09-17-07 MSP Proposal Request 3292

* If project is multi-focal, indicate agreed split between focal area allocations

*** Projects that are jointly implemented by more than one IA or ExA

*Terminal Evaluation/Project Completion Report

TRUST FUND

GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3292IA/ExA PROJECT ID: 3728COUNTRY: Macedonia

PROJECT TITLE: Strengthening the Ecological,

Institutional and Financial sustainability of Macedonia’s Protected Area system

GEF IA/ExA: UNDP

OTHERPROJECTEXECUTINGAGENCY(IES): Ministry

of Environment and Physical Planning

DURATION: 3 years

GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity

GEF STRATEGICOBJECTIVES: SO 1- To catalyze

Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

GEF STRATEGIC PROGRAM: SP 3 – Strengthening

Terrestrial Protected Area Networks

- 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 ($)

Co-financing (provide details in Section b:Co-financing)

Financing for Associated Activities If Any:

FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP**GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT 3

1.PROJECT SUMMARY 3

a)PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUPUTS AND ACTIVITIES 3

b)KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS 3

2.COUNTRY OWNERSHIP 3

a)COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY 3

b)COUNTRY DRIVENNESS 3

3.PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY 3

a)PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY 3

(ii) The Baseline - Threats, Root Causes and Barriers 3

Threats and root causes 3

Normative situation 3

The Baseline Scenario 3

(iii) The GEF Alternative 3

(iv) Global Environmental benefits – incremental reasoning 3

a)FINANCING PLAN, COST EFECTIVENESS, CO-FINANCING, CO-FINANCIERS 3

(i)Project costs 3

(ii)Project management Budget/cost 3

(iii)Consultants working for technical assistance components: 3

(iv) Co-financing Sources 3

(v) Cost-effectiveness 3

5INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT 3

a)CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES 3

(i) Linkages with other GEF-financed project in Macedonia 3

b)IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS 3

6.REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (ATTACHEDASSEPARATEFILES) 3

a)COUNTRY ENDORSEMENT LETTER (RAF ENDORSEMENT LETTER IF BD OR CC PROJECT) 3

b)CONFIRMED LETTERS OF COMMITMENTS FROM CO-FINANCIERS (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS) 3

PART III – RESPONSE TO REVIEW 3

ACONVENTION SECRETARIAT 3

BOTHER IAS AND RELEVANT EXAS 3

CSTAP 3

ANNEXURE I PROJECT LOGFRAME 3

ANNEXURE IITOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN 3

ANNEXURE IIIMAP OF PROTECTED AREAS IN MACEDONIA 3

ANNEXURE IVBASELINE METT SCORES FOR MACEDONIA’S PROTECTED AREAS 3

ANNEXURE VFINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS… ……… ……….3

ANNEXURE VITERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROJECT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS 3

ANNEXURE VIIINCREMENTAL COST MATRIX 3

ANNEXURE VIIICAPACITY DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR SCORECARD FOR PROTECTED AREA INSTITUTIONS IN MACEDONIA 3

APR Annual Project Report

BSPSM Bird Study and Protection Society of Macedonia

CARDS EU Program for Balkan Countries, “Community Assistance for Reconstruction,Development and Stabilisation

CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCOP Conference of Parties (CBD)

DI Designated Institution

EIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Information SystemENR Ezerani Nature Reserve

GDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information System

METT Management Effectiveness Tracking ToolNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PIR Project Implementation Review

POC Project Oversight Committee

RCU Regional Coordinating Unit (UNDP)

REC Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe

SEPA Strategic Environmental Policy AssessmentSDC Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationSGP Small Grants Program (GEF)

SIDA Swedish International Development Agency

TPR Tripartite Review

TTR Terminal Tripartite Review

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNDP-CO United Nations Development Programme – Country Office

PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT

a) PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

1 A general characteristic of the biodiversity of the Republic of Macedonia (RM) is its high levels oftaxonomic diversity, relictness and endemism Some 30 plant communities in Macedonia areconsidered seriously endangered and threatened with extinction, or considerably reduced in theirpopulations and biological viability, while 252 individual plant species are locally endemic and at least70 species are threatened Macedonia also hosts 602 faunal species and 72 sub-species (7 % of the totalcurrent number of recorded taxa) that are locally endemic and 113 species that are consideredthreatened Although the entire territory of Macedonia encompasses only 0.5% of the Europeancontinent and 5% of the Balkan Peninsula, a disproportionately large portion of European biodiversityis concentrated within this small country, ranging from approximately 34% of vascular plants, 12% ofthe 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 regionconcentrated in Macedonia, the country is widely recognized as the top European ‘BiodiversityHotspot’1.

2 National legislation, strategies and sector development plans emphasize that one of the keymechanisms to secure this unique biodiversity is the establishment and management of a formalprotected area network As a country in transition, Macedonia is currently seeking to align itslegislation and the design, planning and management of its protected area network with global andEuropean best practice.

3 The threats to Macedonia’s protected areas are primarily linked to: their insecure legal andinstitutional tenure; the extremely limited skills and capacity of the responsible national environmentaland local protected area agencies; illegal development and resource use in protected areas; the generallack of political and civil support for protected areas as an economically viable land use; and theinappropriate management and unsustainable use of protected areas to meet individual protected areaagencies economic imperatives; and The country is severely under-resourced and under-capacitated inthe protected area management sector and has had to adopt a utilitarian, focused and incrementalapproach to addressing the considerable constraints to the effective management of its protected areas.4 With the recent promulgation of more modern enabling legislation for its protected areas,Macedonia is currently embarking on a process of developing a more representative network ofprotected 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 planningframework for their management Under the ‘normative’ situation, Macedonia will comprehensivelyimplement all the requirements of the new Law on Nature Protection (2004) This will result in: (i) thedesign of a more representative protected area network; (ii) the demarcation, classification and formalproclamation of all protected areas within the network; (iii) the establishment of new, or expansion ofexisting, protected areas to address key gaps in the network; (iv) the delegation to capacitated andresourced institutions of management authority for each protected area; (v) the drafting of an integratedmanagement plan for each protected area, directed by a coordinated policy framework for the nationalnetwork; (vi) the development, and effective operational management, of protected areas; and (vii) theongoing assessment and monitoring of the effectiveness of the protected area estate

1 Crivelli, 1996; Gasc et al., 1997; Harrison, 1982; Mitchell-Jones et.al, 1999

The barriers to achieving this ‘normative’ situation include: (i) A significant disjuncture between thelegal and policy framework and the actual institutional capacity to implement the legislation andassociated policies; (ii) No, or severely limited, planning and operational capacity and resources in mostprotected areas; (iii) Unclear boundaries, ownership and use rights within protected areas; (iv) Under-representation of lowland habitats in the protected area network; (v) Institutional duplication andoverlaps in functions in protected areas; and (vi) Sub-optimal knowledge management systems for theprotected area network

5 The project strategy is specifically directed toward supporting the Government of Macedonia (GM)in meeting the rigorous protected area system planning and proclamation requirements of the Law onNature Protection The proposed project will develop the institutional and systemic capacity of thecountry’s protected area agencies to: (i) strengthen the national knowledge systems, and applyappropriate technologies, to support the design and development of a more representative and viableprotected 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 andmechanisms in the formal re-proclamation processes of two pilot protected areas The project will seekto ensure that the protected area estate in Macedonia graduates in status from poorly managed(ineffective in protecting biodiversity) toward well managed (effectively mitigating threats).

6 The proposed project will align itself with Strategic Objective 1 - ‘Catalyzing sustainability ofprotected 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 theirmanagement objectives’, while it will seek to support the GM in: (iii) identifying mechanisms to ensure

that ‘sufficient and predictable revenue available to support protected area management costs’ are

available It will explicitly address Strategic Program 3 of the Biodiversity Focal Area - ‘Strengtheningterrestrial protected area networks’ - by ensuring that the protected area network in Macedonia betterrepresents, and more effectively conserves, the diversity of the country’s ecosystems and habitats Theproject will develop a legal, planning and institutional framework for protected areas and protected areaagencies 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 arepresentative protected area network will be developed The project will seek to then strengthenprotected area institutions, and develop decision-support tools, to enable the incremental expansion ofthe 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, tosupporting Strategic Program 1 (‘Sustainable financing of protected area systems’).

7 The Government of Macedonai has requested UNDP assistance for the design and implementationof this project, due to UNDP’s proven record globally and in the Europe and CIS region in developingthe enabling environment for protected area establishment and management in terms of policy,governance, institutional capacity and management know-how The comparative advantage of UNDPMacedonia in implementing the proposed project lies in the fact that UNDP Macedonia is the onlyagency, among other GEF implementing agencies, that is locally present and works extensively in thearea of environmental protection Furthermore, UNDP Macedonia’s existing in-depth local knowledge,positive working relationships with local authorities and partners and extensive operation network inthe area of environmental protection in the country will certainly ensure the quality and sustainability ofproject outputs and outcome.

b) KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

8 The key indicators for the project objective/outcome are as follows2:

A comprehensive, representative andeffectively managed national protectedarea system is in place

1 Increase in number, and extent (ha), of protected areas formally proclaimed in terms of the Law on Nature Protection

2 Increase in number of protected areas with an effective and properly resourced management institution

3 % contribution of formally proclaimed PA estate to meeting the country representivity targets

4.Financial scorecard for national systems of protected areas

Outcome 1: A representative national

protected area system is designed 1 % of viable populations of endemic and threatened taxa occurring within the formally proclaimed protected area network2 Extent (as a % of total area) of different habitat types/ biome represented within the formally proclaimed protected area network3 % alignment of land use planning and land uses in Macedonia with ecological network requirements

Outcome 2: Improved systemic and

institutional capacity provides the enabling framework for establishing and managing a representative protected area network

1 Number of protected areas with approved management plans2 Total government operational budget (including HR and capital budget) allocation for protected area management

3 Increase in competence, levels and standards of the protected area institutions

Outcome 3: PA establishment and

planning processes field tested and replicated across the PA network

1 % increase in competence levels of protected area institutions for pilot PA’s

2 Number of protected areas with delegated management institutions3 Number of protected areas exceeding a minimum baseline METT score of 30

4 Additional resources (US$) allocated by the GM to fund the proclamation processes in other (non-funded) protected areas

re-9 The potential risks, their rating and the mitigation strategy proposed by the project are as follows:

RatingRisk mitigation strategy

There are delays in the drafting and promulgation of regulations/bylaws related to the Law on Nature Protection

Low The Government is already committed to approximate the legal

framework to the EU framework, and has developed a time-bound actionplan 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.

There is a lack of Low The project will establish a Project Oversight Committee (POC), chaired 2 The GEF Biodiversity Programme outcome indicators, and the associated CBD 2010 targets, have been

integrated into the table

coordination across, and collaboration between, key stakeholder groups

by MEPP, to facilitate the coordinated implementation of project activities across affected organizations.

Conflicts arising during proclamation processes cannot be timeously addressed and resolved

re-Medium 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 Government fails to commit sufficient financial support to protected area planning and operations, and protected areas are unable to finance the subsequent shortfall

Medium 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 assessthe 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 mechanismsat 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’

Current institutions do not have the capacity or resourcesto manage protected areas

High 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

10 The Republic of Macedonia (RM) ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1997

(Official Gazette of RM 54/97) and became Party to the Convention on 2 March, 1998 The RM meetsthe eligibility criteria decided by the Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings, and is eligible forUNDP country assistance

11 The project activities conform to many of the country priority needs initially identified in the

Country Study for Biodiversity of theRepublic of Macedonia (2003) prepared for the First NationalReport (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 therecent Third National Report (2005), prepared for the CBD The project objective and activities willsupport the implementation of a number of priority activities identified in the National Capacity Needs

Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management (NCSA, 2005).

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 forSustainable Development in the Republic of Macedonia is also currently in preparation, while aNational 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 ofthese national and sectoral development strategies Conversely the project will also seek to guide anddirect 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 environmentalmanagement and biodiversity conservation The national reports, national and sector development plansand inter-governmental agreements all focus on the need to: (i) design and establish a representativenational system of protected areas, particularly focused on including under-represented habitats into thisnetwork of protected areas; (ii) secure the legal and institutional tenure of the protected areas within thenetwork; (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 stakeholderinvolvement, 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 reportsand the national and sector development plans, specifically with respect to the improvement of therepresentivity, extent, security of tenure, and the management effectiveness of its protected areanetwork

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 inthe design of the protected area system in Macedonia, securing the legal and institutional tenure of theprotected area estate and strengthening the planning and management capacity of the protected areas tobecome more politically, socially and financially sustainable The project will adopt an integratedlandscape approach in the planning of a representative PA network in order to: to link the protected areasystem in Macedonia to the country’s ecological network; link the PA system to the regions network ofgreenbelts; and secure viable biological corridors, and physical connectivity between individualprotected areas The project has, as a key focus, the strengthening of the systemic and institutionalcapacity of the protected area institutions in Macedonia.

Conformity with Priority Programming Areas

16 The project will align itself with Strategic Objective 1 (‘Catalyzing sustainability of protected areasystems’) of the Biodiversity Focal Area: Strategic Programming for GEF-4 (Final Draft dated April27, 2007) It will seek to achieve the following characteristics of a sustainable protected area system: (i)

‘includ(ing) coverage of ecologically viable, representative samples of ecosystems’; and (ii) ensur(ing)

adequate individual, institutional and systemic capacity … to manage protected areas such that theyachieve their management objectives’, while it will seek to support the GM in: (iii) identifying

mechanisms to ensure that ‘sufficient and predictable revenue available to support protected area

management costs’ are available The project seeks to ensure that a representative protected area estate

in Macedonia graduates in status from poorly managed (ineffective in protecting biodiversity) towardwell managed (effectively mitigating threats).

17 It will address Strategic Program 3 of the Biodiversity Focal Area (‘Strengthening terrestrialprotected area networks’) by securing better terrestrial ecosystem coverage design of the protected areanetwork in Macedonia The project will specifically support the GM in developing an ‘ecologicalnetwork’ for Macedonia that links with the regional European ecological networks The project willsupport the identification of targets for habitat and ecosystem representation in Macedonia and design aprotected area network, within the spatial framework of the larger ‘ecological network’, to realize thesetargets At the national level, the project will strengthen the institutional capacity of protected areaagencies and develop decision-support tools to more effectively manage, and expand, the protected areanetwork in Macedonia At the local level, the project will support and develop the capacity of protectedarea institutions to consolidate/rationalize/expand, proclaim and plan a pilot IUCN Category I andIUCN Category III protected area It will also contribute, in part, to supporting Strategic Program 1(‘Sustainable financing of protected area systems’) and will explicitly address the cross-cutting themeof ‘Capacity-Building’ at the institutional and systemic level

18 The project will contribute to the achievement of GEF’s main indicators under this priorityprogramming area as follows:

Relevant GEF-4 BD Strategic objective (SO)

Expected impacts

(long-term)Relevant GEF-4 BD IndicatorsProject contribution to GEF-4 BD Indicators

SO-1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Biodiversity conserved and sustainably used in protected area system

 Extent of habitat cover (hectares) by biome type maintained as measured by cover and fragmentation in protected area system Protected area management

effectiveness as measured by protected area scorecards that assess site management, financial sustainability and capacity

Expected outcomesRelevant GEF-4 BD IndicatorsProject contribution to GEF-4 BD Indicators

Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at National Level

(i) Protected area system secures increased revenue and diversification of revenue streams to meet total expenditures requiredto meet management objectives

(ii) Reduction in financinggap to meet protected area

 Total revenue and diversification in revenue streams

>US$300,000 governmentbudget allocation to PA management

- Terrestrial ecosystem coverage in national protected area systems

management objectivesStrengthened Terrestrial

Protected Area Networks (i) Improved ecosystem coverage of represented terrestrial ecosystems areas as part of national protected area system

under-(ii) Improved managementof terrestrial protected areas

 Terrestrial ecosystem coverage in national protected area systems

 Protected area management effectiveness as measured by individual protected area scorecards

Formally proclaimed PA’s contribute >50% to country PA representivitytargets

22 PA’s exceed METT score of 15

Operational Programme conformity

19 The project is consistent with the Operational Programs for Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems (OP 1)and Forests (OP 3) It will meet the requirements of OP 1 and OP 3 through: (i) the identification ofpriority areas for protected area expansion to meet representivity targets; (ii) the formal demarcationand gazetting of the current protected areas in term of the requirements of the new Law on NatureProtection; (iii) the development of tools, techniques and technologies to support the validation,categorization, demarcation and management planning of the protected area network, and individualprotected areas within the network; and (iv) the strengthening of capacity at the systemic andinstitutional levels to improve conditions for, and better enable, the development of functionalpartnerships between government, communities and the private sector in the expansion and operationalmanagement of protected areas.

CBD Conformity

20 The project is designed to support Article 8 (in situ conservation of biodiversity) of the Convention

on Biological Diversity (CBD) The project will contribute to the CBD Protected Areas Programme ofWork through the ‘establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive, effectively managed, andecologically representative national system of protected areas’ in Macedonia under Programme Element1 The project will more specifically address Goals 1.1, 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1 and 4.4 of the CBD COPVII /Decision 28 (Protected Areas, Articles 8 a)-e)) and the requirement to develop ‘tool kits to supportthe identification, designation, management, monitoring and evaluation of national and regionalsystems of protected areas’ contained in the CBD COP VIII/Decision 24 (Protected Areas) The projectalso follows the guidance and decisions provided to the financial mechanisms by the Conference of theParties to the CBD

Relief map of the Republic of Macedonia

22 The RM is predominantly a mountainous country, cut by valleys, gorges, plateaus, and highlands.Altitude ranges from about 60m at the lowest point to 2,764m at the highest point It has about 15mountain ranges higher than 2000m The country falls within three watersheds: the Adriatic Sea (~15%of the territory); the Aegean Sea (~85% of the territory); and the Black Sea (<1% of the territory) TheVardar River, with a length of 300km within the borders of Macedonia is the largest river, containingsome 80% of water flow leaving Macedonia A number of natural tectonic lakes occur in the country, ofwhich the most significant are Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran Two main climate types occur – modifiedMediterranean and continental – with weather conditions characterized by cold, wet winters and dry,hot summers.

23 Although the entire territory of Macedonia encompasses only 0.5% of the European continent and5% of the Balkan Peninsula, a disproportionately large portion of European biodiversity is concentratedwithin this small country, ranging from approximately 34% of vascular plants, 12% of the freshwaterfish species, 29% amphibians, 29% reptiles, 62% birds and 50% of mammal species At the regionalscale the biodiversity of Macedonia encompasses 70-90% of the entire Balkan biodiversity Basedupon an analysis of biodiversity richness among the countries of Europe, the RM holds the top position

on the "European Hotspot" list (Crivelli, 1996; Gasc et al., 1997; Harrison, 1982; Mitchell-Jones et al.,

24 The vegetation of Macedonia comprises a diverse mosaic of plant communities, with more than260 discrete plant assemblages recorded, a number of which are rare, relictual (tertiary, glacial, borealand steppe relicts) and/or endemic Some 30 plant communities are considered seriously endangeredand threatened with extinction, or considerably reduced in their populations and biological viability Ofspecial importance are those with restricted distribution among the aquatic, wetland, meadow,halophytic, steppe-like, forest, sub-alpine, highland pastures and alpine vegetation communities Thereare some 1,580 lower plant organisms (algae, fungi, lichens), of which algae is represented by the

greatest level of endemism, with 135 endemic algal taxa (8.5% of total algal flora) The flora of thehigher plant groups (angiosperms, mosses, ferns, gymnosperms) is moderately rich (3,700 species),with 117 endemic species Although the country has not yet formally compiled a list of endangeredplant species, preliminary data suggests that the country is home to at least 70 plant taxa, of which 18are local endemics (NBSAP, 2004)

25 A general characteristic of the fauna of Macedonia is its high degree of taxonomic diversity,relictness and endemism The fauna of Macedonia is represented by 9,339 species and 228 sub-species,of which 674 taxa, including 602 species and 72 subspecies (7 % of the total current number ofrecorded taxa), are local endemics The invertebrate fauna, dominated by Arthropods, comprise 8,833species while the vertebrate fauna comprises 506 species (58 fish species, 15 amphibian species, 32reptile species, 319 bird species and 82 species of mammals) One hundred and thirteen (22% of totalspecies composition) of the vertebrate faunal species are considered threatened (NBSAP, 2004)

26 Many of the lower order floral endemics and invertebrate faunal endemics are dependent on thehealthy functioning of the aquatic ecosystems of Macedonia, notably the tectonic lake systems, thewatershed of the Vardar river and remnants of lowland marshes and swamps By example, the threelakes, Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran, are characterized by exceptionally rich biodiversity, with 216, 24 and12 resident endemic taxa respectively (NBSAP, 2004)

Socio-economic context

27 Macedonia is a small country with a total population of 2,022,547 inhabitants (2002 census) It hasan average population density of 78.6 inhabitants/ km2, of which roughly 60 percent are concentrated inurban areas While the processes of industrialization and urbanization in Macedonia have had a positiveinfluence on the development of towns and their nearby villages, they have negatively impacted uponthe rural hill and mountain villages Demographic, economic, social and environmental characteristicswithin the population thus demonstrate significant rural-urban differences An important demographicfeature of the country is also its multi-ethnic composition - roughly two thirds of the inhabitants areethnic Macedonian (largely orthodox Christian faith) and one quarter ethnic Albanian, (largely Muslimfaith), Turks, Serbian, Roma, etc.

28 With a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.796, Macedonia is ranked 66 of 177 countries in the2004 Global Human Development Report, firmly placing it in the group of countries with a mid-levelhuman development ranking The estimated GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in Macedonia in2005 was around EUR 6,000 One of the main weaknesses of the Macedonian economy is thecontinuously high level of unemployment, officially at 37.3% in 2005.

29 Being a small country Macedonia has a relatively open economy, with foreign trade accounting forover 90 percent of GDP It is thus highly vulnerable to external developments and the economy hasbeen negatively impacted by regional instability a number of times since the Country’s independence in1991 The economic performance of the Macedonian economy during the period 2004-2006 hasstabilized, with average GDP growth of around 4% This growth has, during the last two years, beendriven largely by services such as: trade, transport and telecommunications (60% of GDP); industries(25% of GDP); and agriculture (12% of GDP) Expenditures are driven largely by exports (US$2billion in 2005) and investments Over the 2000 - 2005 period the trade deficit was, on average,equivalent to 20 per cent of GDP Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), in 2006was low and stable at 0.5% Central government budget deficit in 2006 was only 0.5% of GDP, withsurpluses on foreign accounts and the current account deficit around 1% of GDP The main economicindicators for the period 2000-2005 are tabulated below (Republic of Macedonia: NationalDevelopment Plan 2007-2009).

30 Macedonia was the first country in South East Europe to sign the Stabilization and Association

Agreement with the European Communities and it’s Member States on 9 April 2001 To achieve the

objective of joining the European Union (EU), Macedonia submitted an application for EU membershipin 2004 On 17 December 2005, the European Council granted the RM official candidate status for EU.Membership of the European Union is a high socio-economic strategic priority for the RM

Policy and legislative context

31 A Strategic Environmental Policy Assessment (SEPA) completed in 2001 identified national needs

in the environmental sector with respect to legislative reform and policy development in Macedonia As

part of the National Programme for Approximation of the National Legislation, the RM has sought to

align its environmental legislation, policy and strategies specifically with both the EU requirements andthe country obligations contained in relevant international agreements and conventions A number ofnew laws on environment, nature, air quality and waste management have recently been passed byParliament, while a draft law on waters is in the latter stages of development The drafting of secondaryregulatory legislation in the environmental sector is however still in the early stages of development.32 There are two key national laws of relevance to the management of Macedonia’s protected areas

(i) The Law on Nature Protection (2004) establishes an integrated framework for the protection ofspecies, their habitats and ecosystems It replaces the Law on the Protection of Natural Rarities, Law

on the Protection of National Parks and Law on the Protection of the Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran Lake.

It incorporates the relevant EU standards into the national legislation, including the Council Directive(1992/43) on the preservation of natural habitats The Law on Nature Protection specifically providesfor the establishment, management and monitoring of a network of different IUCN category-compliantprotected areas A key obligation of the law is the re-validation, re-classification and re-proclamation (=

the ‘re-proclamation process’ as referred to in this MSP) of all protected areas in Macedonia within 3years of gazetting.

(ii) The Law on Environment (2005) provides for the protection and improvement of the quality and

condition of the environment With regards protected areas, it specifically provides for: thedevelopment and maintenance of an environmental information system; the establishment andmaintenance of ‘environmental cadastre’; the development and implementation of NEAP 2, and localEAP’s; the ‘strategic environmental assessment’ of protected area plans; and the regulation of access togovernment ‘environmental funds’ for nature protection.

33 Various policy documents frame government policy for biodiversity conservation and theestablishment and management of protected areas.

34 The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2004) identifies a number of strategic

objectives for biodiversity conservation for the period 2004-2008 This project will seek to supportobjective 4 (“to establish a database for … protected areas …”) and objective 6 (“to improve themanagement system within the existing protected areas…”) of the NBSAP The project will morespecifically align with the following NBSAP high priority activities: (i) the design of a representativenetwork of protected areas; (ii) the evaluation and categorization of the existing protected areas in thecontext of this protected area network; (iii) the strengthening of institutions responsible for protectedarea planning and management; and (iv) the expansion (‘extension’) of the system of protected areas.35 The medium-term policy of the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MEPP) is outlined

in Vision 2008 The strategic focus of MEPP is directed at reforming the legal, policy and planning

framework for conservation This includes the implementation of the Law on Nature Protection, thedevelopment of a National Strategy for Nature Protection and the preparation of plans for protected areamanagement This project will provide support to MEPP in implementing the Law on NatureProtection, with specific reference to the design of a protected area network, the expansion of protectedareas, and the validation, re-categorization, re-proclamation and management planning of protectedareas.

36 The ‘natural resources’ theme of the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Macedonia (2004) targets the

formal preservation of 265 areas and sites by 2020, including: 5 national parks (total area of 188,196ha), 8 strictly natural reservations (total area of 13,682 ha), 38 scientific-exploration naturalreservations (total area of 11,836 ha), 6 regions with special natural characteristics (total area of13,966ha), one characteristic scenery (200 ha), 26 special natural reservations (total area of 5,155 ha), 14various plant and animal species (total area of 2,645 ha), and 167 monuments of nature (total area of62,886 ha) This project will seek to strengthen institutions, and develop tools and mechanisms, in orderto support progress toward meeting this target

37 The second National Environment Action Plan (2006) defines the environmental problems and the

measures and activities required to address these over a six year time frame It establishes a flexibleframework for achievement of the main goals of the NEAP: continuation of the process ofapproximation with the EU environmental policy; management of an integrated policy framework;establishment of directions for environmentally sustainable management; strengthening compliancewith regional and global conventions and agreements; and the development of links with other regionalenvironmental management systems Under the ‘Nature and Biodiversity’ theme, NEAP 2 identifiesthree priority actions that provide a point of entry for the project: (i) ‘Re-valorization’, and‘categorization’, of the ‘natural heritage’; (ii) Strengthening capacities of, and development ofguidelines for preparation and implementation of management plans for, protected areas with theemphasis on financial mechanisms for nature protection (pilot project); and (iii) Establishment of anational environmental network.

38 The Strategy for Sustainable Development of Forestry in the Republic of Macedonia (2006) seeks

to enlarge the extent and quality of forests, optimize the socio-economic benefits from the use of theseforests and improve the sustainable management and funding of forests Key medium-term prioritymeasures in the strategy that are linked to this project include: analyzing the state of the ‘protectedforest networks’; identifying the most appropriate institutional arrangement for management of‘protected forests’; strengthening the capacity, and defining the jurisdictions, of institutions responsiblefor protected forest management; and strengthening cross-sectoral integration in forest management.The project will also seek to promote the re-classification of protected forests to align with the newclassification system in the Law on Nature Protection (2004).

Protected Areas

39 The RM currently has 80 protected areas covering an area of approximately 188,081 ha or 7.32% ofthe land surface of Macedonia The table below indicates the numbers, and extent, of the differentcategories of current protected areas

Current classification (‘natural

of areasTotal sizesurface% ofarea

I (i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature

Reserve, Strict Nature Reserve

(ii) Nature Reserve: Common Nature

Reserve, Scientific Research Reserve

II (i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature

III (i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature

Reserve, Sites of Special Natural Character

IV (i) Areas Outside Nature Reserves Containing Certain Plant and Animal Species

V (i) Nature Reserve: Common Nature

a Classification in terms of the Law on Protection of Natural Rarities and the Laws on the Protection of National Parks These laws have nowbeen superseded by the Law on Nature Protection 67/2004 but the current reserves have not yet been re-classified

b Proposed categorization in terms of the Law on Nature Protection currently in the process of implementation The formal re- categorization

and re-proclamation of the protected areas will be supported by this project

40 Macedonia has four strictly protected areas: (i) Ezerani, on Prespa Lake is a 2,080ha wetland areaand also designated as a RAMSAR site; (ii) Tikvesh, in the Crna Reka gorge, is a 10,650hamountainous forested area; (iii) Lokvi-Golemo Konjare is 50ha; and (iv) Ploce litotelmi is 75ha.

Although the management of Ezerani and Tikvesh has been entrusted to water management companies(Resen and Kavadarci water management companies respectively), and NGO’s (Ezerani) they do nothave the capacity, skills or resources to effectively manage these areas for biodiversity conservation.

41 There are three national parks in Macedonia, all in forested, mountainous areas: (i) PelisterNational Park is the oldest national park and is 12,500ha in extent; (ii) Mavrovo National Park is thelargest protected area in the country with a total area of 73,088 hectares; and (iii) Galicica National

3 Nineteen of the IUCN category III protected areas constitute very old, individual trees protected by the state and classified as Natural Monuments

Park is situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa and is 22,750ha in extent Each national park ismanaged by a separate legally constituted public institution, a ‘National Park’ Each public institution isin turn headed by a Park Director, is fairly well staffed and generates its own income The parkinstitution is directly responsible to a cooperative governance structure, the National Park ManagementBoard (see institutional context).

42 There are 54 natural monuments and 4 sites of special natural character in Macedonia The mostimportant of these, in terms of their biodiversity significance and size, are the three tectonic lakes –

Ohrid Lake (23,000ha), also a Natural and Cultural World Heritage Site; Prespa Lake (17,690ha); andDojran Lake (2,730ha) The lakes are shared with neighboring countries, Albania (Ohrid), Albania and

Greece (Prespa), and Greece (Dojran) respectively Although the Ministry of Environment and PhysicalPlanning (MEPP) is responsible for the protection of these lakes and the Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry and Water Economy (MAFWE) for the water management of the lakes, there are stillconsiderable overlapping and unclear, jurisdictions between these ministries and the localmunicipalities, resulting in poor management of the biodiversity of these lakes The remaining 26

natural monuments and sites of special natural character vary in size from Matka Canyon (5,433ha) to

Konce (<1ha) and in type from paleontological, (Prevalec, Monastir, Karaslari, Kale Banjichko) to

caves (Mlechnik, Ubavica), geomorpohological features (Markovi Kuli, Duvalo, Zvegor), swamps(Ostrovo), waterfalls (Koleshinski,Smolarski), ornithological sites (Demir Kapija) and special forestassemblages (Murite, Mokrino) Despite the conservation significance of these sites they remain largely

unplanned and unmanaged The management of a few natural monuments has been delegated to NGOs(e.g Bird Study and Protection Society of Macedonia in Ezerani NR, Peoni in the Caynon Matka),public enterprises (e.g Institute of Old Slavic Culture) and local municipalities (e.g.Municipality ofNovo Selo), while the remaining PAs have no responsible management institution Two natural

monuments – Markovi Kuli and Slatina – have been preliminarily proposed by the GM as Natural

World Heritage Sites.

43 There are 15 areas ‘outside nature reserves containing certain plant and animal species’ in

Macedonia, ranging in size from 428ha (Cam Ciflik) to <2ha (Rucica) These PAs provide protection to

specific individual species including spruce, fir, birch, beech, a variety of pine species (Crimean pine,Black pine), wild chestnut, plane and spawning freshwater fish There is however little or no activeplanning and/or management of these PAs

44 The majority of land within the current protected area estate constitutes public landholdings, withland ownership largely vested in the state or local municipalities In a number of instances, themanagement authority for this state or municipally owned public land is then delegated on to a specialpublic institution, public enterprise or NGO (where appropriate) In a number of protected areas,privately owned land has been incorporated into the areal extent of a proclaimed protected area underthe relevant gazette without changing the title of the property The tenure of this land, and its use,typically then continues to remain with the landowner (e.g agricultural use) but the land is planned andadministered as an integral part of the protected area (e.g Mavrovos National Park) In other instances,land has been voluntarily expropriated with financial compensation (e.g Ezerani Strict Nature Reserve)for incorporation into the protected area estate.

45 The Spatial Plan of the Republic of Macedonia envisages 11.6% of the country's territory to beplaced under formal protection by 2020, while the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan(2004) establishes an optimistic target of increasing the protected area estate by 50% by 2008 Theproclamation of two additional National Parks - Jakupica and Sar Planina – has been prioritized in bothplans, although the representivity rationale for their prioritization is weak The resources and capacity toachieve these optimistic targets is weak and under-developed The current PA estate is currently poorlymanaged and any new areas proclaimed will currently expand the extent of a dysfunctional PA estate.

46 A large amount of the biodiversity in Macedonia is still concentrated outside of protected areas Interms of biodiversity significance, forests are the most important, with a total area allocated as publiclyowned ‘economic forests’, of 859,427 ha These economic forests comprise pure broadleaf stands(mostly oak and beech), mixed broadleaf stands, pure conifers (mostly Black pine and Scots pine),mixed broadleaf/coniferous stands and mixed coniferous stands Some 17,617 ha of forests have beendeclared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWE) as ‘protectedforests’ and are managed by the National Parks institutions and public forest enterprises Protectedforests do not however fit into the current categorization of protected areas, with the managementobjective for these forests primarily focused on resource harvesting, recreation, tourism and hunting.The management of protected forests is currently somewhat ineffectual, with a lack of incentive formanagers to manage these protected forests more effectively.

47 The current financial sustainability of the current national protected area system is summarized inthe Financial Scorecard attached in Annexure V The current national government budget allocation ofUS$64,000/annum for protected areas falls far short of the basic operational expenditure needs for theprotected areas of at least US$4-5m/annum Some of this shortfall (US$2.1m) is taken up by externaldonor funding agencies, and income generated from resource use of, and recreational activities in, thethree national parks The large majority of protected areas in the protected area system however have nodedicated budget for capital and operational expenditure, and are largely managed as ‘paper parks’ andby ‘benign neglect’.

Institutional Context

48 The responsibility for biodiversity conservation, and specifically protected area management, lies

with the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MEPP) The MEPP is also the national focal

Point for the Convention on Biological Diversity The Ministry primarily fulfils a policy, planning,regulatory and monitoring role for protected areas in Macedonia except in the case of Strict NatureReserves, where it is the designated responsible management authority in terms of the Law on NatureProtection (2004) Under the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning there is an Office forEnvironment that includes a Department of Nature This Department has three divisions that are dealingwith protected areas: Division for Natural Heritage Protection, Division for Biodiversity and Divisionfor Geo-diversity and Physical Planning of protected areas However, the resources, staffing (6permanent and 4 contractual staff in total) and capacity of these divisions is extremely limited Due tothis lack of capacity, MEPP may, in terms of the Law on Nature Protection, delegate the managementauthority for Strict Nature Reserves to another public entity (municipality, NGO, etc.).

49 Article 145-147 of the Law on Nature Protection provides for the establishment and functioning of

a National Council for Nature Protection, as an advisory body to the Minister of Environment and

Physical Planning In respect of protected areas, the Council will ‘issue opinion on’: (i) theidentification, proclamation, management and measures and activities for protection of theenvironmentally important areas, ecological network and the system of ecological corridors; and (ii) theacceptability of the proposal for proclamation of a protected area The Council has however not yetbeen constituted by the Minister

50 Each of the three national parks is managed by a separate special public institution – a ‘ National

Park’ as a legal entity The Law on Nature Protection regulates: (i) the requirements of the founding act

for each of the National Park institutions; (ii) the expertise and competence of staff; (iii) therepresentivity and functions of a ‘Management Board’ for each National Park; (iv) the appointmentprocess for the National Park Director and staff; (v) the functions of a ‘Board’ to control financialoperations; (vi) the establishment and functions of an ‘Expert Collegium’; and (vii) mechanisms forjoint management The national parks do not receive a subsidy from the GM and generate their own

revenue streams, the income of which is largely sourced from the exploitation of natural resources, withtimber harvest revenue being the primary source Limited income is also generated from concessionfees from hotels and/or ski resorts within the park boundaries Each National Park Authority then actslargely as an independent enterprise There is limited cross-collaboration or communication betweenthe individual National Park institutions The National Park Directors have a limited term of office,although the appointment may be renewed for the following term by the Management Board andMEPP In terms of the Law on Nature Protection, the MEPP provides a formal monitoring andoversight function over the management and operations of each of the national park institutions,although in practice this is not rigorously implemented.

51 The management of multipurpose areas is designated to public enterprises (established in terms of

Law on Public Enterprises, 1997), while the remaining categories of protected areas (naturalmonuments, nature parks and protected landscapes) are managed by ‘entities’ The current situation isthat the majority of PAs, outside of national parks, are not managed at all for biodiversity conservationobjectives.

52 The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWE) is involved in the

regulation of (e.g harvesting of timber in national parks) and operations in (e.g water management ofPrespa, Dojran and Ohrid Lakes) protected areas, although the technical and professional expertise inbiodiversity conservation is extremely limited Three public enterprises within the Ministry -“Macedonian Forests”, Water Economy in Macedonia and “Public Enterprise for Pastures” - also haveoperational responsibilities (forest management and timber harvesting activities; watershedmanagement; and pasture management respectively) within the protected areas, notably in the nationalparks

53 The Law on Local Self-Government (2002) provides that Municipalities in Macedonia must

develop general competencies in environmental management, although environmental expertise andknowledge in municipalities is currently non-existent or very low The Law on Environment howeverspecifically mandates municipalities to develop and implement Local Environmental Action Plans(LEAPs) that are aligned with NEAP 2, and capacities will need to be developed within local councils.With respect to protected areas, the Law on Nature Protection specifically provides a mechanism for therepresentation of affected local municipalities in a National Park Management Board In limited cases,local municipalities also administer access to, and use of, IUCN category III and IV PAs (e.g, NovoCelo Municipality – Smolari Waterfalls Natural Monument), although they generally undertake no orlimited conservation activities within these PAs.

54 There are a large number of environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in

Macedonia However, the majority of these NGOs are primarily focused on broad environmentalawareness and advocacy programs, and less on biodiversity conservation and PA establishment andmanagement NGO’s specifically involved in national and local biodiversity conservation issuesinclude the Macedonian Ecological Society (MES), Bioeko, Bird Study and Protection Society ofMacedonia (BSPSM), Peoni, Bisfera, Fokus, Planetum, Macedonian Society for Nature Conservation,etc while the Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is a regional non-profit organisation that encourages co-operation between NGO’s, government and business inenvironmental decision-making.

55 Important donor agencies involved in PA planning and management in Macedonia include EU,

KfW, Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation, Swiss Government, SIDA, USAID, ADA,Austrian Government and the Italian Government.

56 With the limited institutional capacities and resources available in protected area agencies,

academic and research institutions play a critically important role in supporting both the planning,

operations and monitoring of protected areas and protected area institutions These academic andresearch institutions include: University Sv Kiril I Metodij” (Faculty of Natural Science andMathematics, Faculty of Biology, Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Forestry, Faculty of Geography,Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and, Faculty of Pharmacology); Hydro-Biological Institute – Ohrid;Macedonian Academy of Science and Art; and Institute of Agriculture.

(ii) The Baseline - Threats, Root Causes and Barriers

Threats and root causes

57 The current threats to the biodiversity of Macedonia have been well documented (see NBSAP, 2004and NEAP, 2006) and are largely symptomatic of a lack of political commitments for environmentprotection, high levels of poverty, poor forward planning, inappropriate land uses and unsustainablelevels of exploitation

58 Within the protected area estate, the threats are largely linked to: illegal and unsustainabledevelopments in protected areas; illegal harvesting of natural resources; insecure legal and institutionaltenure; weak societal support for protected areas; weak management institutions; and impropermanagement and use of protected areas by protected area agencies Potential threats to the biodiversityboth within the protected area estate, and in areas identified for protection, in Macedonia include theincremental spread of invasive alien species and the negative impacts of climate change.

59 The threat of the loss, modification and fragmentation of habitats in protected areas is largely

attributable to increasing developmental pressures from the illegal (and legal) spread of recreationalfacilities and holiday homes at the ‘destination nodes’, where these PA’s are also often located This isfurther exacerbated by the increasing demand for bulk infrastructure such as roads, electricity, bulkwater supply and waste management to service this growth

60 The threat of unsustainable and illegal natural resource use has been driven largely by the

increasing poverty and unemployment levels in the rural areas, where many of the PA’s are located.Unsustainable levels of natural resource use is particularly prevalent in the freshwater protected areas(notably the 3 tectonic lakes and their catchments), where a drastic decline in the population densities ofa number of fish species has been documented in the natural lakes and river systems due to over-fishing The over exploitation of water from the natural lakes of Dojran and Prespa (for irrigationduring ‘dry years’) has also seriously impacted on the fish and benthic fauna of the lakes Althoughhunting is reasonably well regulated, the administration and management of hunting areas and huntingleases in these areas is often not properly aligned with biodiversity conservation objectives, whileillegal hunting and local poaching in protected areas is common, and poorly enforced The extent ofillegal harvesting of timber is not well documented but is reportedly significant in many unmanagedprotected areas The local collection of other wild plants (e.g mushrooms, tea, berry species, dogrose,blackthorn, chestnut, orchids, etc.) and animals (e.g European Souslik, Striped Snail, Roman Snail) forcommercial and medicinal purposes in is also poorly enforced, with limited scientific knowledge on thesustainable harvesting levels for each species.

61 With the enactment of the Law on Nature Protection, all protected areas are in a state of legal and

institutional transition The Law on Nature Protection requires that, for all protected areas: they are

re-validated in terms of their biodiversity significance; the boundaries are properly defined; they arereclassified according to the new protected area classification scheme; and they are formallypromulgated in terms of the new law A number of conflicts about ownership, boundaries and usehowever need to be resolved during this re-proclamation process; management plans need to be

prepared; PA’s properly demarcated; and the management authority for the PA delegated to a capableand adequately resourced entity In most instances, ‘capable and adequately resourced’ managemententities do not exist, while the systemic and institutional capacity in MEPP to initiate and complete there-proclamation process is very low, resulting in a threat to the immediate conservation and institutionaltenure security of the current PA estate.

62 The threat of the over-development and unsustainable natural resource use of protected areas is, in

part, driven by the economic imperative for protected areas, and their management authority, to becomefinancially independent Without the requisite expertise, PA institutions (primarily the National Parksentities) are resorting to low risk - low investment - high return activities such as timber harvesting togenerate immediate income streams for the PA entities Staff capacity and resource allocations are, inturn, directed at maintaining these income generating opportunities while conservation-based activities(a perceived drain on the budget) are only prioritized when external investments are leveraged tosupport these interventions The converse of this threat is that where PAs cannot generate incomestreams to offset management costs, they continue to be managed largely by ‘benign neglect’, as publicentities avoid delegation of management authority for these ‘non-productive’ PAs

63 The weak political and public support of protected areas is increasingly isolating the PAs from the

socio-political and economic development agenda of the country The PAs are generally perceived ashaving limited value as a productive land use and generate no, or limited benefits, to local communities.Government resource allocations to PA management reflect this perception The linkage of PAs to ruraldevelopment programs is negligible Political interference in PA management often overridesbiodiversity conservation objectives, with no support from the broader public to limit this politicalinterference Conversely, Macedonian society largely consider land within the PA as land freelyavailable for resource use and residential development, much of which is illegal in terms of prevailinglegislation, but not enforced by public institutions.

64 The potential threats of climate change will be most felt in the ‘refugial zones’ of Macedonia – Tair

Gorge, Treska River Gorge, Crna River, Jama, Mavrovo-Radika, Pelister, Ohrid-Prespa and Kozhuf The GM has yet to develop a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the impacts of climatechange4 As an initial demonstration of the threat of climate change in Macedonia, an increasingly drierclimate recorded over the past 20 years has resulted in an increasing frequency of forest desiccation andresulting forest fires, with the concomitant impacts on forest biodiversity.

Nidze-65 Although not well documented, the potential threat of invasive alien species is increasing, with anumber of aquatic (e.g Elodea canadensis) and lowland (e.g Alianthus altissima) plant species

aggressively out–competing native species in both the protected areas and areas of high biodiversitysignificance targeted for inclusion into the protected area estate

Normative situation

66 Under the ‘Normative Solution’, Macedonia will implement the specific legal requirements forprotected areas contained in the new Law on Nature Protection The consolidation and expansion of theprotected area estate in Macedonia will be guided by a systematic spatial biodiversity planningframework, with prioritized targets for a more representative protected area network The legalregulatory framework will support and enable the effective planning and management of protectedareas Each protected area within the protected area network will be demarcated, classified and formallyproclaimed An adequately capacitated and resourced institution will be appointed for each protectedarea Each protected area will be directed by an approved management plan Options to improve thesustainable financing of each protected area will be explored and developed as part of the managementplanning process Visitor and tourist facilities and services will, where viable, be established within4 The draft Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change is however expected to be finalized in the second half of 2007.

each protected area The feasibility of public–private partnerships in the establishment and operation ofthe protected area, and commercial enterprises within the protected area, will be assessed and developedif feasible A local pride in the unique values of the biodiversity significance of the protected areas willbe engendered through the development and roll-out of ‘experiential learning’ programs within eachprotected area The illegal activities in protected areas will be effectively monitored and controlled Keyinformation on the network of protected areas will be maintained The effectiveness of the protectedareas within the protected area network will be assessed and monitored on an ongoing basis, withfeedback loops enabling adaptive management of PAs Opportunities for the expansion of the protectedwill be prioritized and implemented in concordance with a protected area expansion strategy andprogram Communication, education, marketing and awareness programs about the protected areanetwork will be properly coordinated, and form part of a strategic, sustained and focused intervention.Barriers

67 A number of barriers are currently impeding efforts to realize the normative solutions required toestablish a representative network of secure, effectively managed protected areas These are: (i)Disjuncture between the legal and policy framework and the institutional capacity to implement; (ii)Limited planning and operational capacity for protected areas; (iii) Unclear boundaries, ownership anduse rights within protected areas; (iv) Under-representation of lowland habitats in the protected areanetwork; (v) Institutional duplication and overlaps in functions in PAs; and (vi) Sub-optimal knowledgemanagement systems

(i) Disjuncture between the legal and policy framework and the institutional capacity to implement68 Although the enabling legal and policy framework for biodiversity conservation and protected areamanagement in Macedonia is generally sound, the institutional capacity of MEPP and the existingprotected area management entities (finances, human resources, skills, knowledge and databases) tomeet the rigorous legal requirements, and achieve the optimistic policy targets, is extremely limited.The MEPP has limited resources and skills base to design a representative network of PAs, re-classifyand re-proclaim all protected areas, expand the PA estate, develop national tools and strategies for PAs,promulgate secondary supporting legislation, maintain an Environmental Information System andreview and monitor the management effectiveness of the PAs, as required by the Law on NatureProtection Local PA institutions are further operationally hampered in meeting their legal and policymandates by the lack of key supporting regulations and by-laws to enable enactment of the frameworkpolicies and legislation

(ii) Limited planning and operational capacity for individual protected areas

69 Although there is a moderate level of operational management capability in the three national parks,the remaining protected areas either have no delegated management authority in the majority of cases or

are managed by institutions with critically low levels of in situ conservation skills and expertise Of the

current institutions in Macedonia (other than the National Parks institutions whose mandate is limited tothe relevant national park) it is unclear whether government departments, local municipalities, publicenterprises, NGOs or private business have the immediate capacity and resources to take operationalresponsibility for the currently unmanaged protected areas or to take responsibility for new protectedareas With a few exceptions, most protected areas are not even directed by a management plan, thereare no resources available for their management, there is limited data on their operations and virtuallyno monitoring and evaluation is taking place The GM also currently allocates no funding from thecentral fiscus for the expansion and management of PAs, despite the Law on Environment providing fora budget allocation for ‘nature protection’5 Even within the existing management institutions (e.g.National Park), there are key professional management skills gaps in PA staff, including in the areas ofprotected area expansion, community liaison and conflict resolution, ecological systems and processes,5 A small budget allocation has recently been made for nature protection in the 2007/8 government budget, the first allocation for nature protection made by the GM

monitoring and evaluation, data management, project management and strategic and operationalplanning The collaboration between existing PA management institutions and the sharing of tools andexpertise across these institutions is severely under-developed The working relationships across the PAmanagement institutions and with the MEPP and MAFWE are generally also very poor.

(iii) Unclear boundaries, ownership and use rights within protected areas

70 Under previous protected area legislation (Law on Protection of Natural Rarities and Law onNational Parks) most protected areas were proclaimed with only a general description of theboundaries, limited reference to land ownership and no framework for the administration andmanagement of use rights As a consequence, boundary conflicts are common with incrementalencroachment frequently occurring into PAs A historical culture of the (now illegal) informaloccupation and use of state land is deeply entrenched in society, with the construction of holiday homesand the (illegal) harvesting of natural resources particularly prevalent within many protected areas.Local municipalities have limited capacity to develop and administer land use planning schemes, whilePA management agencies either do not exist for many PAs or do not have the personnel to effectivelyenforce PA legislation A number of large bulk infrastructure facilities and services such as hydro-electric schemes, dams, overhead power lines, roads and waste-water treatment plants have beenimposed on, and developed in, PAs with little or no reference to the management objectives of theaffected PA.

(iv) Under-representation of lowland habitats in protected area network

71 Despite the setting of explicit targets in the National Spatial Plan (2004), no systematic spatialbiodiversity plan or protected area network currently exists for Macedonia As in many other parts ofthe world, the highland areas that have been set aside as protected areas were less for reasons ofbiodiversity conservation than for watershed, scenic or other opportunistic reasons Despite this, thehighland protected areas in the diverse western region of the country, and the three tectonic lakes, hosthigh concentrations of biodiversity However, lowland areas with biodiverse areas such as wetlands andMediterranean forests are severely under-represented in the protected area network The lack ofbiological corridors across the lowlands has also tended toward the creation of isolated biodiversity‘islands’ in the highlands Although priority areas have preliminarily been targeted, mostly in mountainregions, for protected area expansion the lack of a dedicated and resourced protected area managementauthority will largely result in the establishment of ‘paper parks’.

(v) Institutional duplication and overlaps in functions in PAs

72 Within the few protected areas that are under some form of conservation management (e.g thetectonic lakes to some extent and the national parks), there is still considerable duplication andambiguity, and lack of coordinated effort, between the local municipalities, MAFWE, public enterprisesand MEPP Although the Law on Nature Protection provides for a single management authority foreach PA, there remains in practice a lack of clarity about who is actually responsible for the differentactivities undertaken within a PA (such as waste management, water supply management or public roadmaintenance) and which enabling law prevails in such instances, especially where there is clear conflictbetween laws Although the Law on Nature Protection provides for the drafting of formal management

agreements with entities operating within a PA, the regulatory framework and pro formas for these

agreements have not yet been drafted.

(vi) Sub-optimal knowledge management systems

73 Although Macedonia has iteratively developed a moderate level of information on its biodiversity,there are key informational gaps remaining, including data on some invertebrate groups, plantcommunities and habitats, status of rare and threatened plants, and ecological systems and processes.The quality of data on the different categories of protected areas range from moderate (national parksand tectonic lakes) to poor (natural monument, areas outside nature reserves containing special plant

and animal species) Although a national framework for an Environmental Information System (EIS)exists, the biodiversity and protected area component of this EIS does not exist, and existingbiodiversity datasets have not been integrated into the central database Existing datasets are currentlyhosted by a number of different individuals and organisations, at a range of scales and in multipleformats The existing biodiversity data has not been optimally used to identify the priority areas forprotected area expansion, with the selection process for expansion still largely driven by opportunism.The Baseline Scenario

74 The Baseline is the “business-as-usual” scenario that would take place in the absence of theinterventions planned under the project In the business-as-usual situation, a range of activities relatingto legislative and policy reform, strategic planning, re-proclamation processes, institutionalstrengthening, co-operative governance, tourism and recreational development of national parks,education and awareness programs and sustainable financing will be undertaken in the protected areasector, although this is on a prioritised basis according to available resources and capacity Many ofthese activities will be funded by external donor agencies at the local protected area level and will becharacterised by limited co-ordination of effort and lack of sharing of resources and tools across theprotected areas

75 The legal requirements of the Laws on Nature Protection (2004) and Environment (2005) and thepolicy frameworks of the NEAP 2 (2006), the National Spatial Plan (2004), MEPP Vision 2008 and theMAFWE Strategy for Sustainable Development of Forestry (2006) will continue to frame the GMactivities in the protected area network, albeit within the existing limited capacity and resourceconstraints of MEPP and the protected area management institutions This broad strategic direction willbe further directed and focussed with the subsequent drafting of a National Strategy for NatureProtection in 2007/2008 The National Strategy for Nature Protection will then form the basis forprioritized investments in protected area planning and management The preparation of the Red Bookfor Endangered Flora and Fauna Species will also be developed during the period 2007-2009 to supportthe preparation of species-specific strategies and regulations in terms of the Law on Nature Protection.MEPP will continue to update and develop the requisite laws, bylaws and regulations that support theeffective management of the existing protected area network, with funding support from the EU TheEU will also continue to support the strengthening of the capacity of MEPP in environmental policydevelopment, legislative reform and strategic planning through the CARDS programme

76 The GM will start to secure modest fund allocations from the central fiscus in 2008/09 to financeprotected area planning and management undertaken by MEPP, while a small income stream (20% ofincome) from other protected areas will also be used to cross-subsidise MEPP protected area supportactivities The current lack of incentives to national parks and other protected areas to provide thiscross-subsidizing income will however keep these income streams low, while the perception thatprotected areas are a non-productive land use and a drain on the economy of Macedonia will continue,with persistent budget cuts under sustained political pressure The funding of most protected areainstitutions (where they exist) will continue to be insufficient to effectively manage and maintain thevalues of the protected areas (except in the case of the National Parks) In the absence of donor andgovernment funding, these protected area institutions will seek to opt out of delegated managementauthority for protected areas.

77 The validation, identification of boundaries, classification, re-proclamation and managementplanning process will be strategically focussed on the externally funded PAs – the three National Parks(Galicica, Mavrovo and Pelister), protected areas within the Prespa Lakes Basin (Ezerani and LakePrespa) and Lake Ohrid The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation will build on its firstphase investment in Pelister National Park of CHF 966,000 (support to re-proclamation processes,management planning, pilot eco-tourism ventures, interpretative trails and community-based

enterprises) with a further second phase investment of CHD 1,6m to support the implementation of themanagement plan KfW will co-finance (EUR 1.53m) the improvement of the management of GalicicaNational Park through support to the re-proclamation process, management planning, strengtheninggovernance arrangements, monitoring and the acquisition of equipment It is expected that theGovernment of Italy will source funding support of EUR 540,000 to support environmental protection,economic development and eco-sustainable tourism in the National Park Mavrovo and the Valley ofRadika River The UNDP/GEF – funded trans-boundary Prespa project, will support the re-proclamation, management planning and operational management of Ezerani Nature Reserve The GMwill source funding of US$80,000 from the state budget to support the revalorization and re-proclamation of Lake Ohrid, as well as valorisation and proclamation of Alshar as a new PA They willalso continue to seek resources and financing to support the re-proclamation processes of the remainingprotected areas in the country and opportunistically identify potential institutions to manage andadminister these protected areas However the focus of this resource allocation may often be stronglylinked to donor priority areas and available expertise within existing and potential management entities.The expansion of the protected area estate will be very limited and largely opportunistic Theestablishment and development of a new protected area in Osogovo Mountain, implemented by theMacedonian Ecological Society, will be funded by the Frankfurt Zoological Society (EUR 40,000)while co-financing will be sought from Pro Natura Friends of the Earth (Switzerland)

78 The GM will continue to actively participate in complementary European conservation planninginitiatives (NATURA 2000, European Greenbelt Initiative, Pan-European Ecological Network), but thedevelopment of a country-based network to align with these regional networks will remain under-developed due to poor country-based knowledge management systems

79 The protected areas will continue to be administered as separate autonomous entities with little orno co-ordination or cooperation between them The capacity of MEPP to effectively monitor theperformance of the different management entities will be limited Conservation interventions in theprotected areas estate will continue to be largely donor-directed, while the protected area institutionswill focus management activities on generating sufficient income streams from protected areas tosustain the basic human resource, administration, operating and capital costs of the institution Due to alack of capacity in MEPP, cross-cutting protected area activities such as marketing, central bookings,awareness raising, commercialization, system planning and data management will remain cost-inefficient The roles and responsibilities of MAFWE, MEPP, local authorities and the protected areamanagement institution will continue to be unclear across different protected area categories andresponsible institutions, with the concomitant impact on management effectiveness.

80 Donor funding and government resources will be allocated to remedial measures in environmental‘hotspots’ to mitigate the impacts of pollution on the biological integrity of a number of protected areaslocated within the upstream areas of water catchments

(iii) The GEF Alternative

The project goal is: To conserve the biological diversity of Macedonia by strengthening the planning,establishment and management of Macedonia’s national system of protected areas.

The project objective is: A comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national protectedarea system is in place.

The project aims to achieve its objective through the following three outcomes:(i) Outcome 1 – A representative national protected area system is designed

(ii) Outcome 2 – Improved systemic and institutional capacity provides the enabling framework forestablishing and managing a representative protected area network

(iii) Outcome 3 : PA establishment and planning processes field tested and replicated across the PAnetwork

Outcome 1 – A representative national protected area system is designed

Output 1.1: The biodiversity data for Macedonia is collated into a consolidated database, and integratedinto the national Environmental Information System

Work under this output is designed to strengthen the MEPP’s decision-support systems in biodiversityconservation and to build the biodiversity data management capabilities of the Ministry

The Law on Environment (2005) requires the establishment and maintenance of an EnvironmentalInformation System (EIS) The MEPP is the focal point for environmental data in the RM The directresponsibility for the country’s EIS lies with the Macedonian Environmental Information Center(MEIC) within the MEPP, supported by the GIS department The National Environmental DataManagement Strategy (2004) in turn provides the institutional and technical framework forimplementing the EIS This framework includes strategies, policies, procedures, data management,communication tools and networking mechanisms The Environmental Data Management Strategy hashowever only been implemented in the sectors of air and water pollution n to enable the GM to reportcompliance with EU policy and legislation, while the biodiversity sector remains largely undeveloped This output is however critical to achieving outcome 1, as the underlying data will be required in astandardized format to enable the design of the ecological network and protected area system In thecurrent government resource allocation framework, this activity has not been prioritized for funding inthe immediate to short-term

The activities under this output are then directed at:

(i) Identifying the data requirements (e.g land uses, vegetation and habitat types, species distribution,protected area cadastre, hydrology, topography, fire records, ecological processes, naturalresource use patterns, tourism enterprises, visitor use patterns etc.) required to support broad andlocal-scale conservation planning in the biodiversity sector;

(ii) Listing the data sources that address the biodiversity sector data requirements (e.g National Parks,MAFWE, Macedonian Academy of Science and Arts, Macedonian Museum of Natural History,Faculties of Agriculture and of Forestry, Institute of Biology, etc), and the available electronic orhard copy format of that data (GIS, database, text, image, etc.);

(iii) Identifying biodiversity data gaps, and cost-effective mechanisms to address these gaps (e.g.cadastre of protected areas - GPS, fire history – satellite imagery, etc.);

(iv) Defining data structure for biodiversity data in the EIS;

(v) Designing a database (and metadata) structure for biodiversity data that integrates seamlessly intothe existing EIS, and meets EU standards;

(vi) Acquiring the hardware and software to host, maintain and access database;

(vii) Sourcing, and validating, biodiversity data from data providers – this may include thedevelopment of data-sharing agreements;

(viii) Developing simple user-driven graphic user interfaces (GUI) to enable ease of access tobiodiversity datasets;

(ix) Developing data access and data maintenance protocols for biodiversity data;

(x) Supporting the development/collection of key biodiversity datasets for input into the database (e.g.vegetation map, protected area cadastre).

The work will largely be undertaken by the MEIC of MEPP, supported by the GIS department and acontracted specialist consultant (biodiversity information management and system design) who will

assist the department in sourcing and converting data, defining the data structures, designing thedatabase structure and developing user-friendly GUI’s The MEPP6 will assist the MEIC in identifyingdata requirements and data sources The biological specialist/s contracted under output 3.1 will supportthe sourcing, collation and interpretation of the biodiversity database Once the biodiversity databasehas been established, the MEPP have committed to maintaining the biodiversity data as part of its largerEIS.

Output 1.2: A national ecological network is designed to link environmentally important areas and

endangered habitats

Work under this output will assist the country in identifying priority areas required for the long-termsurvival of its biodiversity and heritage features It will specifically seek to spatially focus, and align,the biodiversity and heritage conservation priorities of MEPP, MAFWE and other institutions Theskills and capacity for conservation planning will be transferred to MEPP under this output.

The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires the MEPP to identify and map ‘environmentallyimportant areas’ – an area that contributes significantly to the conservation of biological diversity inMacedonia – and ‘international environmentally important area(s)’ - an area that contributes to meetingregional or global conservation targets The Law on Nature Protection further requires the MEPP toestablish a ‘coherent ecological network7 of special areas of conservation’ using the concept of‘ecological corridors’, in order to maintain landscape scale systems and processes However, thecountry does not have the immediate capacity or resources to identify the environmentallyimportant areas and configure an ecological network design

Using an optimization algorithm, MARXAN8, the activities under this output are then directed at:(i) Assessing and mapping the types of habitats (vegetation types, wetlands) in Macedonia, and the

extent to which they are endangered or threatened;

(ii) Assessing and mapping the species distributions for endemic and threatened taxa (wherepracticable);

(iii) Assessing and mapping spatial surrogates of ecological and evolutionary processes (such ashighland-lowland gradients as a surrogate for movement of biota and response to climate change);(iv) Mapping the different categories of protected areas;

(v) Defining and mapping the current, and projected, degree of landscape transformation;(vi) Setting explicit quantitative conservation targets for habitats and species;

(vii) Identifying biodiversity priority areas on the basis of an analysis of species, habitats andecological processes;

(viii) Producing an initial map of ‘environmentally important areas’ (the overall priority areas forbiodiversity conservation) in Macedonia;

(ix) Identifying criteria and assessing options for ecological corridors that link priority areas forbiodiversity conservation with key landscape-scale ecological processes(e.g animal movements,macro-climatic gradient, upland-lowland gradients) and buffer the impacts of destructive landuses;

6 A project coordinator will be appointed within the MEPP’s Office for Environment This coordinator will be the directly responsible person for activities described in this MSP as the responsibility of the MEPP.

7 An ecological network is ‘A coherent system of natural and/or semi-natural landscape elements that is configured andmanaged with the objective of maintaining or restoring ecological functions as a means to conserve biodiversity while alsoproviding appropriate opportunities for the sustainable use of natural resources’ (IUCN, 2001).

8 MARXAN is used widely by conservation organizations to develop networks for biodiversity protection Biodiversityconservation planning using MARXAN typically involves developing four sets of input variables - feature definition andmapping; stratification of the study area; setting quantitative targets; and defining ‘suitability’ of areas for conservation Withall the input variables in place, one iteratively runs MARXAN to select priority conservation areas that collectively comprise aconservation network.

(xi) Integrating the ecological network into the Coherent European Ecological Network (“NATURA2000”) and the development of the National Strategy for Nature Protection.

The work will be undertaken by a conservation planning service provider comprising national andinternational expertise The contracted service provider will need to actively involve a wide range ofstakeholders (including research institutions, university faculties, local municipalities, other ministries,NGO’s and individual specialists) in the collation or mapping of ‘feature’ data, the development ofconservation targets and the selection of the preferred network of biodiversity priority areas MEPP willsupport the service provider in facilitating this institutional and specialist consultative process.

Output 1.3: Directions for a national protected area system are developed

Work under this output will assist the country in developing a strategic national approach in theestablishment, management and monitoring of a comprehensive, adequate and representative protectedarea system for Macedonia.

The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires the MEPP to establish a ‘system of protected areas’ thatadequately represents the bio-physical diversity, ecosystem processes and landscapes Further, theproclamation of any new protected areas must be evaluated in terms of its contribution to meetingnational representivity targets for habitat types and ecosystems However, the country has not yetestablished targets for habitat and ecosystem representation, nor has it designed a network of protectedareas based on these targets The re-proclamation of existing protected areas, and proposals for theestablishment of new protected areas, are being further delayed in the absence of this decision-supporttool There is also no consistency in approach to the management of protected areas by the differentmanagement institutions, making the comparable monitoring and reporting required by the act complexand cumbersome

The activities under this output are then directed at:

(i) Describing the current protected area system context and briefly summarizing global reviews ofbest practice in protected area establishment, planning and management;

(ii) Establishing explicit short- and long-term spatial targets for a representative protected areanetwork design (based on the ‘ecological network’ developed in Output 1.2) that: (i) aims tocontain samples of all ecosystems at the appropriate scale; (ii) aims to contain areas which arerefugia or centers of species richness or endemicity; (iii) considers the ecological requirements ofrare or threatened species, communities or habitats; and (iv) takes account of special groups oforganisms (e.g ranging or migratory species);

(iii) Developing a standard approach to the establishment of protected areas This will include draftingan agreed set of minimum standards which different categories of protected areas must meet to beincorporated in the National Protected Area System It will also provide protected areaestablishment guidelines on: (i) the mechanisms to secure the legal conservation tenure ofdifferent types of land ownership; (ii) mechanisms for the delineation of protected areas; (iii)options for delegating management authority (see output 2.1); (iv) accreditation of the protectedarea management institution (see output 2.1); (v) the information requirements and flow ofrelevant park establishment information (see output 1.1); and (vi) the participative requirementsand processes.

(iv) Identifying a set of common broad management principles for protected areas, which embodycontemporary thinking on protected area management, to ensure the on-going maintenance andmanagement of their primary biodiversity and heritage conservation values This will include: (i)requirements for management planning (see output 2.2); (ii) responses to common managementissues such as fire, invasive alien species, neighbor relations, tourism/visitor facilities and

services, resource use and stakeholder engagement; and (iii) requirements for co-operativegovernance;

(v) Identifying the broad options for the sustainable financing of protected areas (see output 2.3) ;(vi) Identifying the role of the private sector in protected area establishment and management (see

The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires that: (i) strict nature reserves are managed by MEPP,who may in turn delegate this function to another body, institution or organization; (ii) each national

park is managed by a separate autonomous special public institution – a ‘National Park’; (iii) natural

monuments, nature parks and protected landscapes are managed by ‘entities’; and (iv) the management

of multipurpose areas is designated to public enterprise The nature of these entities and what

constitutes a competent management entity is not explicitly defined in the act Each body, institution,organization, entity, public enterprise and national park institution will then seemingly operateindependently of each other and be largely dependent on the individual protected area to recover itscapital, human resource and operating costs The country however has extremely limited institutionalskills, resources and expertise to manage protected areas and it is unclear which other body, institution,organization or ‘entity’, other than the national park institution, will be able to effectively manage theprotected areas Further, the complete institutional dependence on the protected area to generate incomecould invariably lead to destructive exploitation of the area The act also provides clear direction on theco-operative governance structures for national parks but makes no provision for co-operativegovernance of other categories of protected areas.

The activities under this output are then directed at:

(i) Reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current institutionalarrangements for protected area management;

(ii) Reviewing equivalent global best practice in the institutional arrangements for protected areasmanagement, and their efficacy in the Macedonian context;

(iii) Identifying options for the national planning, coordination, supervision, monitoring and auditingof protected areas, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the current institutionalarrangements;

(iv) Identifying options for the operational planning and management of the different IUCN protectedarea category protected areas, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the currentinstitutional arrangements;

(v) Identifying options for the co-operative governance structures for the protected area network andindividual protected area, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the currentinstitutional arrangements;

(vi) Identifying options for operational partnerships in protected area management (public-private,public-private-community, private-community, etc.) with practical guidelines and tools based on abest practice review;

(vii) Projecting the anticipated human resource capacity needs (staffing, skills, competence levels,knowledge) at the different institutional levels and defining the requisite resources (financing),training and development requirements to address the capacity gaps;

(viii) Collating all the information into an ‘Institutional options analysis of protected area planning andmanagement in Macedonia’; and

(ix) Integrating relevant recommendations from the institutional options analysis into the drafting ofthe national ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’.

The work will be facilitated by the same protected area management service provider contracted underoutput 1 MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the institutional options analysis and integrating keyrecommendations of this report into the drafting of the ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’ MEPP will alsointegrate any institutional changes into subsequent amendments to the Law on Nature Protection Thecontracted service provider will conduct a series of focused workshops with all bodies, institutions,organizations, entities and national park institutions that currently, or could potentially, plan, superviseand manage the protected area networks or individual protected areas.

Output 2.2: Norms and standards for protected area management planning are developed

Work under this output is designed to ensure consistency across Macedonia’s protected areas in theapproach to the drafting, and formatting, of management plans The activities under this output willfurther provide under-capacitated protected area institutions with clear guidelines, templates and toolsto enable them to meet their legal obligations for the drafting of protected area management plans.The Law on Environment (2005) requires that, prior to proclamation; a management plan is preparedfor each protected area within the six categories of protected area provided for in the act9 However theact does not specify the format or content of the management plan, except in the case of the zoningrequirements for the protected area Although only the Pelister National Park has completed itsmanagement planning process with support from donor funding (SDC), the remaining protected areas(beside the few protected areas falling within the Prespa trans-boundary area) have limited capabilitiesand resources to support their management planning processes.

The activities under this output are then directed at:

9 Although the act seemingly contradicts itself by later stating that a management plan must be drafted within two years of proclamation.

(i) Summarizing selected regional and global samples and best practice/lessons learnt reviews ofmanagement plan formats and processes, and extrapolating relevant best practice for Macedonia’sprotected areas;

(ii) Reviewing the lessons learnt from, and efficacy of, management plans and management planningprocesses for the national parks of Pelister (and Galicica and Mavrovo if already underway) andother Macedonian protected areas (where underway);

(iii) Developing generic guiding principles for the development of management plans;

(iv) Describing the management plan, its component parts (e.g policies, strategic plan, detailedsubsidiary plans, annual work plan), and the integration of these component parts;

(v) Describing the minimum and optimal stakeholder consultation process in the drafting of themanagement plan;

(vi) Identifying the mechanisms for the mitigation of the environmental impact of the managementplan;

(vii) Describing the formal approval and adoption processes of the management plan;

(viii) Describing the adaptive management plan process and the iterative performance monitoring andreview mechanisms for the management plan;

(ix) Developing detailed generic templates, and guidelines for drafting the component parts of amanagement plan for the different IUCN category protected areas;

(x) Collating the information into a ‘Norms and standards for protected area management planning inMacedonia’; and

(xi) Integrating the basic tenets of the norms and standards into the ‘Directions for the MacedonianProtected Area System’ and any subsequent amendment of the Law on Nature Protection.

The work will be facilitated by the same protected area management service provider contracted underoutput 1.3 and 2.1 MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the norms and standards for managementplanning report and the key elements of this report into the drafting of the ‘Directions for theMacedonian Protected Area System’ MEPP will integrate these norms and standards with anysubsequent amendments to the Law on Nature Protection The contracted service provider will conductfocused workshops with technical and professional specialists in the iterative drafting of the norms andstandards, and consult with the EU to benchmark the norms and standards against regional bestpractice.

Output 2.3: Options to sustainably finance the management of the protected area network are developedand implemented

Work under this output is designed to provide MEPP and the protected area institutions with the tools toidentify and implement a range of affordable and sustainable financing options and mechanisms thatcould fund the planning and management of the protected area network

The Law on Environment (2005) provides for the financing of protected areas from: (i) the nationalfiscus; (ii) entry fees; (iii) parking fees; (iv) resource harvesting and hunting fees; (v) license fees; (vi)accommodation fees; and (vi) ‘other sources’ (including concession fees, fines, grants and loans).However, the knowledge levels, experience and tools to identify and implement the appropriatefinancing mechanisms is very limited across all institutions responsible for protected area management.The act also requires MEPP to set the fee structures for entry to, and use of the protected areas Whileconsiderable knowledge of fee structures for some natural resource harvesting and hunting have beendeveloped over a number of years, the information to guide ‘fair’ value estimation, and willingness topay, for the other protected areas services is poor Further, the drafting of secondary legislation(regulations) to support the implementation of protected area financing activities has not beenundertaken to date.

The activities under this output are then directed at:

(i) Identifying the current financing mechanisms for national parks and natural monuments inMacedonia and lessons learnt from their implementation;

(ii) Identifying the range of appropriate financing mechanisms for the protected area network andindividual protected areas;

(iii) Analyzing each financing mechanism in terms of:

a A general description (what is it, how does it work)b The affected stakeholders (who pays, who receives)c Regulatory requirements (enabling legal requirements)

d Structural considerations (institutional arrangements and controls for collection anddistribution of benefit flows)

e Optimal pricing and payment systemsf Projected operating costs and income flows

g Likelihood of acceptance of mechanism (risks, willingness-to-pay, political support)h Possible mitigation measures (to overcome low probability of implementation or

(vii) Drafting the secondary legislation required to implement key financing mechanisms

The work will be undertaken by a environmental economics specialist, with technical and informationsupport from the protected area management service provider contracted under output 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2.MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the ‘Assessment of financing mechanisms for protected areas inMacedonia’ report MEPP will draft the secondary legislation required to enable implementation of keyfinancing mechanisms with support from a national legal consultant The environmental economicsspecialist will liaise directly with the relevant ministries and protected area institutions.

Output 2.4: The capacity of the MEPP to support protected area establishment and management

planning processes is developed

Work under this output is designed to build the institutional capacity of the MEPP and protected areamanagement institutions to establish, plan and manage the protected area network, and individualprotected areas within the network

The Law on Nature Protection (2004) and the Law on Environment (2005) provides for theappointment of ‘Inspectors for Nature Protection’ within the State Inspectorate for the Environment, tosupervise the implementation (‘enforcement’ as provided for in the acts) of the Law on NatureProtection The acts also determine the explicit qualifications, experience, responsibilities and rightsand duties of these Inspectors However, the current formal under-graduate and post-graduate trainingin Macedonia does not adequately offer sufficient skills in protected area planning and management andthere are currently no bridging courses, or specialized training, available to develop these skills The activities under this output are then directed at:

(i) Advertising for, and appointing, a full time project coordinator and part time project administratorwithin the MEPP Office for the Environment, for the term of the project;

(ii) Collating or developing a skills compendium for protected area management in the EU, andMacedonia;

(iii) Development of the required competence, levels and occupational standards for effectiveprotected area planning and management in Macedonia;

(iv) Collating or developing reviews of human resource development and training in protected areainstitutions in the EU, and Macedonia;

(v) Assessing and identifying options for human resource development and training programs inprotected area institutions in Macedonia in order to address key gaps in competence standards;(vi) Piloting a priority training and development program for key competency requirements in

protected area institutions in Macedonia;

(vii) Collating information on competence, levels and occupational standards into a ‘Competencestandards for Macedonia’s protected area management’ report; and

(viii) Integrating relevant recommendations from the assessment into the human resource training anddevelopment program into the drafting of the national ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’.

The work will be undertaken by a human resources development specialist, with technical support fromthe protected area management service provider contracted under output 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2 The specialistconsultant will develop and pilot a training programme to address the key competency requirements forPA management staff MEPP will co-ordinate the drafting of the ‘Competence standard forMacedonia’s protected areas’ report MEPP will integrate key recommendations of this report into thedrafting of the ‘Strategy for Nature Protection’ The specialist consultant will liaise extensively with therelevant ministries and protected area institutions, and host focus workshops with a wider range ofstakeholder groups, including research institutions, university faculties, local municipalities, otherministries, civil society and individuals.

Outcome 3: PA establishment and planning processes field tested and replicated across the PA network

The Law on Nature Protection (2004) requires that all protected areas in Macedonia are re-proclaimedwithin three years of promulgation of the act The re-proclamation process is prescribed in the act andincludes: (i) The validation of each protected area in terms of its biodiversity significance andcontribution to meeting national representivity targets for habitat types and ecosystems; (ii) Theclassification of the protected area to align its conservation objectives with the new IUCN-compliantprotected area categories contained in the act; (iii) The explicit mapping of the cadastre boundaries ofthe protected area; (iv) The appointment of a responsible management institution; (v) The requisitestakeholder consultation; (vi) The gazetting of the protected area; (vii) The establishment of co-operative governance structures (in the case of National Parks); (viii) The drafting of a managementplan; and (viii) The drafting of any required formal management agreements

Despite two years since the adoption of the act, only one protected area - Pelister National Park – hasmade any significant progress in meeting the rigorous re-proclamation requirements of the act, withfunding support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation There are currently nonational guidelines or procedures in place to direct and support the re-proclamation process, and nodocumented test cases for the re-proclamation of IUCN protected area categories I, III, IV, V and VI The focus of this outcome then is to directly pilot the re-proclamation process in two pilot protectedareas, support and capacitate MEPP and the delegated management institutions during the process anddocument lessons learnt from the pilot project areas for replication across the protected area system.Opportunities for rationalization of protected area boundaries, and developing stronger relationshipswith local communities will be actively sought

The table below provides a brief overview of the two selected pilot protected areas:Tikvesh - Strict Nature Reserve (Category 1) and

Matka Canyon - Natural Monument (Category 3):

Name ofprotected

Tikvesh StrictNature Reserve

I 10,650 The reserve is located 30 km from Kavadarci, on the river Cma Reka

The reserve is hilly and mountainous and includes mountain, forest, grassland, riverine and lake ecosystems The reserve's plant communities are represented by woody,shrubby and grassy species, of which seventy-one species (ten woody species, twenty-four shrub species, thirty grassy species, and seven species characteristic to rocky regions) are classified as ‘ecologically important’ The reserve constitutes a globally Important Bird Area (IBA) The reserve, with 23 species of predatory birds recorded, represents one of the most significant localities for predatorybirds in Europe Three bird species reported from the reserve are on the World Red List, and fourteen are on theEuropean Red List.

Municipalpartner:MunicipalityKavadarci PublicEnterprise:Water

Economy inMacedoniaNGO partner: “ODEK”

Matka Canyon Natural Monument

III 5,443 The reserve is located 15km south-west of Skopje

The reserve represents a gorge through along the lower flow of the river Treska The gorge is considered one of the biggest refugium centres from the glaciation period A large number of relict and endemic plant and animal species are represented in the reserve, with 20% of the 1000 plant species in the reserve considered endemic or relictual Two new spider species and five psuedoscorpions have been discovered in the reserve Almost260 butterfly species have been recorded from the reserve, of which 18 are new to science and 77 are Balkan endemics

break-NGO’s: Peoniand FagricomMunicipalpartners: Cityof Skopje andMunicipalityof Saraj

As part of the activities under the umbrella of this outcome, a rapid review of lessons learnt and bestpractice in the implementation of part, or all, of the re-proclamation processes will be undertaken tosupport the development of outputs 3.1.

Output 3.1: Secure the legal and institutional tenure of Tikvesh Strict Nature Reserve and MatkaCanyon Natural Monument and document lessons learnt

Work under this output is designed to facilitate the re-proclamation process for Tikvesh Strict NatureReserve and Matka Canyon Natural Monument Based on lessons learnt, the project will create theenabling environment for the GM to replicate this process for the other protected areas in the system.The activities under this output are directed at:

(i) Developing, and implementing a focused stakeholder engagement program for the proclamation and PA planning phase for each protected area;

re-(ii) Mapping the habitats on the PAs, collating the species data for the reserve, classifying thenational, regional and international status of species and habitats, and identifying ecologicalprocesses;

(iii) Identifying the heritage significance, physical features and landscape characteristics of the PAs;(iv) Assessing the contribution of the PAs to meeting national conservation and protected area targets

(see Output 1.2 and 1.3);

(v) Identifying opportunities for rationalization of the PAs boundaries and areas for expansion;(vi) Identifying the most appropriate institutional option for the PAs (see Output 2.1) and negotiating a

performance-based agreement with the management entity;(vii) Formally gazetting the PAs proclamation;

(viii) Identifying, and establishing, the most appropriate co-operative governance option for the PAs;(ix) Drafting and adopting a management plan for the PAs (see Output 2.2);

(x) Identifying the capacity and resource requirements to implement the PAs management plans (seeOutput 2.4);

(xi) Implementing a training and development program for the management entity for each PA;(xii) Identifying sustainable financing sources to fund the implementation of the management plans

(see Output 2.3);

(xiii) Negotiating management agreements with other institutions operating within the PAs, where theirimpacts can be mitigated and controlled; and

(xiv) Documenting lessons learnt.

The work will be undertaken by MEPP, in partnership with the existing delegated managementauthority and their partners The stakeholder consultation processes to be adopted will be designed atthe outset As an integral part of the stakeholder consultation process, the capacity of localcommunities, and key institutions, will be developed to enable them to participate as an equitablepartner in the re-proclamation processes National biological specialists will be contracted to collatebio-physical and heritage features of the Pas A national conservation planning service provider will becontracted to draft the management plans, identify the resource and capacity needs and identifysustainable financing sources The training specialist contracted under output 2.4 will develop andimplement focused training programs for the management entities The MEPP will iteratively adopt thelessons learnt into the ‘Directions’ report for protected areas (see Output 1.3).

(iv) Global Environmental benefits – incremental reasoning

81 Although comprising only 5% of the extent of the Balkan Peninsula, Macedonia hosts 70-90% ofits biodiversity and large numbers of globally and regionally threatened, relictual and/or endemicspecies and habitats Macedonia is considered the most important biodiversity ‘hotspot’ in Europe.Macedonia has recognised that the long-term conservation of a representative sample of this globallysignificant biodiversity can be maintained, in part, through the establishment and management ofindividual protected areas, within a cohesive network of protected areas, in Macedonia To support thisrecognition, Macedonia has recently developed a number of general and specific enabling policies,legislation and strategies to guide and direct the establishment, development, operations and monitoringof this network of protected areas

82 Despite this enabling legal and strategic framework, Macedonia’s protected areas remain poorlymanaged, and many protected areas in the country effectively constitute ‘paper parks’ This can largelybe attributed to severe resource and capacity constraints in the protected area sector Currently theprotected areas, and the protected area system is not considered sustainable as: (i) the protected areasystem does not adequately conserve a representative sample of the country’s species, habitats andecosystems; (ii) the protected areas are not formally defined and proclaimed (in terms of the new Lawon Nature Protection) and enjoy only temporary protection under old, outdated legislation; (iii) the

protected areas are not properly financed; (iv) the institutional capacity to manage protected areas isnon-existent or very weak; (v) the human skills and capacity to plan and manage protected areas islimited to national park entities, and even then is weak; (vi) management systems are largely non-existent or sub-optimal; and (vii) there is no cohesive planning, management and monitoringframework for the protected area system

83 Although the GM has clearly articulated its intent to redress these shortcomings and develop a moresustainable protected area network, this constitutes a massive challenge in the light of limited resources.As a country in transition, the GM is also facing considerable challenges in the socio-economicdevelopment of the country, and the linked provision of basic infrastructure and services Currentgovernment resource allocations are thus directed toward the countries socio-economic developmentwhile budget allocations to support the implementation of the Law on Nature Protection will, in theshort to intermediate term, continue to be modest In the light of this, the MEPP has strategicallydirected its limited resource allocation and capacity to complement donor-funded protected areainterventions, most of which are generally in or proximate to the three national parks The unsustainablestatus quo of the remaining protected areas will, in the interim, largely remain constant

84 GEF grant funding is sought to secure the immediate legal and institutional tenure of protectedareas with high biodiversity significance, and to develop a more sustainable management system forthese protected areas The proposed project is thus directed at improving the sustainability of theprotected area system, and the individual protected areas within the system that are poorly managed.The project will support the realisation of GEF Strategic Programme objectives that are linked tostrengthening protected area networks and improving the sustainable financing of protected areasystems The GEF investment in the project will specifically strengthen the capacity of the GM todevelop and implement the decision-support tools to secure the legal and institutional tenure of theprotected areas, and better plan and develop a more representative network of protected areas Thisintervention will then contribute to increasing the number of protected areas in Macedonia that moreeffectively contribute to conserving the globally unique habitats and species contained within them Foreach protected area, the project will seek to ensure that: (i) the contribution of the protected area tomeeting national and regional conservation targets is well understood; (ii) the protected area is formallyproclaimed in terms of the requirements of the new Law on Nature Protection; (iii) a capacitatedinstitution is appointed to manage the protected area; (iv) a plan of management is developed for theprotected area; (v) the protected area staff are sufficiently skilled to implement the plan of management;and (v) a financing plan is implemented to fund the implementation of the plan of management 85 An incremental cost matrix is presented in Annexure VII.

(v) Innovation

86 Macedonia is still in the process of establishing a basic, but solid grounding for the planning andmanagement of its protected area network This project will thus not specifically target innovation in itsdesign and implementation However, with a plethora of different management arrangements, and arange of public, civil and private institutions, responsible for individual protected areas, the project willseek to explore innovative institutional mechanisms to more effectively align their activities toward acommon national objective Although global and regional best practice will guide the options forinstitutional models, it is conceivable that the idiosyncratic and complex institutional history ofMacedonia may result in the need to develop a unique institutional arrangement.

c) SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)

87 The project has been carefully designed to optimize prospects for achieving the sustainability of theprotected area network at three levels: financial, institutional and social.

88 The project will provide resources to assess the efficacy of different financial mechanisms10 thatcould be implemented by the country to help subsidize the capital and recurring operational costs ofprotected areas The project will specifically identify the structural requirements needed to implementthese financing mechanisms, assess ways to ensure their acceptance by protected area users andestimate the anticipated income streams from each mechanism At a local protected area level, theproject will provide resources to more explicitly identify the medium-term expenditure requirements fortwo pilot protected areas, and program the roll-out of the appropriate financing mechanisms to generatethe income streams needed to meet these anticipated costs A key element of the financial sustainabilityof the project is securing the commitment of the GM to commit an ongoing annual resource allocationto the management of its protected area system

89 Institutional sustainability will be enhanced in the project through the design of the most effective

institutional arrangements for protected area planning and management in Macedonia This willinclude: (i) identifying the most cost-efficient (social-environmental-financial) institution/s to managethe operations of individual protected areas; (ii) structuring the MEPP to provide a more enablingenvironment for the planning, management and monitoring of the national protected area network; (iii)describing the co-operative governance arrangements for both the protected area system, and individualprotected areas; and (iv) identifying opportunities and institutional mechanisms for co-management of,and partnerships in, protected areas The project will specifically identify the competence, levels andoccupational standards for the responsible institutions that will be required to meet their institutionalmandates for protected areas At the national level, resources will be allocated to build the capacity ofthe MEPP to provide an enabling legal, planning and decision-support framework for the protected areasystem At a local protected area level the project will provide resources to develop and implement atailored training program for the staff of the delegated management authority of the piloted protectedareas

90 Social sustainability will be enhanced through the implementation of a number of individual

stakeholder engagement processes developed for each of the project activities in both the protected areasystem planning and the re-proclamation processes in the individual pilot protected areas Robuststakeholder engagement plans for the respective project activities will be drafted to direct broad-basedstakeholder involvement in all aspects of protected area system planning and development Thesestakeholder engagement plans will also make strong provision for conflict management The projectwill further identify mechanisms for the ongoing constructive engagement of communities and thepublic sector in protected area planning, development and operations, notably though partnerships, co-management and co-operative governance Mechanisms for optimizing the beneficiation of localcommunities from protected areas will be identified at the level of the protected area system, andfurther developed in detail in the two pilot protected areas.

91 The project has been specifically designed to support MEPP in meeting the rigorous protected areasystem planning and re-proclamation requirements of the Law on Nature Protection (2004) The projectstrategy is thus directed at developing protected area system decision-support tools, and documentinglessons learnt at the level of individual protected areas, to enable the MEPP and other protected areamanagement entities to replicate these across Macedonia’s remaining protected areas The planningtools, operational guidelines and best practices developed by the project will be translated and widelydisseminated to inform the re-proclamation processes across the country All of the projects protectedarea system outputs will be consolidated, and integrated into the national ‘Strategy for Nature

10 The financing mechanisms are broadly categorized into: public goods (e.g grants and subsidies, debt-related instruments); corrective or stimulative actions (e.g environmental fines, user fees/charges, environmental offsets, tradeable permits); and business applications (e.g venture capital for ‘green business’, low-interest credits and loans).

Protection’ and the complementary ‘Directions for the Macedonian Protected Area System’ This willenable ease of reference, continuity in maintenance and stability of replication.

Outcome 1: A

representative national protected area system is designed

The consolidated biodiversity database will be integrated into the national

Environmental Information System (EIS) It will be made available to other public agencies to, through the EIS, to support better environmental decision-making at the national and local level

The lessons learnt in the design of a national ecological network will be documented and shared with the other Balkan states through the EU CARDS Program and forums hosted by the REC.

The directions for the national protected area system will ensure consistency and conformity by the different protected area management entities in the

establishment, planning, management and monitoring of the different categories of protected areas in Macedonia.

Outcome 2: Improved systemic and institutional capacity provides the enabling framework for establishing and managinga representative protected area network

The identification of effective institutional models for protected area management will direct MEPP in the delegation of the management authority for the different categories of protected areas The preferred model/s will be iteratively

implemented during the re-proclamation process for each protected area in the network

Norms and standards for PA management planning will guide and direct the development of management plans for each PA in the network Although the generic management plan templates and processes developed will accommodate the idiosyncratic context of each PA, the standardization of the management planning products and processes will ensure that management plans meet regional and international best practice The individual management plans will be iterativelydeveloped during the re-proclamation process for each PA in the network.

The financial mechanisms for protected areas will explore and adopt innovative sources of income for the protected area network and individual protected areas, as well as the required legal framework for their implementation The assessment of the financial mechanisms, and their anticipated contribution to financing the management of the protected area network, will be shared via the EU CARDS Program and REC with the wider Balkan and EU network of governmental, non-governmental and private sectors involved in protected area management.The identification of the capacity needs assessment for protected areas, and the development and implementation of a pilot training program will enable the iterative implementation of a skills development program for protected area planners and managers beyond the timeframe of the project.

Outcome 3: PA establishment and planning processes field tested and replicated across the PA network

The lessons learnt from the re-proclamation processes undertaken in Matka Canyonand Tikvesh will be disseminated through the MEPP, Project Oversight Committee and the National Council for Nature Protection, for implementation across the entire network of protected areas Replication of these lessons will then be iteratively implemented during the re-proclamation process for each protected area in the network, and overseen by MEPP.

92 Significant stakeholder participation and assistance has been sought and provided during the projectdevelopment phase Several focused meetings with different stakeholder groups (MEPP, MAFWE,protected area institutions, municipalities, NGO’s, business, academia, project management units andfunders) and two stakeholder workshops stakeholder meetings were held during the preparatory phaseof the MSP An iterative process of the drafting of the MSP was adopted, with stakeholderscommenting, and providing input, on drafts at different stages of its development This involvement ofnational (protected area system) and local (pilot protected areas) stakeholders will continue, and expandthrough the participatory management process envisaged by this project The projects key stakeholdergroups are briefly described in the table below:

StakeholderAnticipated role in project implementation

Ministry of Environment and PhysicalPlanning (MEPP)

Department of Legislation andStandardization

Macedonian Environmental InformationCentre

Office for Environment

Division of Natural HeritageProtection

Division of Biological DiversityDivision of Geo-diversity andphysical planning of protected areasState Inspectorate for EnvironmentFund of Environment

Project implementationChair of POC

Financing the operational costs of the PMUInter-institutional coordination

Drafting and adoption of supporting legislation

Integration of project outputs into national strategies, plansand guidelines

Development and maintenance of biodiversity information inthe EIS

Liaison with Pan-European planning and conservationinitiatives and programs

Drafting the national Strategy for Nature Protection

Maintaining the Directions for the Macedonian ProtectedArea System

Guiding the re-proclamation processes in the pilot protectedareas

Implementing the project outputs, and replicating lessonslearnt, in the remaining protected areas across the countryCo-financing

Public InstitutionsNational Park GalicicaNational Park MavrovoNational Park Pelister

Unit for Forest Protection

Unit for Organization and Use of Forests

Participate in POCCo-financing

Supporting data for EIS

Permit issue for use of forest resources

Engage in individual project activity consultation processesDrafting and adoption of supporting legislation

Institutional re-structuring and capacity building to supportimplementation of project plans and strategies

Demarcation of forests

Integration of project plans, strategies and guidelines into the

National Forestry Strategy

Public Enterprise (PE)PE Macedonian Forests

PE Water Economy of the Republic ofMacedonia

Participate in POC upon request

Institutional partner in re-proclamation process for TikveshEngage in individual project activity consultation processesLocal Government

City of SkopjeMunicipality of SarajMunicipality Kavadarci

Participate in POC upon request

Institutional partner in re-proclamation process for MatkaCanyon

Supporting data for EIS

Engage in individual project activity consultation processesAcademic and Research Institutions

Universities of St Cyril and Methodius Faculty of Natural ScienceFaculty of AgricultureFaculty of ForestryInstitute of BiologyBotanical Garden

Macedonian Academy of Science andArts

Participate in POC upon requestSpecialist inputs into project activities

Providing information and guidance on best practiceSupporting data for EIS

Engage in individual project activity consultation processesSupport to institutional training and development ofprotected area institutions

Contractual service providers