09-17-07 MSP Proposal Request 3292

MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL REQUEST FOR FUNDING UNDER THE GEF TRUST FUND 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: years GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity GEF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: SO 1- To catalyze Sustainability of Protected Area Systems GEF STRATEGIC PROGRAM: SP – Strengthening Terrestrial Protected Area Networks IA/ExA FEE: $100,000 CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS IDENTIFIED IN THE FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES: - Terrestrial ecosystem coverage in national protected area systems (formally proclaimed PA’s contribute >50% to country PA representivity targets) - Extent of habitat cover maintained in protected area systems (175,581ha) - Protected area management effectiveness (22 PA’s exceed METT score of 30) - Total revenue and diversification in revenue streams (>US$300,000 government budget allocation to PA management) FINANCING PLAN ($) PPG Project* GEF Total US$ 1,000,000 Co-financing (provide details in Section b: Co-financing) GEF IA/ExA Government US$ 266,400 Others US$ 3,895 ,000 Co-financing Total US$ 4,161,400 Total US$ 5,161,400 Financing for Associated Activities If Any: * If project is multi-focal, indicate agreed split between focal area allocations FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP** GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($) Approved on behalf of the United Nations Development Program This proposal has been prepared in *** Projects are jointly by more accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the Reviewthat Criteria forimplemented GEF than one IA or ExA Medium-sized Projects *Terminal Evaluation/Project Completion Report Deputy Executive Coordinator a.i UNDP-GEF Date: 14 September 2007 MILESTONES PIF APPROVAL PPG APPROVAL MSP EFFECTIVENESS MSP START MSP CLOSING Ms Adriana Dinu TE/PC Biodiversity REPORT* Regional Technical Advisor: DATES November 2006 n/a November, 2007 15 January, 2008 30 January, 2011 30 March, 2011 UNDP-GEF Europe and the CIS Tel and email: +421 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 PROJECT SUMMARY a) PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUPUTS AND ACTIVITIES .6 b) KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS COUNTRY OWNERSHIP a) COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY b) COUNTRY DRIVENNESS PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY 10 a) PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY 10 b) PROJECT DESIGN 12 (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) SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY) .38 d) REPLICABILITY 38 e) STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 39 f) MONITORING AND EVALUATION 41 FINANCING 47 a) FINANCING PLAN, COST EFECTIVENESS, CO-FINANCING, CO-FINANCIERS 47 (i) Project costs 47 47 (ii) Project management Budget/cost 47 (iii) Consultants working for technical assistance components: 48 (iv) Co-financing Sources 49 (v) Cost-effectiveness 49 INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT 49 a) CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES .49 (i) Linkages with other GEF-financed project in Macedonia 50 b) IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS 51 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (ATTACHED AS SEPARATE FILES) 52 a) Country Endorsement Letter (RAF endorsement letter if BD or CC project) 52 b) Confirmed letters of commitments from co-financiers (with English translations) 52 PART III – RESPONSE TO REVIEW 53 A CONVENTION SECRETARIAT B OTHER IAS AND RELEVANT EXAS C STAP 53 53 53 ANNEXURES .54 ANNEXURE I PROJECT LOGFRAME ANNEXURE II TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN ANNEXURE III MAP OF PROTECTED AREAS IN MACEDONIA ANNEXURE IV BASELINE METT SCORES FOR MACEDONIA’S PROTECTED AREAS -Page 2- 54 57 60 61 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 63 ANNEXURE VI TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROJECT STAFF, SEPCIALIST CONSULTANTS AND SERVICE CONTRACTS 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 PROJECT SUMMARY a) PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUPUTS AND ACTIVITIES 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’ 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 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 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 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 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) The proposed project will align itself with Strategic Objective - ‘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 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 (‘Sustainable financing of protected area systems’) 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 The key indicators for the project objective/outcome are as follows 2: 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 Increase in number, and extent (ha), of protected areas formally proclaimed in terms of the Law on Nature Protection Increase in number of protected areas with an effective and properly resourced management institution % contribution of formally proclaimed PA estate to meeting the country representivity targets 4.Financial scorecard for national systems of protected areas % of viable populations of endemic and threatened taxa occurring within the formally proclaimed protected area network 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 % alignment of land use planning and land uses in Macedonia with ecological network requirements Number of protected areas with approved management plans Total government operational budget (including HR and capital budget) allocation for protected area management Increase in competence, levels and standards of the protected area institutions % 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 Number of protected areas with delegated management institutions Number of protected areas exceeding a minimum baseline METT score of 30 Additional resources (US$) allocated by the GM to fund the reproclamation processes in other (non-funded) protected areas 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 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 not have the capacity or resources to manage protected areas High 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 Page 76 MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system - Collate all the above information into a “Directions for the Macedonian Protected Area System” report 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$ 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 reproclamation 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 biodiversity of the PA estate 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 biodiversity 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 Alternative Increment 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 Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 27 12 Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders 6 80 MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions 3 Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels 6 30 45 21 Total Macedonian PA System Score Strategic Areas of Support Systemic Institutional Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders 2 Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions 1 Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels 13 14 Total Individual % of Actual Score of TPS (Average) Strategic Areas of Support Systemic Institutional Individual Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme 66.66 33.33 Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 22.22 29.63 33.33 Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders 33.33 33.33 66.66 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 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) Strategic Area of Support Capacity Level Outcome Indicators (Scorecard) Outcome Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programmes Systemic The protected area agenda is being effectively championed / driven forward 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 Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programmes Institutional There is an institution responsible for protected areas able to strategize and plan 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 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 recourses 82 MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Systemic There are protected area systems Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 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 Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Institutional Protected areas have regularly updated, participatorly prepared, comprehensive management plans Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Institutional Human resources are well qualified and motivated Institutional 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 This is currently only applicable to the national parks 83 MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system 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 Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Institutional Protected area institutions are highly transparent, fully audited, and publicly accountable Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Institutional There are legally designated protected area institutions with the authority to carry out their mandate Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Institutional Protected areas are effectively protected Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Individual Individuals are able to advance and develop professionally Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Individual Individuals are appropriately skilled for their jobs Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes Individual Individuals are highly motivated Individual There are appropriate systems of training, mentoring, and learning in place to maintain a continuous flow of new staff 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 Some mechanisms exist but unable to develop enough and unable to provide the full range of skills needed There are some mechanisms in the 84 MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system national parks but they are also in the stage of post transition Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders Systemic Protected areas have the political commitment they require Some political will exists, but is not strong enough to make a difference Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders Systemic Protected areas have the public support they require Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders Institutional Protected area institutions are mission oriented Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders Institutional Protected area institutions can establish the partnerships needed to achieve their objectives 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 Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders Individual Individuals carry appropriate values, integrity and attitudes 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 Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge Institutional Protected area institutions have the information needed to their work 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 consistent Some information exists, but is of poor quality and of limited usefulness and difficult to access 85 MSP: Strengthening the Ecological, Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge Individual Individuals working with protected areas work effectively together as a team Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn Systemic Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn Systemic Protected area policy is continually reviewed and updated Society monitors the state of protected areas Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn Institutional Institutions are highly adaptive, responding effectively and immediately to change Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn Institutional Institutions have effective internal mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn Individual Individuals are adaptive and continue to learn Separate Scorecard: Total CD Indicator Scorecard: 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 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 Parks points: point: 25 points: points: 35points 86 ... (= -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... 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... 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