2,877,500
a List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively of the total amount for the component.
b TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & Technical Analysis.
B. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE and by NAME (in parenthesis) if available, ($)
Sources of Co-financing
Project Government Contribution
UNDP
Total Co-financing
Type of Co-financing
Unknown at this stage
Grant
Project
1,877,500
50,000
1,927,500
C. INDICATIVE FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
Previous Project
Preparation Amount (a)3
Project (b)
GEF financing
Co-financing
Total
0
950,000
1,927,500
2,877,500
Total
c=a+b
950,000
1,927,500
2,877,500
Agency Fee
95,000
95,000
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY (IES), FOCAL AREA(S) AND COUNTRY(IES) - NA
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A.
STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO ADDRESS IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED:
1.
Albania is a coastal country in Europe, with a coastline of 476 km, along the Adriatic and the Ionian Seas.
These two seas have traditionally played an important role in country’s history, culture and economic development.
More than half of the Albanian population lives in the coastal zone, where the most urbanized and industrialized areas
(except Tirana) are situated. Albania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. About 25% of the country’s
GDP is generated in agriculture. Over 32 percent of agricultural export is accounted by fisheries. Fishing activity
takes place along the entire coastline, including its territorial waters 12 miles offshore. For the most part it is
concentrated along the continental shelf zone, which coincides with areas of highest marine biodiversity4.
3
Include project preparation funds that were previously approved but exclude PPGs that are awaiting for approval.
4
Fishing in Albania is practiced through marine fisheries, although subsistence fishing in lagoon and inland fishing does take place as well. In
2006 there were 260 industrial registered vessels. There are about 900 people working as fisherman, plus 600 people of support staff. In terms of
subsistence fishing, there are 500 small scale vessels and nearly 1.000 persons are involved in this activity.
2
2.
Albania is distinguished for its rich biological and landscape diversity. This diversity is attributable to the
country's geographic position as well as geological, hydrological, climatic, soil and relief characteristics. The
mountainous terrain combined with steep cliffs creates ideal conditions for maintaining and protecting a large number
of ancient species, some of which are endemic or sub-endemic. The high diversity of ecosystems and habitats (marine
and coastal ecosystems, wetlands, river deltas, sand dunes, lakes, rivers, Mediterranean shrubs, broadleaf, conifers and
mixed forests, alpine and subalpine pastures and meadows, and high mountain ecosystems) offers rich habitats for a
variety of plants and animals. There are around 3,200 species of vascular plants and 756 vertebrate species. There are
27 endemic and 160 sub-endemic species of vascular plants.
3.
The diversity of habitats, as well as the position of the coast, among the three bio-geographical sectors of the
Mediterranean (Western, Eastern and Adriatic), have resulted in exceptionally high marine biodiversity. Albanian
marine waters host about 64 species of international concern. Among them there are many globally threatened fish
species, such as sturgeons (Acipenser sturio, Acipenser nacarii, Huso huso), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), great
white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), blue shark (Prionace glauca), sharpnose sevengill shark (Heptranchias
perlo), porbeagle (Lamna nasus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), thornback skate (Raja clavata), giant devilray
(Mobula mobular). Three globally endangered reptile species: loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, leatherback turtle
Dermochelys coriacea and green turtle Chelonia mydas can be found in Albania, with the last two very rare species,
while Caretta caretta is more common. The Mediterranean seal Monachus monachus, a critically endangered species,
is also a very rare occasional visitor to the Albanian coastal waters. Out of 514 avifauna species found in Europe, 323
are recorded in Albania. Most of them are present around marine and coastal areas. Among them there are globally
threatened species, such as Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus, pigmy cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, white
stork Ciconia ciconia, Eurasian spoonbill Platalea leucorodia, several species of predatory birds (Falconiformes),
belonging to genera Aquila, Falco, Circus, Buteo etc.
4.
The main pressures to the marine biodiversity of Albania are: (i) Degradation of coastal areas: During the last
decades, rural immigration towards the coastal urban areas, creation of new urban areas and enlargement of the
existing ones, have resulted in severe damage to the coast. Huge amounts of sand were extracted from the coastal
zone for construction. Consequently, large sand dune systems have been destroyed. Reclamation, drainage and
irrigation work have drastically reduced the size of the former costal wetland area of Albania and changed the water
regime in all of the remaining wetlands. More than 1/3 of the Adriatic coast of the country is being eroded. The
erosion intensity is estimated at an average of 1-2 meters a year (max. erosion rate 20 m/year). Apart from natural
evolution of the coastal morphology, this process has been accelerated by a series of human activities, such as
deforestation of large coastal areas, even inside protected areas, extraction of the inert materials (gravel and sand)
from sandy beaches, irrational tourism and recreation constructions along the coast, etc. An important contribution to
the coastal erosion in Albania is a result of the extraction of sand and gravel from the river beds. These activities have
enormously decreased the transport of sediments to the coastal areas, creating a misbalance between sea erosion and
land formation, which has caused an evident loss of considerable land at the coast. (ii) Over-exploitation of natural
resources: The rapid increase of human dwellings along the coastal area is accompanied by an increased demand and
exploitation of natural marine and coastal resources, particularly fish resources. During the last years, the fishing
along the whole marine stretch with a depth of 2-30 meters has led to the depletion of the breeding grounds of
Sparidae, Soleidae, Mullidae, and other families. Foreign vessels fishing offshore Albania also cause damages,
especially to fish, mollusks and crustaceans, which are in demand in western markets. Divers have illegally extracted
the bivalve mollusc Lithophaga lithophaga in a way which damages entire coastal rocks. In fishing nets marine
vertebrates such as sea turtle (Caretta caretta), dolphins, sharks and otter (Lutra lutra) are trapped and in most of the
cases are killed instead of being released. Uncontrolled hunting is a major form of disturbance to biodiversity,
especially in the winter when migratory birds are at risk. The Sea eagle (Haliaetus albicilla), had previously been a
permanent species with many nesting places in coastal areas such as Velipoja, Lezha, and Karavasta. Currently, it is
found only in the area of Karavasta (as a wintering species), and in Butrinti (as a rare summer visitor).
5.
Baseline. Albanian government has initiated several steps to conserve and sustainably manage its
biodiversity. Albania’s Coastal Zone Management Plan (prepared in 1996 and approved in 2002), Biodiversity
Strategic Action Plan (prepared in 1999 and approved in 2002), National Environmental Action Plan (updated in
2002) were formulated. However, issues related to protected area management have not been fully addressed due to
incomplete regulatory and policy framework and lack of capacities. There are currently about 802 protected areas
(including 750 Nature Monuments) in Albania, covering around 9.08 % of the total land surface of the country. There
are no marine protected areas in Albania as yet. The administration and management of protected areas is based on
Law No. 8906 dated 6 June 2002 “On Protected Areas”. This law regulates the protection of six categories of
protected areas, applied in the territory of the Republic of Albania. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water
3
Administration is the main institution responsible for the protection of environmental values in Albania. There are
relatively high research capacities within a number of research institutions and universities on issues of ecological
research and protected areas. An important recent step is creation of the so-called management boards at PAs –
participatory structures that engage local communities and entrepreneurs in site planning and management. This has
just recently been introduced in law, although its practical proliferation remains extremely limited. Currently, the
Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration (MEFWA) through UNDP is implementing a project5
aiming to implement some of key recommendations related to country’s participation in the Program of Work on
Protected Areas (PoWPA project), including accomplishment of a comprehensive ecological gap assessment for the
protected area system and starting a process on establishment of a policy environment and knowledge on marine
protected areas. The PoWPA project will develop recommendations for modifications to the 2002 Law on Protected
Areas and Decree on the Administration of Protected Areas. It also includes setting up a cross-sectoral MAP Steering
Committee to guide the ecological gap analysis and the development of legal amendments.
6.
The PoWPA project, however, is limited in time, funding and scope. It is only a first step in achieving a longterm solution, which is to ensure maximum ecological coverage of marine and coastal PAs, as well as high
management effectiveness of the marine protected area system in Albania. The attainment of this solution is hampered
by two main barriers:
Barrier (i). Poor bio-geographical representation: Although marine biodiversity has played an important role in the
country’s economic and cultural development, as of yet the country has a set of under-capacitated coastal PAs and no
marine PAs. The preliminary findings of the PoWPA project identified major areas of high biodiversity value which
require protection. These are: Cape of Lagji / Turra Castle, 600 ha; Cape of Rodoni- Lalzi Bay-Ishmi Forest, 2,500 ha;
Llogora – Vlora Bay - Orikum, Karaburun-Sazan-Radhimë-Tragjas-Dukat, 35,000 ha; Canyon of Gjipe, 1,200 ha;
Porto Palermo- 600 ha; Kakome Bay and Cap Qefali, 2,200 ha; Çuka Channel -Ksamili Bay and Islands- 1,000 ha;
Pagane-Cape Stillo and Island, 500 ha. Wetland areas, lagoons, capes and canyons currently fall out of protection. The
lagoons and coastal wetlands are of special concern, particularly for the avifauna: covering just 3% of the territory
they host over 70% of the country biodiversity. Under-represented are important wetlands [such as Karavasta, Narta
and Kune-Vaini] which provide wintering habitat for birds along the Albania's coast. As an example, these wetlands
alone serve as a haven for more than 6% of the wintering individuals of the European population of the Dalmatian
Pelican Pelecanus crispus. There is little knowledge of what a marine park should be like; what would be protection
regimes for its core areas and how buffer areas are to be managed. The PoWPA project will produce knowledge of
ecological gaps and develops recommendations for amendment of legislation, yet there is a need to finalize the
legislative improvement process and translate ecological gap analysis into a system plan for marine and coastal PA
expansion.
Barrier (ii). Weak institutional framework for marine PA governance and poor capacities at institutional and
individual levels: The first issue under this barrier is cross-sectoral coordination. Historically, the mandate for
protected area management has been within the General Directorate for Forestry and Pastures (GDFP), but the
governance reform of 2005 reallocated several responsibilities of the former DGFP to MEFWA. Ecological
monitoring is done by a number of state research institutions/agencies, as well as the National Environmental and
Forestry Agency. At this stage, PA responsibilities and reporting lines between all these PA institutions remain
ambiguous. The current staffing profile of the MEFWA makes it difficult to ensure good communication horizontally
(with sister ministries) as well as vertically (between MEFWA, as a central institution, regional branches and site
administrations). Sites managers do not have channels for receiving timely guidance on site management and
conservation approaches. This absence of cooperation is critical when it comes to organizing effective monitoring and
enforcement work as well as proactive, prevention-oriented efforts. The absence of effective horizontal and vertical
coordination affects the quality of monitoring of natural resource use and enforcement of the fishing and hunting laws.
In the absence of such a cooperative framework, their ability to mitigate primary threats to globally significant marine
biological diversity is compromised significantly. One important element of the baseline – the idea of participatory
management boards at each PAs, although put in law, has not been tested in coastal areas. Local fishermen
communities, driven by subsistence needs, industrial fishing companies, land-users have not been engaged in
biodiversity conservation discussions, not to mention PA planning and management. The conservation and economic
efficacy of many theoretical well-known win-win opportunities for non-destructive economic practices at sensitive
coastal and marine areas have not been tested. Instead, conflicts between conservationists and local people remain
frequent.
5
Under GEF Program “Supporting Country Action on the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas” financed by GEF with 150,000 and cash/kind of UNDP,
Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration, WWF and local NGO INCA
4
The second issue in this barrier deals with capacities at the institutional and individual levels. MEFWA, although a
central environmental institutional, lacks capacities to plan for the expansion of MPAs, enforcing legislation,
increasing PA ecological representativeness and conservation effectiveness, monitoring of site performance. In
anticipation of MPA expansion, capacity shortfalls present an ever growing challenge, as it will be increasingly
difficult to locate adequately qualified personnel to run the expanded PA network. At the site and regional levels,
knowledge and capabilities to develop and implement site management plans and business plans are close to zero.
Diversification of revenues for PAs has not been used as a criterion for assessing performance of protected areas.
Overall, government decisions regarding PAs are ad-hoc, as the country lacks altogether any metric to evaluate PA
management effectiveness. Limited capacities are currently preventing effective enforcement, or even clear
understanding, of existing legislation and associated regulations. This is a significant barrier to strengthening
management effectiveness.
7.
To address these barriers, the project proposes two components:
Component I. Improved bio-geographical representation of marine protected areas (MCPA): Based on the legislative
improvements achieved by the POWPA project, this proposal will develop a Strategic Plan of MCPA (SPMCPA).
The SPMCPA will: (i) define the MCPA expansion scenario with a 10-year vision; (ii) develop monitoring and
enforcement tools; (iii) guidance on development and approval of by-laws and regulations needed to trigger the
implementation and enforcement of the MPA expansion [based on recommendations from the PoWPA project],
covering issues such as: restrictions on construction along the coast, introduction/amendment of tourism loads
indicators, setting fishing no-take zones or establishment/amendment of catch quotas for fish/mollusc; tighter
regulations on vessel cruising, tighter ceilings for the discharge of eutrophication-causing substances; tight regulations
for drainage/irrigation facilities in certain areas in and round potential MPA, hunting quotas and regulations, ban on
fires, regulation of livestock pastures in the coastal lagoons and wetlands; and (iv) stipulate revenue-generating
mechanisms [fees, public-private-partnerships, external donor funding] for the MPA. Component I will further
support creation of a new marine protected area in the Karaburuni locality, including completion of ecological studies;
setting boundaries; drafting legal articles; developing management and business plans and capacitating and equipping
the management unit [which is linked to one of the outputs in Component II]. The site will be officially
declared/gazetted and funding for it will be secured. The project will support conservation facilities and infrastructure
for it, trigger conservation and monitoring activities. Further, under Component I, creation of buffer zones for the
existing coastal PAs and the new MPAs will be supported, including the setting of a special protection regime for in
agreement with local land-users.
Component II. Improved management arrangements for MPAs, clarifying institutional settings and capacity building.
On the basis of the PoWPA project cross-sectoral MPA Steering Committee, the project will create a Cross-Sectoral
Forum for marine and coastal PA governance, which will bring together relevant ministries, MPA and coastal site
managers, NGOs. The Forum will serve as a mechanism of streamlining the interactions, roles and responsibilities
among its all stakeholders in the management of marine protected areas. A small secretariat [on the basis of one of the
Forum’s existing institutions] will be set to support its functioning. The Forum will seek participation in the
Mediterranean PA network, it will arrange for awareness-raising on marine PAs in Albania, and as one of the first key
tasks it will supervise and review the SPMCPA (to be developed under Component I). Component II will further put
in place mechanisms for joint monitoring, enforcement of conservation measures, and conflict resolution between
relevant national and local institutions engaged in MPA management and planning. In this component the project will
support a system-level MCPA management effectiveness assessment for all coastal and marine PAs. Further
Technical Extension Services will be created under the roof of MFEW or the Forum and will be capacitated to
provide guidance to site managers on cost-effective management and conservation approaches, using electronic and
printed media to be developed under the project. Under Component II, at least 20 central level staff and 15 site
managers will be trained on: (a) PA management and business planning, (b) setting and running participatory PA
Management Boards, (c) marine biodiversity conservation measures and monitoring. Finally, linking with one of the
outputs in the previous Component, the project will demonstrate the management and business planning approach at
one marine PA. It will establish a Management Board for the MPA, engaging local communities and entrepreneurs
into it; develop management and business plan, help put in place revenue sources, support conservation actions, and
participatory monitoring and enforcement at the site.
8.
The project’s global environmental benefits rest in expanding the protection coverage [by at least 35,000 ha]
onto unique marine, lagoon, wetland, canyon and cape habitats hosting critically endangered, threatened and nearthreatened species such as Loggerhead and Leatherback turtles, Mediterranean seal, Dalmatian pelican, threatened
birds-of-prey and fish sp. The project will raise the management effectiveness of the marine and coastal protected
areas providing effective protection to the hugely diverse ecological mosaic of habitats and biotopes that comprise
5
Albania’s coastal and marine zones. Increased effectiveness of institutions and sites will result in removing pressures
from unsustainable sand and gravel extraction, unregulated tourism and logging. Component II invests heavily into
cross-sectoral coordination and capacity building, which will ensure lasting impacts of biodiversity improvements
achieved through the project.
B.
DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL/REGIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS:
9.
The project addresses the provisions of the 2002 National Environmental Action Plan dealing with PA
expansion. The project is also fully aligned with the priorities of the 2002 National Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP), which put priority on the establishing marine protected areas to conserve the
unique marine biodiversity of Albania. Specifically, the 2002 BSAP determined MCPA development as one of the
key priorities. It pointed to the need of a gap analysis, to be followed by actual creation of marine PAs and
strengthening of coastal PAs. The Albanian Government intends to double the PA surface and expand the MPA
coverage, ensuring better biogeographically representation, as well as higher management effectiveness, and
diversification of revenue sources. Thus, project outcomes will feed into the MEFWA policies aimed at the
improvement of the MPA system management.
C.
DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH gef strategies AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:
10.
The project will contribute significantly to meeting the targets of GEF Focal Area Strategy and Strategic
Objective 1 (SO-1), Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems at national levels/ Strategic Priority 2:
Increasing Representation of Effectively Managed Marine Protected Areas in Protected Area Systems. This project
will contribute to the Albanian Government initiatives and strategic plans by supporting the expansion and improving
the management effectiveness of its marine and coastal protected area network. The focus of the proposed project is
(a) on increasing the bio-geographic representation of the marine PAs, and (b) on provisioning of tools and means that
improve and strengthen coordination and capacities of institutions engaged in MPA planning and management. The
institutional and individual capacities built by the project will help the Government of Albania in establishing and
managing a balanced marine PA network in the country.
D.
JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF FINANCING SUPPORT PROVIDED WITH THE GEF RESOURCES:
11.
The nature of the project is policy development and capacity building. The project objective will be attained
through technical assistance and investment in demonstration activities. No loan or revolving-fund mechanisms are
considered appropriate, and therefore grant-type funding is considered most adequate to enable successful delivery of
the project outcomes.
E.
OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:
12.
This project is closely linked with the “PA gap assessment and MPA development” PoWPA project
implemented by MEFWA jointly with UNDP Albania. The PoWPA project aims at accomplishing a gap analysis
relevant to the terrestrial and marine PA, producing recommendations for policies on marine PAs, supporting urgent
conservation actions at some of the marine hot-spots. The present proposal uses the results of the PoWPA project to
build the case, translating the ecological gap analysis outcomes into policies and capacities. The current proposal will
continue to rely on products generated from the PoWPA project, taking them into full account when preparing the
MSP endorsement document.
13.
Another relevant initiative is the Italian cooperation grant which covers institutional support for legislation on
tourism (including the control and regulations of coastal tourism development), and tourism enhancement at the
Divjake-Karavasta National Park. Further, the project will extract lessons from a number of past and on-going GEF–
funded projects (of UNDP and World Bank). Specifically, Component I will learn from policies and practices
developed under the WB program on Integrated Coastal Zone Management which has focused on a number of coastal
planning issues, and assisting with the development of the Butrinti Park management plan. The project management
unit will maintain regular communication with the proposed new regional project “Strategic partnership for the
Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem” that aims to promote regional level collaboration on marine ecosystems.
F.
DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH
incremental reasoning:
6
14.
Under the “business-as-usual” scenario, the overall MCPA framework in Albania would remain undeveloped,
and Albania’s marine biodiversity would remain under significant threat. Numerous wetlands, lagoons, beaches,
canyons – home to threatened biodiversity, will remain outside the PA estate. The economic development along the
coast will be dominated by urban and tourism infrastructure and unsustainable fishing. Certain progress is likely in the
expansion of the PA estate, however given the drastic capacity constraints, marine PAs are unlikely to be established,
and coastal protected areas would remain weak in ensuring proper security for the threatened marine biodiversity. The
PA governance is likely to suffer from lack of inter-institutional coordination. Capacities of local environmental
inspectors and PA managers to control illegal resource extraction will remain basic. Under the GEF alternative
scenario, Albania’s marine and coastal biodiversity will benefit from a concentrated effort to cover the outstanding
regulatory and legal basis for coastal and marine PAs, extend conservation to areas which are currently unprotected,
build lasting capacities of institutions and individuals directly engaged in marine biodiversity protection. The
alternative scenario ensures higher marine ecosystem resilience to anthropogenic and climate-change threats,
stabilization of globally threatened fish, mammal and bird species.
G.
INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT
OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED, AND IF POSSIBLE INCLUDING RISK MITIGATION MEASURES THAT
WILL BE TAKEN:
Risk
Continued
overall
institutional reform in
Albania may necessitate
revision
of
project
approaches to policy- and
decision-making
on
MPAs
Insufficient
financial
resources
raised
to
implement the Strategic
Plan on Marine and
Coastal Protected Areas
(developed
under
Component I)
Level
M
Risk Mitigation strategy
The project puts in place the PA Forum as a lasting sustainable institutional network
of agencies engaged in MPA decision-making. Representation on the Forum will be
“function”-based (vs. “person”-based), thus it will ensure that whatever institution
obtains responsibilities for MPA decision making, it is included in the Forum. This
will prevent any disruption of national-level policy-making and decision-making on
MPAs.
M
Marine
and
coastal
ecosystems are susceptive
to climate change impacts
M
For the first time in PA governance in Albania, the MCPA will create proper legal and
operational basis for diversification of funding sources for MPAs and protected areas
more broadly. Three main funding sources will be stipulated: (a) budget allocations,
(b) revenue raised by PAs themselves, (c) donor funding. It is recognized that budget
funding may remain limited in the current economic situation. The project, therefore
will put special emphasis on allowing PAs to earn and retain own income; the project
will show-case business planning in the created marine PA, and pilot concrete
revenue-generation mechanisms under the business plan. At the same-time, Albania
enjoys continued flows of Official Development Aid, and the project will closely
maintain contacts with donors and Government to insure that more ODA incorporates
integrated coastal zone management including support to marine and coastal protected
areas.
Project activities aimed at setting the MPA and planning for its expansion will take
full account of climate change risks; proposed new MPAs and extension of coastal
PAs will factor in the climate change risk data and conservation recommendations for
each site will include measures to account for climate change risks and increase
ecosystem resilience. Demonstration activities in Component II support concrete
conservation efforts at 35,000 ha; they will remove anthropogenic loads (unsustainable
fishing, infrastructure development) and this will lower the overall pressure on marine
ecosystems increasing their resilience to climate change.
H.
DESCRIBE, IF POSSIBLE, THE EXPECTED cost-effectiveness OF THE PROJECT:
15.
The pursuit of the goal of increasing protection of Albania’s marine biodiversity can theoretically be
accomplished through 2 approaches. The first approach is the expansion of protected areas. The second approach is
the integration of the biodiversity concerns into coastal zone sectors without creation of protected areas. Firstly, given
the extensive presence of critically endangered and threatened species along Albania’s coast (as described in Section
A), the conservation efficacy of the second approach is highly questionable: even moderate sectoral changes are
unlikely to ensure full protection for such species and their habitats. Going beyond moderate modifications in coastal
sector policies will be times more expensive than a one-off investment in the creation of protected areas entailing
targeted local adjustments to sectoral activities in and around the areas. The first approach, therefore, is more costeffective. Moreover, without impacting the viability of Albania’s economic sectors along the coast, properly
organized protected areas by themselves can become an important source of revenue for local communities. The
project, among other things, includes one-off investment in building the foundation for such “proper organization” of
7
marine and coastal PAs, with a view to enable them to diversify funding source. This philosophy is at the heart of the
cost-effectiveness argument for the project. A full cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted at the PPG stage.
I.
JUSTIFY THE comparative advantage OF GEF AGENCY:
16.
The project fits with the comparative advantage matrix of GEF implementing agencies. The Government of
Albania has requested UNDP assistance for the design and implementation of this project due to UNDP’s proven
record region-wide and globally in developing the enabling environment for protected area establishment and
management. The project deals with policy development, improvement of institutional coordination and capacity
building, which are mainstream functions of UNDP. Currently, UNDP is supporting a number of projects in Europe
and CIS focused on catalyzing the sustainability of protected areas with an impact on more than 60 protected areas in
the region covering more than 16 million hectares. In GEF IV UNDP has submitted and is planning to submit several
projects in Europe and CIS focusing on improving representation of the marine and coastal protected area systems in
Russia, Turkey, Montenegro and Croatia. UNDP country office in Albania has been managing a robust portfolio of
environmental projects. It has maintained close cooperation with the environmental government and research
institutions and is fully capable of implementing the proposed project.
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF
AGENCY(IES)
A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT (S) ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S):
(Please attach the country endorsement letter(s) or regional endorsement letter(s) with this template).
NAME
POSITION
MINISTRY
Prof. Dr. Pellumb
Abeshi,
National GEF Operational Focal
Point, General Secretary of the
MEFWA
Ministry of Environment,
Forestry and Water
Administration
DATE (Month,
year)
March 28, 2009
day,
B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for
project identification and preparation.
Agency
Coordinator,
Agency name
Yannick
Glemarec,
UNDP
Signature
Date
(Month, day,
year)
Project
Contact
Person
Telephone
Email Address
April 9
Adriana
Dinu
+421 2 59
337 332
adriana.dinu@undp.org
8