PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

FOPER

Strengthening Capacities of Education and Training for Forest Policy and Economics Development in South-East Europe Region

First phase, 2004-2009

Final, September 9th, 2009 (Chapter 14 added Jan 1st, 2010) 1. Summary of the Report

FOPER was a project which aimed at strengthening human capacities in forest policy and forest economics higher education and research during 2004-2009 in the Western Balkans region (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The project was funded by Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and European Forest Institute (EFI). The implementation of the project was responsibility of an international consortium with 13 partners.

The need for the project arose from the political history of the region, which has lead to the lack of sufficient human capacities related to modern forest policy and forest economics sciences.

The project carried out first a training needs assessment among employers on the topic of forest policy and economics skills and knowledge. The results were used in the design of an International Master’s Degree Program in Forest Policy and Economics and a Professional Training Program. In addition, activities were carried out for enhancing linkages between forest research and forest policy processes in the region.

The international masters’ degree program was established by a consortium of 5 faculties of forestry from the region and the first generation of students was taught in Sarajevo and Belgrade. Out of the 24 students who started the program, 18 graduated by the end of the project, May 2009 and 4 more are expected to graduate in fall 2009. In connection to the MSc. program, 6 university teachers from the region received personal training in relevant skills and knowledge.

Professional training program was carried out with a “train the trainers” approach. A group of 25 coordinators were trained and used as a vehicle for training of trainers at regional level. Total of 80 persons were trained as trainers in key substance issues through 5 regional courses. At national level total of 15 training courses to the professionals on these key substance issues were organized, reaching a total of 215 professionals in the region.

Two international workshops on relevant topics were organized during the project, both serving as a discussion forum for scientists and policy makers, as well as doing concrete work in forest policy and economic substance. Five research projects on forest related conflicts were carried out and results published. The main purpose of these projects was to serve as training platform for the 20 participating senior and junior researchers whom received a thorough on-the-job training in the methodology of forest policy research.

Most of the six project results were fully achieved during the project lifetime. Assessment of the indicators of project purpose demonstrate that the project has been successful in reaching its main objective of capacity building.

The overall spending of the project was 3,9 M€, out of which 3,1 M€ was funded by a grant from the MFA. Disbursement rate of the grant during project lifetime was 95%. The remaining funding has been agreed to be used for supporting PhD studies for students from the region.

The project is considered fully compatible with the Finnish development policy and relevant national policies. The aspects related to sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency are assessed as good. During the project the need for further work in consolidating the established capacities was identified and a follow-up phase for the project was formulated.

2 Contents

Abreviations used FOPER Forest Policy and Economics Education and Research. This abbreviation is used to refer to the project. FPE Forest policy and economics, as academic subjects. MDP Master’s Degree Program MoU Memorandum of Understanding PT Professional training. Also known as “continuous education” or “life-long learning”, meaning continuous improvement of professional skills and knowledge after having completed related studies in a university. SC Supervisory Committee SEE South-east Europe SPI Science-policy interface SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threaths. An analytical framework for recognizing different aspects related to a certain issue, experience or similar. TNA Training needs assessment

3 2. Project Background

The first phase of the FOPER project worked during 2004-2009 and focused on development higher forestry education and research in the South-East Europe region. For the purposes of FOPER the term SEE-region is defined consisting of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.

These countries have long and respectable traditions in higher forestry education and research. Due to the earlier political regimes, the development of modern forest policy and forest economics as scientific disciplines has been very limited. In the centrally planned economies of Yugoslavia and Albania policy science and economics were not subject to extensive research, nor were they taught, as they were seen as responsibilities of the state. This view extended to the forest sector also. What was taught in the universities and researched in the forest research institutes was only a very narrow, socialistic view of forest economics. Forest policy was understood mainly as science of how to organize the forest sector into state-run administrative units.

During the late 1990’s the all countries of the region suffered to varying extent from the wars and civil unrest following the fall of the socialist regimes. Recovery from the armed conflicts was painfully slow and did certainly not help at all in catching up with more modern ideologies, even though this became the tendency in the newly established independent states of the region. At the time of starting FOPER, there was a great lack of knowledge on the existence of scientific disciplines called forest policy and forest economics, not to mention their modern contents, theories and paradigms.

The war cut wounds to the professional relations too. During the times of Yugoslavia there was an intensive contact and collaboration among the forestry faculties and research organizations. Annual inter-cathedra meetings gathered together the scientists of different chairs and a feeling of a collegiate was very strong. Some faculties were stronger and more appreciated than others, but all collaborated and kept in touch with each other. The war tore down these good relations for a long time. By the time FOPER started, the region had seen only very few projects1 or initiatives in which for example Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs worked together. The distrust, sometimes even open hostility between the nations permeated the forestry professionals too, even though some ten years ago they had all been “one big family”. It is relevant to point out also that Albania had been very isolated during the socialist regime and did not have connections to the Yugoslavian states.

Another aspect relevant to the sector was the rule of professors and senior scientists which had been educated during the socialist era. While some of them had made the attempt to adapt to the new paradigms, some simply had decided not to accept their existence and remained with the older concepts and theories. Those who tried to adapt, fell often short in understanding what the modern science was about and developed a certain degree of caution, if not even mistrust towards all new ideas. While the younger generation may have been more receptive to the broader views and even keen to study them, the rule of the older paradigms was very strong and kept the possibilities for influx of new ideas rather limited. This was accentuated even further by the very limited economic possibilities, meager salaries and practically no opportunities offered domestically to travel abroad. The isolation was even further enhanced by the difficult visa regimes of some countries2.

1 One of the few examples prior to FOPER had been a TEMPUS-funded project which aimed at creating improved curriculums for Master’s level studies. Some FOPER staff had participated in this initiative, which clearly laid one of the important cornerstones on which FOPER was built. 2 For example, in the beginning of FOPER, Bosnian citizens were only able to travel to Cuba without a visa.

4 The region had practically no relevant forest economics or forest policy research in early 2000. The modern forest policy processes, like introduction of national forest programs, were unknown or incipient and where there were processes for development of “forest sector strategies” or similar, these were strongly controlled by forest authorities and government officials and the documents were drafted in small circuits, without stakeholder participation. Scientists and university professors were sometimes included in these processes, but as the administrative tradition rested on the authority of position and not so much on scientific merits, their voice was not strong. More importantly, these plans did not have much momentum in their implementation, apparently due to the lack of stakeholder participation, and often they remained on the shelves collecting dust.

Strong influence of party politics was and still is a characteristic feature of the forest sector in the SEE-region. During the FOPER lifetime the general managers of almost all state forest enterprises have changed various times and every time there has been a change of government after a parliamentary election in a country, the top management of forest administration has been changed. This volatility adds another reality to the nature of the forest sector. A very important factor for being able to work in the forest sector was not so much being a good professional, but being connected and belonging to the right party.

5 3. Project Design

3.1. Project partnership, organization and management set-up

FOPER was a large project, which had altogether 13 partners as follows: 1. Forest Research Institute, Jastrebarsko, Croatia 2. Institute of Forestry, Belgrade, Serbia 3. Agency for Environment and Forestry, Forest Directorate, Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration3, Tirana, Albania 4. University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Forestry, Bosnia and Herzegovina 5. University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Forestry, Bosnia and Herzegovina 6. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Serbia 7. University of “St. Kiril and Metodij”, Faculty of Forestry, Skopje, Macedonia. 8. Agricultural University of Tirana, Faculty for Forest Sciences, Albania 9. University of Joensuu, Faculty for Forest Sciences, Finland 10. Silva Network4 11. United Nations University 12. EFI Project Centre INNOFORCE, hosted at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria 13. European Forest Institute (Coordination)

In practical project language the partners were sometimes referred to as “regional partners” and “international partners”. EFI was the contractual party towards the main financing agency, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (contracts can be found here). All partners, except Silva Network, had a subcontract with EFI on a specific share of project implementation, each with detailed work plan and budget. EFI had the role of coordinator and at the same time had the overall responsibility on the quality of the project implementation. The individual subcontracts are available at EFI upon request.

Supervisory Committee held the highest authority and decision power in the project. It consisted of one representative of each project partner (Silva Network represented by University of Joensuu), representatives of Ministries of Forestry in the SEE-region and of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. MFA chaired the meetings of the Committee and Project Coordinator acted as secretary. Focal points (please see below for details) often participated in the meetings as observers. The Supervisory Committee met altogether 8 times during the project (7 regular meetings and one extraordinary) as follows:

Nr. Venue Timing 1 Zagreb, Croatia March 2005 2 Bijela, Montenegro September 2005 3 Tirana, Albania February 2006 Extraordinary Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina June 2006 4 Skopje, Macedonia October 2006 5 Belgrade, Serbia April 2007 6 Banja Luka, Bosnia and December 2007 Herzegovina 7 Vantaa, Finland October 2008

3 Earlier “Forest and Pasture Research Institute”, was integrated into the Agency which was formed in 2007.

4 Through University of Joensuu, which held the presidency of the network in the start of the project.

6 It reviewed and approved the project work plans and budget and approved the progress and financial reports. Minutes of the SC meetings can be accessed at the project website (direct link here).

Project was managed by management team (Project Management Team, PMT, please see chapter 4.3. for composition), which was responsible for the everyday management and took operative decisions in between the Supervisory Committee meetings. The PMT normally met every two weeks. Each meeting had an agenda and was minuted. The minutes of the PMT meetings are archived at EFI and are available upon request.

Each regional partner had assigned a representative to the project team, which was the main operative body of the project. These representatives were called “focal points” and worked in the project as a part of their normal activities in their respective organizations. They, however, also had a personal contract with EFI and received a small financial compensation for the additional workload which the project caused. The terms of reference for the focal points are included in the Annex 1.1. of the Project document.

The project team (PMT and Focal points) met during the project at regular 2-3 month intervals. Altogether 20 meetings were carried out in different locations:

1 Sarajevo, Bosnia and 02/2005 Herzegovina 2 Skopje, Macedonia 07/2005 3 Cavtat, Croatia 09/2005 4 Stubicke Toplice, Croatia 11/2005 5 Vienna, Austria 01/2006 6 Brac, Croatia 05/2006 7 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 07/2006 8 Durrësi, Albania 09/2006 9 Zagreb, Croatia 02/2007 10 Herzeg Novi, Montenegro 05/2007 11 Warsaw, Poland 09/2007 12 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 11/2007 13 Belgrade, Serbia 02/2008 14 Tirana, Albania 03/2008 15 Belgrade, Serbia 07/2008 16 Orvieto, Italy 09/2008 17 Koli, Finland 10/2008 18 Belgrade, Serbia 12/2008 19 Varazdin, Croatia 03/2009 20 Brijuni, Croatia 05/2009

All team meetings are documented in minutes of the meetings or notes on main issues discusses. The documentation is stored in EFI archives and is available upon request.

FOPER established also in each country a national working group (NWG) in each project country. The main idea of the NWGs was to act as a sounding board and discussion forum on project related issues. They consisted of representatives of different organizations from the forest sector, both public and private. The NWGs were called to meet on a needs basis by the focal points and were most used in the beginning of the project. Terms of reference for the NWGs are included in the Annex 1.2. of the Project document.

7 National Advisers were identified and contracted from each country. Their role was to provide the focal points with advise and broader perspectives. The National Advisers (listed in chapter 4.3.) were normally senior professionals with long experience and good vision in the forest sector of the country. Terms of reference for the National Advisers are included in the Annex 1.3. of the Project document.

3.2. Project strategies

The most important project strategy by far was project implementation by the regional partners. This was seen primary for building of ownership and commitment, as well as for the sustainability of the results. Therefore, while EFI held the responsibility of implementation firmly in the beginning, it was gradually shifted towards the regional partners. In the end of the project all activities and components were running clearly on their own, implemented by the regional partners and assisted by international partners.

Second main strategy was strong emphasis on stakeholder involvement in the design of the training program and capacity building. This meant that the project introduced to the forest sector of SEE- region the concept of stakeholder consultations, which at least in the regional level was rather unknown prior to FOPER. Three major regional stakeholder consultations were organized, first one on the overall project implementation in Sarajevo in February 2005, second in Ohrid in July 2005 on the results of the training needs assessment and third one in Brac in May 2006 on the design of the Master’s Degree Program and Professional training program. The National Working Groups also served as a forum to discuss with stakeholder representatives.

Establishment of the training programs was strongly based on the future needs in forest policy and economics. This effort was carried out even though the estimation of requirements and demand for professionals a few years ahead is extremely challenging. Another important aspect was that the training programs (Masters’ Degree and Professional Training) were implemented with project funding in order to create an institutional momentum and demand, while at the same time strengthening the capacities of the regional partners to implement them. Sustainability was aimed at by searching for long-term solutions for the financing of the training programs.

Promotion of science-policy interface was based on the strategy of demonstration the benefits of dialogue of policy makers with scientific community and on utility of scientific information in the formulation of policies. Main lines of action following this strategy were the events in which scientists and policy makers were brought together to discuss different issues and the training of researchers which enabled the production of policy relevant research results in the region.

On-the-job training was used throughout the project in various different modalities. EFI staff provided models on format and modalities of good practice to the project team in every possible occasion and also gave lots of guidance and opportunities for the project staff to practice this. A good example of this was writing of reports and minutes. At organizational level the practices related to contract management gave lots of opportunities to sharpen the skills of the regional partner organizations. In the researcher training learning new skills while doing meaningful research was also extensively used and functioned in an excellent manner.

Also worth mentioning is the strategy of using best possible (European) expertise in the specific assignments related to the project. This is a core competence of EFI, as it is able to mobilize quickly very high-quality personnel to carry out demanding tasks. External experts always work in collaboration with regional counterparts, hence allowing mutual exchange of ideas and learning.

8 4. Means

4.1. Project expenditure

The Annex 1 presents the final financial report of the entire project. The annual financial reports form an integral part of the final financial report and provide detailed assessment of the expenditure of the project against the annual budgets. As a summary the following data on the implementation rates of the annual budgets is provided:

Financial year Budget, € Expenditure, € Implementation rate, % 2004-2005 885,694 665 094 75 2006 1,616,273 1 022 829 63 2007 1,441,548 827 248 57 2008 1,374,129 1 093 243 80 2009 481,870 314 919 65 Entire project 3 869 356 3,923,396 1015 Entire project, MFA grant only 3 300 000 3 143 517 95

The implementation rate of the entire project is above 100% because the contribution of EFI to the funding of the project resulted higher than originally planned. This was due to the fact that EFI contribution was linked to the administrative charges (overheads) and defined as a certain percentage of the personnel costs. As the personnel costs resulted slightly higher than planned some five years ago, the overall expenditure of the project was higher than original. This, however, did not influence the spending of the MFA grant. Furthermore, the related changes in the annual spending were always approved by the project Supervisory Committee.

The remainder of the MFA grant, 156483 euro, has been agreed between EFI and MFA to be used by EFI in financing two PhD scholarships for the Master’s Degree Program graduates and some other minor remaining work. While the overall implementation rate during the formal project lifetime was 95%, this will approach 100% as the remaining activities are implemented.

4.2. Funding of the project

The financing of the project consisted of two major sources: a grant from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and cash-contribution by EFI. Also some international partners gave cash contributions and all regional partners provided important in-kind contributions, which are not quantified in monetary terms. The quantifiable funding of the project can be summarized as follows:

Source Amount, € Type Notes Ministry for Foreign Affairs of 3 300 000 Gran Finland t European Forest Institute 827 433 Cash 103% of the final personnel cost. Resulted higher than originally planned.

5 The implementation rate is above 100 because the funding actually increased during the project, as EFI’s share of funding was tied to the personnel costs. More staff time was used than originally planned, which increased EFI’s funding to the project and resulted in higher expenditure than originally planned.

9 EFI Project Centre INNOFORCE 15 908 Cash Staff time. Not accounted for in the United Nations University 11 225 Cash project accounts. University of Joensuu 10 909 Cash

It is also important to highlight that the EFI contribution (827 433 euro) was about 75% of the total administrative costs (1 108 599 euro). Therefore only 9% of the MFA grant (281 166 euro) was spent in administrative costs.

4.3. Technical assistance and other personnel

The FOPER project did not have technical assistance personnel in the traditional sense. The EFI staff (project coordinator, project administrator/vice coordinator, Head of program) did carry out many tasks which come close to the normal TA-personnel role, but the approach was closer towards forming a team of personnel which shared the responsibility of good project implementation. EFI naturally carried the overall responsibility on the project management and coordination. The project team over the lifetime of the implementation can be summarized as follows:

Project Management Team (EFI staff, proxy to TA-team) 1. Mr. Tomi Tuomasjukka, Project Coordinator 2. Ms. Mari Pitkänen, Project Administrator/Vice Coordinator6 3. Mr. Ilpo Tikkanen, Head, Policy and Governance Program of EFI

Focal points (from the regional partner organizations in the SEE-region) 4. Dr. Leonidha Peri, Focal point Faculty of Forest Sciences, Agricultural University of Tirana, Albania 5. Prof. Hajri Haska, Agency for the Environment and Forests (formerly Forests and Pasture Research Institute), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Water Administration, Albania 6. Dr. Makedonka Stojanovska, Faculty of Forestry, University of St. Kiril and Metodij, Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 7. Dr. Dragan Nonic, Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, Serbia (until March 2006) 8. Mr. Nenad Petrovic, Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade (from March 2006 onwards) 9. Dr. Radovan Nevenic, Institute of Forestry, Belgrade, Serbia 10. Dr. Mersudin Avdibegovic, Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 11. Mr. Doni Blagojevic, Faculty of Forestry, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina 12. Dr. Dijana Vuletic, Forest Research Institute Jastrebarsko, Croatia 13. Dr. Stjepan Posavec, Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, Croatia (only until May 2005)

The international partners also identified key personnel whom worked closely with the FOPER-project:

University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences

6 Ms. Pitkänen’s profile was upgraded from administrator to vice-coordinator during the second project year. This was necessary for having more resources available for the coordination of the large project.

10 14. Prof. Olli Saastamoinen 15. Prof. Paavo Pelkonen 16. Mr. Jukka Matero

United Nations University 17. Dr. Libor Jansky 18. Dr. Brendan Barrett 19. Dr. Thomas Zschocke 20. Mr. Luis Patron

EFI Project Centre INNOFORCE 21. Prof. Dr. Peter Glück (Team leader of the Training Needs Assessment (TNA) team. Also worked as the main consultant of the Feasibility study for the options of implementation of the training program) 22. Dr. Ewald Rametsteiner (Member of the TNA team, Team leader of the Training Program Design (TPD) team and the researcher training work) 23. Dr. Gerhard Weiss (Research Trainer) 24. Mr. Florian Kraxner (Member of the TPD team)

In addition, a large number of personnel were involved in the project as consultants:

25. Ms. Annette Munk-Sörensen, Copenhagen Development Consulting, Training needs assessment specialist (member of the TNA team 26. Prof. Davide Pettenella, University of Padova, Italy (Member of TNA team) 27. Ms. Elmedina Krilasevic (junior member of the TNA team, assistant to Prof. Glück in the Feasibility study) 28. Prof. Gerard Buttoud, ENGREF, France (Forest policy expert, TPD team) 29. Prof. Anders Lunnan, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway (Forest economist, TPD team) 30. Prof. Matti Meriläinen, University of Joensuu, Finland (Expert in Higher Education and professional training, TPD team) 31. Mr. Pekka Alhojärvi, Silvacultura Ltd (Expert in professional training, TPD team. Also carried out a consultancy on the options for securing the sustainability of the professional training) 32. Mr. Paul Silfverberg, Planpoint Ltd. (Trainer in PT program ) 33. Mr. Graham Taylor, Europarc Consulting 34. Dr. Atilla Lengyel, CEPF (Trainer in PT Program) 35. Dr. Gerben Janse, CEPF (Trainer in PT Program) 36. Ms. Elvira Bazina, USAID (Trainer in PT Program) 37. Mr. Giles Drake-Brockman, Europark Consulting (Trainer in PT Program) 38. Dr. Eeva Hellström, Finland (Mentor for forest conflicts research and trainer in the researcher training) 39. Dr. Ville Hallikainen, Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA (Trainer in teacher training program, SPSS software) 40. Dr. Sari Havu-Nuutinen, University of Joensuu (Trainer in teacher training program, didactics)

11 At the country level, the project made an attempt to involve senior professionals as National Advisers to the project. The National advisers were:

41. Prof. Vasillaq Mine, Faculty for Forest Sciences, Agricultural University of Tirana, Albania 42. Prof. Ivan Blinkov, Faculty of Forestry, University of St. Kiril and Metodij, Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 43. Prof. Nenad Rankovic, Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade 44. Prof. (emer.) Sucrija Sakovic, Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo 45. Prof. (emer.) Rudolf Sabadi, Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb

Another important instrument for country-level work has been the so called National Working Groups which were established by the Focal Points. These consisted typically of 10-15 representatives of professionals from different types of relevant organizations in the forest sector of each country. Detailed lists of National Working Group members are available upon request from the FOPER Focal Points.

4.4. Overview of equipment and other fixed assets

Human capacities are by far the most important asset which has been made use of in the implementation of FOPER. This explains the rather large spending on staff time and personnel. On the other hand, the expenditure on equipment and other fixed assets has been rather minimal. It has consisted mainly of normal tools for expert work, such as laptop computers and their accessories as well as phones. In the beginning of the project 6 000 euro was allocated for each regional partner for upgrading of their relevant equipment and literature. Additional 23 000 euro was allocated also for both teaching faculties (Belgrade and Sarajevo) for upgrading classrooms, IT facilities and student libraries for the Master’s Degree Program.

In the end of the project the fixed assets of the project are practically zero, consisting of only two used laptop computers, one portable printer, one digital camera and some related minor accessories, all approaching the end of their life span. These remain in the possession of EFI.

12 5. Activities

5.1. Start-up and Training Needs Assessment

FOPER started officially in late 2004 but the main effort in activities was seen in early 2005 when the work planning took place. A stakeholder workshop/consultation was held in February 2005, before the first Supervisory Committee, in order to disseminate information on the newly started project in the region and in order to gain input to the work plan. After the first Supervisory Committee meeting approved the work plan and operative budget, the Training Needs Assessment was launched. This was a major initiative which studied the present and future training needs of the all project countries in the field of forest policy and forest economics. EFI contracted a team of external experts for this assignment (Prof. Dr. Peter Glück, Prof. Davide Pettenella, Ms. Annette Munk-Sörensen, Dr. Ewald Rametsteiner, Ms. Elmedina Krilasevic). The FOPER Focal Points worked very closely with this team.

The TNA was carried out during the summer of 2005 in a rather tight timeframe, which allowed only about one week of field work in each country. Despite of this and the difficult methodology, the end result was considered good. The TNA process included a stakeholder consultation in Ohrid, Macedonia in July 2007, involving representatives of academia, research, government agencies, non- governmental organizations, private sector and international organizations present in the region. Report of the Ohrid Stakeholder Consultation is presented in Annex 2 and the Training Needs Assessment report in Annex 3 (with attachments).

5.2. Design of the training programs

The next preparatory activities were launching of the training program design (TPD) process. This work involved the overall design of both the Master’s Degree Program and the Professional Training Program. The EFI Project Centre INNOFORCE, hosted at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna was the project partner which took the responsibility of carrying out this work. In case of the design of the MDP the work involved both the academic and administrative design. Again, the FOPER Focal Points worked very closely together with the TPD Team, which was led by Dr. Ewald Rametsteiner. An academic advisory board was established to guide the curriculum design.

As the combination of forest policy and forest economics in one single curriculum in a balanced manner is a novel approach, Prof. Olli Saastamoinen from the University of Joensuu wrote a background paper which served as important conceptual basis for the work of the TPD team. This paper can be found in Annex 4.

The end result of the design work, the design document of the two training programs were delivered in summer (MDP) and fall (PT) of 2006. Even though the design work of the took a year and involved also a test course in University of Belgrade in March 2006 and a stakeholder consultation on Brac Island in Croatia in May, it was considered rather fast. The results of the design work, a document describing the details of the Master’s Degree Program is in Annex 5 and another one for the Professional Training Program in Annex 7.

A rather important product related to the MDP is the so-called Administrative Framework document, which defines various rules and procedures related to the implementation of the education program. This document was designed mainly by the faculties of forestry alongside and bit after the process of the academic design of the MDP. The framework can be found in Annex 6.

13 A further analysis on the process of the design and lessons learned is given in Annex 8, which contains the report by EFI Project Centre INNOFORCE, the partner responsible for leading the design.

Over the winter 2005-06 another important process was carried out by Prof. Dr. Peter Glück. Assigned by the project coordinator, EFI, he assessed the feasibility of different implementation options for both training programs. This included review of current academic and administrative capacities and facilities, legal framework and other strategic aspects. Prof. Glück was assisted in this mission by Ms. Elmedina Krilasevic, whom later became a student in the FOPER Master’s Degree Program. The report of this third party assessment is presented in Annex 9.

This not only gave an external opinion on the best way to share the responsibilities related to the implementation of the training programs, but also initiated the negotiations among the FOPER partners. These negotiations culminated in the third Supervisory Committee meeting held in Tirana, Albania, where a formal Memorandum of Understanding on Collaboration in Forest Science among the project partners in the region was formally signed. This MoU (Annex 10) included several annexed protocols which reflected the agreements made on the implementation of the training programs. Basically it was agreed that the three strongest faculties of forestry (Sarajevo, Belgrade and Zagreb) would take charge of the implementation of the Master’s Degree Program, other three faculties being partners in this initiative. As for the Professional training it was agreed that the main implementers would be the Faculties in Tirana, Skopje and Banja Luka, assisted by the three forest research institutes.

It is worth noting that during the process of negotiations and decisions on the implementation of the training programs the Faculty of Forestry, Zagreb, distanced itself from the project and finally in May 2006 formally informed the project partnership that it no longer wishes to remain as a project partner. The letter of disengagement is annexed (Annex 11). An extraordinary Supervisory Committee meeting was held in Sarajevo in July 2006 to consider the products of the TPD process and the implementation options. While the loss of a major partner was considered a serious drawback, the project was continued as per plans.

5.3. Activities by project components

From here onwards the implementation of the project started to differentiate and the forming of components as conceptual project parts became more evident and necessary. Below the implementation of the individual project components is described in more detail in chronological order.

5.3.1. Master’s Degree Program (MDP) a) Program development and implementation

Original plan for the implementation of teaching of the MDP had been that each faculty would have taken charge of one semester and the students would have spent one semester in each town. The fourth semester was designed to be spent in home faculties working on the master’s thesis. This was viewed as a good model because it would have given the students the opportunity get to know three different cultures. When Zagreb Faculty stepped aside from the project it was decided that the teaching time (three semesters) is split into half between the two remaining faculties and hence the

14 students would spend 1½ semesters first in Sarajevo and then in Belgrade. At this stage, Universities of Sarajevo and Belgrade took main responsibility of finalizing the administrative framework for the MDP, taking into account the national legislation and faculty by-laws. This agreement was documented in an “Inter-university agreement on the implementation of the Master’s Degree Program”, signed in spring of 2007 (Annex 12). While the signature took place when the teaching had already started, the details of the agreement had been ready earlier.

Student selection for the MDP was the first issue to be taken care of by the newly established MDP Coordination Team (TOR in Annex 13), which consisted of the deans and focal points of Sarajevo and Belgrade Faculties of Forestry. Marketing for the student intake was carried out, while the selection process was being designed. University of Joensuu played a crucial role here, providing expertise on the procedure and its contents. There were two entrance exams for which the study materials, questions and their evaluation was provided by University of Joensuu also.

The student selection process ran during the fall of 2006 and parallel to it the teaching faculties were also organizing relevant student services, like housing, health security and permits of stay. On the side of academic arrangements, the process of selection and contracting teachers, both international lead professors and regional assistants, was running during this period.

About 30 students expressed interest in the program, but only 24 successfully completed the entrance process. As the selection process took practically the whole fall semester of 2006, the teaching started in February 2007 in Sarajevo in the classroom renovated with project support. The spring semester and half of the next fall semester were taught in Sarajevo. This period was characterized by both the students getting used to modern teaching methods and classroom culture and also numerous adjustments and lots of hard work in relation to the administrative framework of the program. The permits of stay, particularly for the Albanian students, as well as the recognition of the Diplomas of the students were complicated processes.

A complete report on the implementation of the Master’s degree program in Faculty of Forestry in the University of Sarajevo is given in Annex 14 by the Faculty itself.

In the middle of the fall-semester of 2007 the teaching in Sarajevo ended and students moved to Belgrade. The Faculty of Forestry in University of Belgrade started to run the following courses and took also care of the student services. Administrative procedures were equally complicated, though the issue of permits of stay was not quite as complicated as in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Teaching in Belgrade continued until the end of the spring semester of 2008 and was culminated in an international excursion.

A full account of the implementation of the MDP in the Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade is given in Annex 15.

During the last semester in fall of 2008 the students worked in their home faculties on their Master’s Degree thesis. Each student had an international mentor and a regional tutor. Only one student finished his work before the end of the year. 17 more students finished and altogether 18 out of the 24 students defended their thesis and graduated before the end of the project in May 2009. Organizing the graduation and ensuring that all thesis are passed adequately through the formal procedures proved to be a big job for the MDP Coordination team.

An additional issue was that the students from other than the teaching faculties were not able to defend and graduate at their home faculties due to various reasons. In Tirana, the Faculty of Forestry Sciences successfully accredited the MDP program at the faculty and University level by November 2006, but failed to accredit it at the ministerial level, because of lack of MDP teaching activities in

15 Tirana as one of the conditions of the accreditation process. The Albanians graduated from Sarajevo. In Banja Luka and Skopje the program was appropriately accredited by the Faculties but it was discovered that there is no proper procedure in place for the graduation of MSc. Students as per the Bologna protocol principles. Both Banja Luka and Skopje students defended and graduated in Belgrade. Out of the 6 students not finishing their studies by May 2009, 4 are in the process of finishing their thesis work and are expected to graduate during 2009. b) Training of FPE teachers

A teacher training program was set up for increasing the skills and knowledge of the regional staff who are potential teachers for the MDP. Preparation of the plans was responsibility of the University of Joensuu, Faculty for Forest Sciences. The training focused on upgrading of the candidates’ knowledge on forest policy and economics substance, as well as related skills, like pedagogics and English language. The plans were prepared for 6 persons7. In their implementation the following activities were included:  Work in contact with the so called twinning teacher in the context of the MDP teaching. (twin = European lead teacher and regional assistant teacher)  Provision of relevant FPE literature  Targeted visits to relevant international events  A training workshop on pedagogic skills carried out in the region with 11 participants  A training workshop on the use of SPSS statistical software for 16 persons  Grants for English language studies were made available.

The training was also planned to include mentoring by experienced foreign FPE teachers. This was, however, not implemented due to various constraints and reasons, the twinning arrangement of the MDP taking this role, as well as the lack of time and other resources.

An additional activity in the teacher training was facilitating their participation in so-called “summer schools”. Four teachers participated in a three-week school on international forest policy in Helsinki in 2006 and three teachers in a one-week school on corporate social responsibility in Brazow.

Further details on the teacher training can be found in the report by the University of Joensuu in Annex 16.

5.3.2. Professional Training Program a) Making the concept operational

The design of the PT-program was ready in November 2006. However, it was noted by the project team that while the theoretical and conceptual design for PT was good and adequate, some further work was still needed for the program to be operational. A task force for this was created within the FOPER team and two additional resource persons (Ms. Jupe from Tirana Faculty and Mr. Blagojevic 8 from Banja Luka) were involved from the faculties responsible for the future implementation. The

7 Avdibegovic, Mersudin; Peri, Leonidha; Petrovic, Nenad; Posavec, Stjepan; Stojanovska, Makedonka; Vuletic, Dijana 8 Mr. Doni Blagojevic was later appointed as Focal Point for the Faculty of Forestry, University of Banja Luka, when Dr. Avdibegovic gave up the representation of two Bosnian faculties and concentrated on the duties of focal point at Sarajevo Faculty.

16 operational planning was carried out during 2007. This included rather much of simplifying and search for practical solutions to the rather theoretical and complicated ideas presented in the design. The MDP continued dominating the overall scene of FOPER even during this year, so the PT work was progressing relatively slow, due to limitations in available staff time.

EFI established subcontracts with the three Faculties of Forestry (Banja Luka, Tirana and Skopje) on the implementation of the PT program. Through these contracts the responsibility for organization and the funding were handed over to the regional partners. b) Establishing a network of PT coordinators

In 2007 a group of PT-coordinators was identified and invited to the first training sessions to be held the following year. This is a group of people whom were identified from key organizations in each country, aiming at people who can act as catalysts of professional training in the region. Their role is to promote and organize training sessions, as well as interact with each other in order to make a better use of the capacities found at regional level. A Terms of Reference for PT Coordinators was developed (Annex 17) and the identified people were asked to be nominated by their supervisors to this role, for which no compensation was offered.

The PT coordinators were trained through the so-called General training courses (G-courses), which included substances like adult education, organizing events, project management and training needs assessment techniques. These courses were carried out in early 2008 in Skopje and in Banja Luka to a group of 25 PT-coordinators. Annex 18 gives a full list of PT-coordinators and indicates their attendance of the G-courses. The training language was English and the trainers were all international experts as follows:

 G1: How to train adults and professionals – Ms. Annette Munk-Sörensen  G2: Training needs assessment – Ms. Annette Munk-Sörensen  G3: Organizing training events – Ms. Brita Pajari, EFI  G4: Project management and financing – Mr. Paul Silfverberg, Planpoint Ltd.

PT coordinators were called together into a networking meeting in late 2008 to share their experiences and to strengthen their networking. This meeting is reported in Annex 19. c) Training of trainers, regional courses

The next phase was the identification of trainers for FPE substance courses in each project country. The trainers were trained by international experts through so-called Regional Courses, which were organized one in each country, each on a specific topic. The topics had been identified in the original design document, on basis of the training needs assessment carried out in 2005. The language of these courses was English, which raised the level of challenge in finding suitable trainers to be trained. The following table makes an overview of the Regional courses, their topics, trainers and participant numbers:

Regional Course Topic Trainer/s Number venue and date of participants RA Development of certification and 1) Ms. Elvira Bazina, 16

17 Albania international marketing of non-wood forest USAID products RB Forest related EU policies and international 2) Dr. Ewald 22 Bosnia, Banja agreements Rametsteiner, Luka INNOFORCE 3) Mr. Ingwald April 21-24th, Gschwandtl, Austrian 2008 Ministry of Forestry RC Recreational use of forests – economic and 4) Mr. Giles Drake- 20 Croatia, Zagreb management aspects with micro, small and Brockman, Europark medium enterprise development Consulting July 9-12th, 2008 RM Macedonia, Development of entrepreneurship and micro- 5) Mr. Graham Taylor, 14 Skopje SMEs in relation with protected areas Europarc Consulting

July 2-5th, 2008 RS Private forestry development 6) Dr. Atilla Lengyel, CEPF 23 Serbia, Belgrade 7) Dr. Gerben Janse, CEPF

June 10-13th, 2008 Total number of 959 participants

Total number of people trained in the different topics was 95. Fifteen persons attended two courses and therefore the total number of trainers trained is 95/80. A list of the participants of the regional trainers’ courses is given in Annex 20. d) Training of trainers in adult education, national courses

Next step was to give an introduction on adult education to the trainers who attended one or more regional courses. This was carried out through the so-called G5-courses, a replication of the G1 given to the PT Coordinators. These courses were held nationally in each country in the beginning of autumn of 2009. The PT coordinators acted as trainers on these courses, which were taught in local languages. Not all trainers attended the pedagogic training, which can be considered a drawback. Information on the attendance of the G5 courses is given in the list of participants to the regional courses in Annex 20. e) Professional training at national level

The last and most important step was the actual training of forestry professionals at national level through national courses. The subjects of the courses were selected by the PT-coordinators on basis of discussions with the potential trainees and client organizations, as well as the general situation of the forest sector in the country. A brief overview of the numbers of participants to these national courses (N-courses is presented below. Annex 21 gives a summary numbers of people trained. More detailed information on the N-courses is given in the final reports of the faculties which were in charge

9 15 persons attended two courses

18 of PT implementation (Annex 22 - Faculty of Forestry, University of Banja Luka; Annex 23 – Faculty of Forestry, University of St. Kiril and Metodij, Skopje; and Annex 24 – Faculty for Forest Sciences, Agricultural University of Tirana)

The following table summarizes the number of courses held and number of participants at national level of professional training.

Country Number of national Total number of Total number of courses people trained10 course participations Albania 3 54 57 Bosnia and 2 33 37 Herzegovina Croatia 3 35 51 Macedonia 4 67 79 Serbia 2 26 34 Total 15 215 258

5.3.3. Science-policy interface

Strengthening of the science-policy interface was first approached by FOPER with a wide array of activities, like providing funding for FPE researchers to attend international relevant events and study English language. Also a process for the creation of a regional research agenda on forest policy and economics was initiated. International events organized by the project were also important in bringing together researchers and policy makers.

Before 2007 only very few activities had been carried out. This was due to the fact that the MDP absorbed practically all the available staff resources of the project. The first substantial activity of this component was seen in February 2007 when the project organized in collaboration with FAO and IUFRO an international workshop in Zagreb on the theme of “National forest programs – A tool for strengthening science policy interface in practice”. This workshop was attended by 46 participants from different parts of Europe and had a very distinguished list of speakers, as well as a novel methodological approach to such an event. The program of the workshop is presented in Annex 25.1, list of participants in Annex 25.2 and a compilation of the results and outcomes in Annex 25.3.

Another important instrument, promotion of policy-relevant FPE research in the SEE region had not been yet initiated when the FOPER project was subject to its mid-term review in summer of 2007. The review looked critically at the strategy of this component and suggested that instead of the various instruments applied, the work would be concentrated only on the training of researchers through on- the-job training in practical research work. This idea was considered good and was adopted by the project.

In second half of 2007 preparations for the practical research work and the related, tailor-made training were made. One common research theme was identified and research plans made. EFI Project Centre INNOFORCE was involved in the design and implementation of the training. The projects, which main function was to act as platforms or vehicles for the training, were all started in early 2008 through subcontracting relevant project partners to carry them out. The research teams,

10 This figure takes into account the fact that some people attended more than one course.

19 consisting of FOPER focal points as senior researchers and other research staff were set up and hence also made up the group of people to be trained. The total number of researchers/trainees was 20.

During the training process three different training workshops on methodological themes were organized by INNOFORCE. The training also included mentoring which was carried out as contacts with email and skype-conferences.

The research projects focused on forest related conflicts. One case study was carried out in each country and two regional overviews on the same materials were also made. The case studies were published by the research teams nationally and the overview studies were worked towards a peer- reviewed publication, which is likely to materialize during 2010. Results of the overview studies can be viewed as a powerpoint presentation and a conference paper at the project website.

The results of the overview studies were also presented in the international workshop on “Forest Policy and Economics in Support of Good Governance” which was the final activity of SPI component, organized by the project in April 2009 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The workshop had about 80 participants, mainly from the project countries. List of speakers consisted many top-scientists and policy-makers from pan-European area. The results of the workshop are going to be published as proceedings later in 2009. The Annex 23 contains the most important documentation available at the time of finalizing this report, i.e. the workshop program (Annex 26.1.) and list of participants (Annex 26.2.). The workshop presentations are all available in internet at the website of the workshop. .

The tradition of bringing together staff of forest policy and forest economics chairs from the universities and research institutes in former Yugoslavia was revived during FOPER. These so called “Inter-cathedra meetings” were an important part of the networking before outbreak of the war in the region. The first after-war IC meeting was organized with project funding in 2006 in Sarajevo and hosted by the Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo.

Networking of forest policy and economics researchers was promoted though a newsletter which was sent out 2-3 times per year. For this a list of FPE researchers in the SEE-region was compiled. The newsletter highlighted mainly interesting FPE related events, funding opportunities and job offers. Occasionally feedback from the readers was invited but none was ever received.

Researchers were also given opportunities to upgrade their English language capacities by providing grants for language studies. Also mobility of researchers was promoted through awarding grants for participation in international events. Both opportunities were moderately used, mainly by people who were most connected to the project.

5.4. Other lines of activities

5.4.1. E-learning

It was originally planned that the project would produce three different elearning modules11 which would be used in the MDP and possibly also the PT as materials and support as per necessary. Production of the media contents of the modules was agreed with one of the project partners, United Nations University. For the first module the contents was agreed to be provided by the University of Joensuu.

11 Online courses

20 The first elearning module was meant to be used first as material for the entrance exams of the MDP course in 2007, but as the final delivery of the module was delayed, this was dropped and the contents produced by the University of Joensuu were used in traditional paper format. Next idea was to use the elearning as a tool to bring the MDP students to the same level in the topics of forestry, forest policy and forest economics. Also this plan had to be abandoned due to delays and also some inaccuracies in the final format of the module when compared to the academic contents. The module was delivered in 2007 and is currently online available for use. The inaccuracies have been analyzed and identified and a report on this is available and will be passed to the second phase of the project for action. The elearning module can be found at http://foper.unu.edu/. A report of the work by UNU is presented in Annex 27.

5.4.2. Raising the awareness on modern FPE among forestry students

In the beginning of the project it was noted that forestry students are even less aware of the forestry issues outside their own country, than their professors. It was seen important to raise the awareness on the issue of forest policy and forest economics among the students. Two different lines of action were adopted, as reported below. a) Collaboration with IFSA

International Forestry Students’ Association (IFSA) was chosen as the main avenue to increase students’ awareness in the SEE-region on international forest policy issues. IFSA has a good tradition of involvement in the international processes and also promotes the organization of forestry students at national and regional level. A workplan of specific actions for awareness raising was established for IFSA-EFI collaboration and was carried out in 2005-2006.

In this framework the launch of the FPEN (forest policy education network) website (http://forestpolicy.net/) was launched with FOPER support. IFSA also carried out actions which aimed at enhancing students’ organization into their own associations. Financing the IFSA South- Europe Regional Meeting (SERM) in Belgrade in 2005 was a rather important event, as this brought a big international group of people into contact with students from the region and started the networking among students. A representative of the SEE-region was also sent to participate in the IFSA world congress in Brisbane, Australia.

The international forest policy was brought closer to the students of the region through the participation of 5 representatives in the United Nations Forum on Forests in New York in 2005. The student reps were selected by IFSA and they took part in the event as members of the IFSA youth delegation. Later, a follow-up meeting at regional level was organized, where the 5 delegates and IFSA representatives shared their experience on the UNFF 5 to a broader group of SEE forestry students.

Details of these activities are reported in the final report by IFSA, which can be found in the Annex 28.

b) Support to language studies and traineeship abroad

21 In general the English language abilities among the students in the SEE-region are rather poor, which enhances the isolation of students from the outer world, both in general and in their professional field in particular. This, of course, is a reflection of the society they live in and of the studies they are undergoing. While there is obviously a change ongoing, FOPER carried out some activities aimed at accelerating the change.

Small scholarships for English language studies were offered by the project. These were rather well taken advantage of; some 60 students received a grant, some of them two, for studies in local language schools. Grants were also offered for traineeships abroad. The interest for these was rather limited and the applicants were mainly Serbian students who wanted to go abroad to collect data for their diploma-thesis. Three grants were awarded but the action was discontinued because it was felt that the main aim, working as a trainee in a foreign forestry organization was not reached this way.

22 6. Results

6.1 Assessment of the achievement of results

There are six results defined for FOPER in the project document. This was the initial vision on the structuring of the project, it later changed from result-orientation to structuring as per main lines of action or project components. The following assessment of results is based on the original result structure, but the components (MDP, PT and SPI) are also blended in.

An overall summary of the extent of achievement of results in FOPER I during 2004-2009 is presented in the chart below. Detailed assessment of each result as per their achievements and indicators is presented in the text. If an arithmetic average on the achievement rates from the below figure is calculated, it comes to 93%. However, for further analysis, please see the assessment of achievement of project purpose against its indicators in the end of this chapter.

6.2. Result 1 – Assessment of the future training needs related to forest policy and economics The result 1, assessment of the training needs was completed during year 2006. The indicators of this result show the following:

 Study report available __ 12 o The TNA report and its annexes have been available on the project website since 2006.

 Workshop proceedings available __

o A report on the results of the stakeholder consultation in Ohrid in 2006 on the TNA results has been available upon request and is also deposited at the project website.

The extent of achievement of the result 1 is at 100%

6.3. Result 2 – Implementation plan for the Master’s Degree Program and Professional Training Program Result 2, producing the implementation plan for both training programs was completed in 2008. There is only one indicator defined in the project document for this result:

 Implementation plan and resources available __ o Design documents available since 2007, can be found at the project website. o Operational plan for the Professional Training Program was completed in 2007. o MDP has been accredited in four of the five participating Universities. o An inter-university agreement on the implementation of the MDP was signed in 2007. o FOPER-budget secured the financial resources necessary for implementing the first round of studies.

12 Here the green or blue color indicates the status of the indicator. Blue means no response, green is marked when there is clearly a positive response to the indicator. When the box is blue and green there is some positive response but no full compliance.

23 While the design documents of both programs were available already in 2006, accreditation of the Master’s Degree program was carried out in Belgrade and Skopje in 2008. In Tirana the MDP is accepted by the Agricultural University, but cannot be accredited nationally, due to legislative limitations. Sarajevo and Banja Luka have accredited the program earlier. This is as far as the project could progress. Therefore the extent of achievement of the result 2 is considered at 100%

6.4. Result 3 – Training of personnel in forest policy and economics Result 3, training of experts on forest policy and economics is assessed in two components: a) Masters’ Degree Program (MDP) and b) Professional Training program (PT).

6.4.1. Master’s Degree Program

Assessment of the indicators for the MDP is as follows:

 Number of MSc. graduates compared to number of starters __ o 24 students started their studies in early 2007, 18 students graduated by the end of the project. 22 students are expected to have completed during 2009. The finishing rate is 75% by the end of the project and expected rate during 2009 is 92%. These are both exceptionally high in the region and at European level too.

 Number of MSc. graduates employed by forest sector/administration/research institutions __ o 14 students started working on part-time basis in different forest sector organizations during their studies. o According to a quick enquiry among the students made in the end of August 2009, 14 persons are employed, 3 of them have not yet graduated. Among the employed ones 61% think their MSc. studies are relevant to the contents of their job and 54% think that the studies have been crucial in obtaining the job. In total 19 students responded to the small survey.

In addition the following concrete results are reported:  First cycle of the forest policy and economics master’s degree studies are completed.  The studies have been managed and administered completely by the partnership of forest faculties formed for this purpose.  Important experience and practical skills related to hosting and running a group of international students and several international teachers has been gained by the staff of Faculties of forestry in Belgrade and Sarajevo.  A large number of distinguished European FPE teachers have lectured in Belgrade or Sarajevo and created closer linkages to the region. The role to the teacher twinning-system has been crucial here.  Strong commitment and agreement among the partnership of faculties exists to carry out a second round of studies.  Regional FPE teachers have considerably increased their skills and knowledge necessary for teaching this master’s program. These include FPE substance, English language and pedagogics. However, the capacities are not yet at such a level that the teaching could be entirely run by regional teachers. This is one of the main reasons for the second phase of FOPER.

24 The indicators and the extent of achievements demonstrate that the project result related to the Master’s Degree Program is practically completed. The skills and knowledge of regional teachers are considerably increased, but will need further enhancement. Extent of achievement of the result 3a (MDP) is at 90%.

6.4.2. Professional Training Program

In the project document there is only one indicator defined for the Professional Training program. Assessment of the indicator shows the following:  Number of trained professionals __ o 25 PT coordinators trained o 78 trainers trained in specific FPE topics o 215 professionals trained in key FPE subjects, as per national demand

Networking among the PT Coordinators has been established through newsletters and one exchange- meeting. In broad terms some 300 people have been involved in the Professional training. In addition, awareness on the necessity of life-long learning has been actively promoted through the training events and numerous discussions and negotiations related to their organization. Based on these achievements the project result 3b is estimated to be fully completed (100%).

It is important to note that the Professional Training is not included in the second phase of FOPER. The project team has come to the conclusion that despite of the initial interest which has been possible to raise in some countries, the time is not ripe yet for a large scale implementation of life-long learning. Also it is important to recognize that professional training is not the core competence of any of the organizations involved in FOPER, even though it may be relevant to some of them. The project partners are organizations which essentially focus on higher forest education and forest research as their primary target. The third important reason is that in order to continue the PT activities at regional or national level would essentially involve a strong component of institutional building, an element to which currently there seem not be staff resources available in the project context.

6.5. Result 4 – Strengthening of the science-policy interfase

Result 4, Strengthening the science-policy interface is the part of FOPER which focuses on strengthening forest research and particularly creating linkages between research and policy processes. Assessment of the indicators tells the following:

 Researchers participate in and provide input to national forest policy processes __ o The research teams have maintained communication with the national forest policy authorities on the outcomes of the forest conflict projects. o In the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina two members of the 9-person council for designing the forest development program are from the Faculty of Forestry, Sarajevo. This is at least partially owed to impacts of FOPER in the capacities of the Faculty. o In Macedonia the profile of the Faculty of Forestry has clearly been strengthened towards the policy makers, particularly the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Administration. Furthermore, the discussions related to the results of the

25 conflict research have brought together parties in conflict and has paved way for better dialogue among forest policy stakeholders.  Public forest administration recognizes the utility of science in policy-making __ o Discussions with the forest authorities across the region demonstrate that the attitudes are turning towards positive side on FPE research. The forest conflict research has proved this already clearly in Macedonia. o There is a strong feeling that FOPER has contributed positively towards the increased focus of the governments on their national forest programs.  Commissioned / shared research projects __ o No indications on this yet.

It is also relevant to report that from among the participants of FOPER an Austrian funded research project on private sector forestry was created, implemented and completed during 2007-2009. While this was not a part of FOPER, nor received any support from it, it is clear that FOPER created the conditions which enabled such collaboration to be initiated and take place.

The indicators of Result 4/SPI Component demonstrate that the project has made a clear influence towards the closer collaboration of scientific personnel and policy makers. On basis of this it is fair to estimate that the extent of achievement of the Result 4/SPI Component is at 90%

6.6. Result 5 – Support to FPE at the Bsc-level education

Result 5, Support to BSc. level has been completed in 2007.The indicators of this result show the following aspects related to achievements:

 Teachers and students participate more actively in national forest policy processes __ o Teachers and students are more aware and active and do participate when opportunities are given by those who control the policy processes. o Participation of forestry students is, however, limited by the fact that their organization into associations has had a varying degree of success. This was not a specific aim of FOPER, even though it was promoted.  Amount of forest policy and economics education increased in BSc. Curricula __ o The new, Bologna-compatible curricula of forestry BSc in Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Belgrade and Skopje was strongly influenced by the presence of FOPER in the region. It is clear that FPE subjects were given more weight both by general awareness created by the presence of the project, as well as by the direct influence of the Focal Points in shaping the curricula. In some cases even EFI has had the opportunity and honor to comment on the curricula. The evidence for the above has been compiled from the personal reports of the Focal Points throughout the project implementation period. Even though not all the indicators show full completion of the result, it can be considered completed, as it is obvious that the project reached the level which was both feasible and possible with its resources. Going any further in this respect would have implied further allocation of resources to this result, which in turn would have affected some priority lines of action. This, of course was not feasible, nor desirable.

26 Effectively this minor deviation boils down to the quality of the indicators of result 5 – it may well be the case that the indicators do not exactly reflect the accomplishment of the result but something beyond it. The rate of achievement of Result 5 is considered hence 100%.

6.7. Result 6 – Sustainability of the training programs

Regarding the Result 6, Securing the continuation of the training programme contains activities which aim at sustainability of the other project results. While sustainability issues are normally mainstreamed into normal project result work, in FOPER it has been seen important to explicitly write them out in the format of a result. The indicators signal the following achievements in this result:

 A contract signed for the continuation of the training __ o All MDP partners have expressed their interest in continuing the program. At this stage there has not been any need for a detailed signed agreement. Practical work has clearly demonstrated the commitment of all partners. It is expected that a second agreement for the implementation of the MDP will be signed among the partnership in 2010, perhaps with a broader group of participants.  At least medium term funding available __ o During 2008 a project document for consolidation of the results of FOPER (Second phase of FOPER) was formulated. This project proposal was a common effort by all project partners and encompasses external support to the continuation of MDP and training of researchers and teachers. Key strategy in this follow-up project is securing the sustainability of these results. The project proposal was approved for funding by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in late 2008. o Some minor funding for the scholarships of MDP students has been indicated to be donated by the State Forest Enterprises of the region. FOPER II partners are willing to continue their in-kind contributions, but no significant increase has been experienced nor is foreseen.  Qualified local teachers available __ o A good group of regional teachers have already been established during the project. The second phase of FOPER will further strengthen the capacities of teachers in the SEE-region.  Master’s Program is repeated after the project lifetime at least once __ o FOPER II will provide funding which enables the implementation of second round of teaching. o Some national funding is being collected to support the students in their studies. o It is important to note, however, that the MDP is not yet independent of external financial resources.

The indicators demonstrate that progress towards reaching this result is well under way, even though there is still work to be done – this is one of the reasons for the second phase of the project. Extent of achievement of the result 6 is estimated at 70%

6.8. Achievements in relation to the project purpose The project purpose of FOPER I was formulated as follows: Strengthened capacity established for modern forest policy and economics education, training and research in Western Balkans region (Croatia, BiH, SCG, FYROM, and Albania).

27 The indicators for assessing its’ attainment were divided into two categories; i) those for assessment in the end of the project (marked with the planned finalisation year, 2008) and ii) those for assessment in the ex-post evaluation (Marked with 2010). Below these are assessed against the achievements of the project.

By 2008:  More students apply for the MSc. training than places are available. o The next round of MSc. studies is planned to start in 2010, therefore assessment of this is not yet possible. __  BSc. students graduate with good basic knowledge on modern forest policy and economics. o This has been fully achieved. Testimonials of the international lead teachers of the MDP verify that the students have captured the materials offered well and that the curriculum provides a balanced overview of the two sciences. __  Student associations are aware of national and international forest policy processes and participate actively in them. o There have been initiatives for the formation of forestry students’ associations at least in Belgrade, Zagreb and Tirana, but it seems that none of these has reached significant sustainability. However, students themselves are likely to be more informed about international forest policy processes, even though participation in them has not been repeated after the IFSA delegation to UNFF7. __  Stakeholders aware and active in national forest policy processes o In this respect there has been a clear change. Whenever an opportunity is provided for stakeholders to participate in a policy process and voice their concerns, they increasingly do this. It is likely that at least part of this has been the influence of FOPER, which promoted the instrument of stakeholder participation both in internal and external project work. It is also fair to recognize that most likely part of this tendency is also due to the overall changes happening in the societies of the SEE- region. __  National forest policy processes cite domestic research findings. o The fact is that the research community has not yet produced significant amounts of policy-relevant research findings. The impacts of the forest conflicts research in the national forest policies remain yet to be seen. __  There are more qualified researchers performing forest policy and economics research, including nature protection policy research related to forests. o Skills and knowledge of 20 researchers have been increased significantly but the next phase, exercising these in further research is quite much dependent on the opportunities to carry out meaningful FPE research. Identification and formulation of new FPE research has not yet taken place and so far no major opportunities for funding of such research has emerged in the region. __

By 2010:  MSc. students graduate in the Western Balkans from the policy and economics training program o N/a __  A relatively large number of students apply for training o n/a __  Western Balkans countries give input to international forest policy process

28 o Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia have had some increased presence in the international processes. Croatia has been even quite active as it was the country which put forward the initiative of the international year of the forest, which will be celebrated in 2011. Macedonia has reportedly been present in the MCPFE for and some influence of FOPER-related people can be observed here. __  Increased involvement of the Western Balkans organizations in Pan-European research networks o The initiative of EFI Regional Office for the South-Eastern Europe was clearly built on the network of organizations created in the framework of FOPER. The establishment of the regional office has been approved by the EFI Annual Conference in 2008 and it is likely to be launched in late 2009 or during 2010. It is also likely that through the research activities of the regional office the researchers and research organizations will have more involved in Pan-European research. __

In addition to the quite positive achievements in light of the indicators, FOPER I can also report the following key achievements directly related to strengthened capacities in modern forest policy and economics in the region:

1. An international master’s degree program in forest policy and economics successfully established.

2. 18/22 MSc. graduates produced, many of them employed already.

3. A core group of six regional teachers trained to a significantly higher level in their skills and knowledge related to FPE teaching at MSc. level.

4. The concept of professional training/life-long learning/continuous education brought firmly to the awareness of forestry professionals and academic staff. A network of 25 professional coordinators created, large number of trainers available and even more professionals trained on at least one key FPE subject.

5. Research skills and capacities of twenty researchers significantly improved in quantitative research. Significant research findings on forest related conflicts available at national and regional level. Awareness of policy-makers on the potential utility of FPE research in policy formulation and development increased and profile of research raised.

6. Regional networking in the subject of FPE established.

On basis of the above assessment it is reasonable to state that FOPER I has been successful in reaching its project purpose fully.

29 7. Relevance

Relevance refers to the correspondence of the project in general to the beneficiaries’ priority needs. As a reminder, a quote from the project document on the project beneficiaries is presented here:

Direct beneficiaries of this project are those personnel, who would be receiving the training. This includes:

- Policy personnel in forest and environmental sectors’ administration (ministries, forest service, regional agencies, national parks and forest protection agencies), - Management personnel of public forest enterprises - Management personnel of national parks - Key personnel of associations of private companies operating in the forest and environmental sectors (such as ecotourism, recreational use of forests and non-wood forest products), - Key personnel of associations of private forest owners; - forest researchers - university teachers with focus on forest policy and/or forest economics - teachers of vocational schools - Ph.D. students and M.Sc. students at faculties of forestry, economics and natural sciences. - Forest-related personnel in non-governmental organizations

The priority needs of most of these groups have been examined rather thoroughly by the Mid-Term Review of the project in 2007. The project was then found fully compatible to the needs and during the past two years the project personnel has not observed any major changes in either. It can be concluded that at the level of project beneficiaries the project remains highly relevant.

At country level the situation is rather similar. All the countries in the region are striving towards increased economic, social and cultural development and integration into European and international spheres is seen important. Membership in EU and NATO are on the agenda of many countries. FOPER clearly is contributing towards economic development and has provably increased opportunities for international collaboration. The project continues to be highly relevant also in this respect.

8. Effectiveness

30 The cause-effect relationship between the results achieved and the fulfillment of the project purpose is in project evaluation terminology called ‘effectiveness’. It can also be described as “the extent of achievement of the project purpose as a consequence of the project results”.

The assessment of the results and the project purpose show quite clearly that the project is effective. The most important results have been achieved and indicators of the purpose indicate full success. The three main components (MDP, PT and SPI) are all relevant and necessary for increasing the FPE capacities at national and regional level.

9. Efficiency

Efficiency refers to relation between the results achieved and the means used, i.e. whether the quantity and quality of results achieved justify the quantity and quality of results. Efficiency is normally assessed with cost-based indicators.

By the end the project 87% of the available grant fund had been used. Comparing this to the estimated degree of achieving the project purpose, 93-95% gives an indication that efficiency is rather close to optimal, in the context of planned project implementation.

Some unit costs can also be calculated, even though rather rough:

 Cost of one MSc = € 25 50013  Cost of one PT course participation = € 819 14

The cost of one Msc. graduate is rather high but is explained by the high involvement of foreign teachers. This was the first round of MDP and it is expected that in the future the need for foreign teachers will diminish and costs will go down. The figure also includes the scholarships for living costs and travel for the students. If the scholarships are cleared out from the figure, the unit cost comes close to € 15 000 which is rather acceptable for the first round of studies. This figure does not include the costs of the training needs assessment or the design of the curriculum or administrative framework.

The unit cost for one PT course participation includes, however, costs of training the PT Coordinators and the regional trainers. Teasing out the unit cost without these build-up costs is not done here, but a rough estimate is given that it would be in the area of 200-300 euro per person per course. This, however, is vastly different from the willingness to pay for this kind of courses. On some courses the participants were asked to estimate how much their employer might be willing to pay for such a course. A typical range of the answers was from 0 to 20 euro. Anyhow, the unit costs for the trained personnel are considered rather good.

From the above brief analysis it can be concluded that the efficiency of the implementation is at an acceptable level.

13 only running costs, no TNA nor design

14 includes also training of PT coordinators and trainers

31 10. Compatibility with the Mutual Strategic Goals for Development Cooperation

Finnish Government issued in 2004 its Policy on Development Cooperation, which makes a strong emphasis on poverty reduction as the main goal of all ODA funding. This policy was renewed in 2008. Forestry is increasingly considered among the nine priority sectors selected for advancing the global fight against poverty. FOPER aims ultimately at reducing poverty through improving the contribution of forest sector in the national economies of the countries. Also the issues of reduction of inequalities, environmental sustainability and cultural development, all elements of the Finnish Development Policy, are included in the overall objective and reflected as central values through all FOPER work. The project is hence well compatible with the MFA strategic goals.

Equality of sexes and different social groups is essential for the long term durability of any results. In the SEE-region the forestry profession is dominated by men, women experience a glass ceiling and are rarely found in leading positions. This is a pattern likely to be broken gradually and FOPER has been contributing towards this by maintaining a policy of transparency, equality and selection of performers based on competence and merits, rather than sex, social status or position.

11. Sustainability

This chapter assesses the key elements of sustainability and how the project has taken them into account in its work.

Policy environment needs to be conducive at national and institutional level if the project aims at sustainability. This issue was explicitly assessed by the feasibility study as well as the mid-Term review and considered good. Improvements in the research, training and education of FPE in each country and partner institution fit well into the current national policies.

Institutional capacity refers to the fact that in order for a project to be conducive and worth implementing, the institutional capacity of the participating institutions needs to be at such a level that they can absorb the benefits. The experiences of EFI from working with the partners through subcontracts indicate that the absorptive capacity of partner organisations is variable, but in most cases adequate and hence the aspect of sustainability in relation to institutional capacity is good.

Economic and financial feasibility refer to estimating whether the investment though a project is worth making, will it bring the economic and financial returns in the long run which will compensate the money spent. In education and research this type of assessment is very difficult and complicated and also way beyond the scope of this report. However, a rough and indicative financial calculation may be justified here:

 The whole South Eastern Europe region has some 10 million ha of forests (according to FAO statistics)  If half of the forest area was well managed and the annual increment would be in the region of 5 cubic meters per hectare the annual total increment would be 25 million cubic meters.  Currently the annual harvest is estimated at 12 million cubic meters. This implies that there could be potential for doubling the harvest.  Assuming a flat price of 10 € per cubic meter of (legally) harvested and sold wood, doubling the harvest would increase cash flow in the region with some 120 million €.  While such a drastic improvement in harvesting figures is dependent on several factors, like

32 markets and accessibility, as well as quality of the timber, in any case such a move can only be achieved if modern market economics and forest policy are applied at the high levels.  This knowledge on modern forest policy and economics is currently not available and represents the gap which FOPER is designed to fill. Assuming that FOPER is able to improve the capacities on FPE significantly, but this will improve the overall harvesting only by 10%, this would have an annual monetary impact of 1.2 million €. However, this does not take into account the side-effects related to increase in work opportunities, demand for logging services, increased output of wood-processing industries and so forth. The likely economic impact is much higher.  Forest services, like biodiversity values, protection functions, recreational values etc. are not even considered in this brief calculation. If they were, it is very likely that the impacts would be found to increase several fold and the economic feasibility could be estimated to be very good.  FOPER budget is 4 million €. It is likely that the investment through the project will be gained back within a few years only, manifold.

It can be concluded that the economic and financial feasibility are good.

Socio-cultural aspects. For a project to be successful it needs to adapt to the social and cultural habits, manners and patterns in the target country, in order to gain social acceptance. Based on the experiences of the implementation, it can be concluded that while the cultures of the partners differ, the divide is not too great to overcome. On the whole, there is a general feeling that collaboration among Europeans is easy and convenient.

Participation of local stakeholders as well as both women and men have been carefully taken guarded in the project. Participation has been one of the key strategies of FOPER.

Environment – Forests form an important part of the environment in the region. Any progress towards more sustainable use and conservation of the forests will contribute towards environmental sustainability of the project.

Appropriate technology – In the frame of FOPER all procurement of equipment is done locally. This ensures that the devices have spares and service available locally.

12. Further Analysis

Instead of a final evaluation, it has been suggested and also approved that FOPER will be evaluated ex-post, i.e. after the end of the intervention. As the second phase of project (FOPER II) has started immediately after termination of the first phase, there are two options for the final evaluation of FOPER I:

a) A mid-term evaluation of FOPER II is carried out in late 2010 and impact evaluation of FOPER I is included in this, or; b) Mid-term evaluation of FOPER II concentrates only on the essential features of the second phase. A final evaluation of the whole FOPER-intervention, of its both phases is organized as an ex-post exercise in 2012 or later and impacts of the 7-year intervention are examined.

Both options have their good sides. First option may be able to rescue lessons learned and detect impacts of the first phase better but might also direct the attention unnecessarily away from reviewing

33 the on-going project phase. Second option might not be able to distinguish the impacts of the different phases, but on the other hand is probably more educative for all involved parties.

13. Need for further Assistance

Need for further assistance was already examined during the last year of the project. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland is financing a second phase of the FOPER-project, which is on-going at the time of writing this final report.

14. Experiences gained and lessons learned during 2004- 2009

By Tomi Tuomasjukka, Project Coordinator, FOPER I

14.1. Summary - Lessons learned

This chapter aims at compiling all the experiences related to the implementation of FOPER-project, which may not be evident from the earlier chapters. In a way, this chapter collects all the “grey knowledge” accumulated during FOPER I and documents it for others to learn about. The short form of presenting the “dos and don’ts” is the lessons learned, which a given in short form immediately below. The lessons learned are conclusions from the experiences which are described in the chapter 14.2 and onward.

The experiences and lessons are compiled and drafted by the project coordinator and include both personal views and perceptions from managing FOPER. Therefore the nature of this chapter is more personal and philosophical.

Lessons learned related to capacity building and other project substance  On-the-job training is a very good modality for building capacities in forest education and forest research. It provides a meaningful context in which the new skills can be tested and used by the trainee and is considered to speed up the learning. Related to the specific modalities of on-the-job training in FOPER, it can be noted that: o Teacher training plans need to have clear objectives and careful implementation. o Teacher twinning needs to have resources for the regional assistant to travel to meet with the international lead teacher well in advance before the course module. This also needs to be explicitly planned and scheduled so that the tight time schedules of the persons are matched and the contact time secured. o Mentoring should be inserted into the framework of the twinning approach and not sought separately. o The best motivation for improving the language skills and mobility of researchers arises from within their own research work. Thus, language training and funding for attending international scientific conferences should be in direct connection to the research projects.  Establishing a master’s degree program is a big effort both in terms of time and funding. The following specific lessons are worthwhile noting:

34 o Investing into training needs assessment is highly recommendable. Carrying out of a TNA is methodologically challenging and good experts scarce. o Academic design (curriculum design) and design of administrative issues should both receive due attention and not be overshadowed by the other. Both parts are needed for a high quality and successful educational program. o In case when the MSc program is run in several universities, the differences in administrative procedures should be understood and harmonized. o Stocking of libraries needs to have an overall managed approach, from selection of key books to their procurement. This way probably the best efficiency and coverage is achieved. Participation of local personnel is, however, essential.  Implementing science-policy interface in practice is possible through different events and discussion platforms. o The expected results of an interface event can be planned and the flow of the event managed and orchestrated.

Lessons learned related to project organization and management  The level of project activities must be in balance with the realistically available personnel resources. Time and funds need to be allocated for communication and marketing. There needs to be also dedicated personnel for this in any project.  Good communication with local partners is essential, only this reveals the level of commitment of the partner. It is important to know if the whole organization is really behind what a spokesperson is saying.  Social capital is a key to good and functional team. Building it is a long process and requires time, there are no shortcuts. Therefore contact time with partners and team members by project management is important. Supervisory Committee meetings also proved to be an important space for building of regional ties and creating a sense of community.  Subcontracting is an efficient means for sharing the responsibility of the objectives and also for building the capacities of the beneficiary organizations.  While good governance and transparency are important, the modern administrative culture in the WB region is still young and only gradually adapting to European standards. Complicated administrative procedures frustrate people and can sometimes become obstacles for good working atmosphere. This does not mean that good governance should not be practiced and introduced, but refers more to the fact that what is simple and easy to do in Western Europe, may require lots of footwork and standing in the queue in Belgrade – and results in frustration. It is therefore advisable to try to avoid overly complicated administrative processes.  Participatory planning of a regional project is demanding but worth the effort. In case of FOPER, involvement of the project partners in the initial project formulation process would have probably clarified the objectives prior to starting and reduced the internal tensions created by the negotiation processes which were carried out in relation to the allocation of the project budget to different activities and beneficiaries.  Appraisal is a crucial stage in the project cycle – it should focus particularly on the balance of available resources and expected results. In case of an unbalanced situation, project appraisal should be able to point out such a situation and propose ways to harmonizing these two, thus adding to the feasibility of the project.  In SEE-region the logistics should not be overlooked. Travel and associated procedures (visas) is still complicated and demands lots of time and effort.

35 14.2. Experiences from building an international MSc program

The International Masters’ Degree Program (MDP) in Forest Policy and Economics was by far the largest single effort of FOPER. It dominated the activities and time allocation of the project throughout, from the training needs assessment to the graduation of students. Building any MSc program is a large effort by nature and there is no way to avoid it being time consuming. The process of MDP design, establishment and implementation produced a large number of experiences, of which the most important ones are documented here.

Training needs assessment proved to be an extremely important tool. Looking in retrospective at the TNA report, it created a firm platform and basis for the design of the different elements of FOPER and has also been useful in their dynamic development. Assessing of the training needs in several countries was rather big effort, even though the work concentrated thematically on a very narrow sector. Carrying out the TNA was a challenge, particularly as it needed to focus on forecasting the future – the work market, structure of the societies, position of the forest sector in the society and economy. This is methodologically very difficult. While doing this, it was necessary to find out the existing capacities of the training institutions and understand their organizational and administrative realities. The challenge was accentuated by the fact that TNA experts are difficult to find from academic world and consulting markets.

Curriculum design is a key element in setting up of an educational program. During the process carried out by FOPER it was found that it can be a challenge to conceptualize the difference between the curriculum and study plan for an academic year. Another potential pitfall is that curriculum design and other purely academic matters can easily take so much time and effort that they overshadow the preparation of an appropriate administrative framework. It is a good achievement for any international MSc program to have a solid curriculum, but it is not worth much if the student services and other related issues are not adequately in place and interested students cannot enroll in the study program.

Partnership is a necessary concept when two or more universities are joining forces to build an international educational program. Like in any collaboration, common objectives are needed and form the basis for the work. Common rules of the work – roles and responsibilities of partners, are likely to be even more important. Defining these involves many potential problems related to different capacities and aspirations, how to share the possible external funding and related workload, leadership issues and the merits. Formalizing a partnerships through agreements (for example memorandums of understanding, partnership agreements) is useful and may well strengthen the partnership. Drafting them can be used as a useful negotiation process.

In FOPER the ”Memorandum of Understanding on collaboration in forest science” (February 2006 ) was an expression of good will and also an agreement on the difficult issues related to sharing the responsibilities and benefits in the forthcoming training activities. The road leading up to the signature of the MoU was a negotiation process which involved ironing out misunderstandings and differences in expectations, as well as brokerage for a common view. This was later reinforced in the agreement on implementation of the MSc program among five partner faculties (April 2007), where further details on roles and responsibilities were given. The important point here is that such efforts can take long time and there are not really any shortcuts, no quick fixes. An incremental approach is likely to work best, as it can be combined with a process of collaboration which builds the necessary social capital for the partnership to solidify. An important point to note is that such a process can and should be managed and facilitated. This requires specific planning and skills from the appropriate entities in charge of steering the process.

36 Administrative procedures related to organizing teaching and student issues can be overwhelmingly heavy in a multi-partner MSc program. In FOPER it was noted that complications are often caused by differing requirements of national legislation and traditions on how things are done. As such the procedures sometimes can create bottlenecks which ruin the planned timetables and force to seek for alternative ways to handle things. This promotes creativity and problem solving skills and also provides an opportunity to identify areas of improvement in the administrative procedures. Practical solving of these problems needs deep involvement of the administrative experts and their collaboration across the institutional boundaries. Having time for good planning and implementing test runs would be the optimal situation. In any case, it is important not to underestimate the differences in administrative procedures.

14.3. Experiences related to implementing capacity building

The overall modality of “on-the-job training” was without exception considered a good method in FOPER. On-the-job training was mainly used in the training of MDP teachers and FPE researchers. In general the participants in this kind of activity found it most interesting and were thrilled about the possibility of using new acquired skills in a practical and relevant problem. Below are listed some further details on experiences from this work.

In addition to the drafting and implementing the personal training plans for the MDP teachers from the region, perhaps the most valuable tool for the on-the-job training was the so-called “twinning modality”. In practice this meant that in the Masters’ Degree Program each study course was led by an international expert who designed and implemented the teaching of the course in collaboration with a teaching assistant from the region. The regional teachers were often FOPER focal points, but other faculty members were also included. The system had also its’ problems – quite often the twinning partners did not have sufficient opportunity to interact prior to the teaching, due to busy schedules. The post-teaching period could also have been organized and followed up in a more systematic manner. Despite of these issues, it became very clear that this is a good way for exposing the regional teachers to all those skill and knowledge they will need in the future. In addition, some of the twinning partners developed further collaboration in terms of FPE research – this just underlines the fact that networking is an important part of being an expert in a certain field. On the other hand, facilitating the building of networks is also valuable and can be seen as an important means for achieving project purpose.

The personal teacher training plans are in theory a good tool also, particularly if they are prepared with strong participation of the teacher/trainee and implemented with strong management. However, it may well be that in FOPER the objectives of these plans were not sufficiently clear and the implementation fell thus short. It might have been caused by limited resources available for running the training. On the other hand, such training takes lots of time on behalf of the teachers/trainees and this was just not the reality. It was not only the project activities which consumed lots of the time of the teachers, but also their regular teaching work and duties in their home faculties. This is a good example of a time consuming activity which was not identified in the planning phase and thus its full implementation fell short, or was overrun by other activities.

The idea of training of researchers as tailor-made, on-the-job-training built on top of a concrete research project was given by the Mid-Term Review. The FOPER-team found this unanimously a good idea and credit to Mr. Jyrki Salmi is given here. As a result of the implementation of this approach, the FPE researchers were able to make good use of the training workshops which were focused to support them with practical issues (both substance and methodological) related to the research work they were carrying out at the same moment. The difference to a more traditional “classroom training” which was used in the PT (Professional Training) component, was notable. The

37 enthusiasm of the trainees was exceptionally high. The international mentors involved in the conflict research projects, it however appeared, did not always have sufficient time or exactly the right expertise to satisfy the hunger for information by the researchers. This was pointed out by many as a big disappointment.

The Table 1 below captures the essence of a SWOT-analysis15 on the researcher training, which was carried out during the last project year among the FOPER focal points. The focal points were senior researchers in the conflict research work and in the associated training. Therefore these recorded points demonstrate one view of trainees, but not necessarily the only one, as junior researchers/trainees were not consulted. The opinions are quite clear – the modality was considered meaningful and efficient and it focused on the most important needs.

Two important strength-opportunity links can be identified here. First, the potential for increasing the competence and confidence through this method may be even further accentuated by structuring the training such that it responds to the needs of each individual researcher. Such a detailed approach would of course imply more intensive use of resources. Second link can be seen between the meaningful research and the potential for continuing this in the international context. This is made possible by including the international mentors/substance experts in the training.

On the side of potential danger elements, weaknesses linked to threats, there is one major pitfall identified by this exercise. The training was emphasizing the carrying out of a research process and did not have any major allocation of time to writing of good research proposals or applying for funding, nor did it pay attention to the multiple funding opportunities. The participants did identify that if they are not able to use the gained knowledge in their future work, the training is wasted. This threat is real, as the funding for forest policy and economics research in the SEE-countries is still rather limited and external funding opportunities were not addressed.

Strengths Opportunities 1. On-the-job is efficient, likely to lead to increased 1. Structuring/tailoring the training as per competence and confidence needs/person 2. Doing relevant regional research is meaningful 2. Future cooperation in international research. 3. Writing reports/papers is good training also There are many other potential themes for FPE research 4. Process approach to research accelerates learning 3. Follow-up research opportunities 5. Totally new information – qualitative research 6. Focusing on theory and methodology is useful 7. Juniors learn from seniors and internationals 8. Workshop modality ensures open atmosphere

Weaknesses Threats 1. Writing research proposals and making funding 1. Not applying what has been learned would imply applications was not part of the training. wasting the training. This can happen if there are 2. Lack of time (delayed start of researcher training) no opportunities/funding for FPE research available. 3. Limited availability of mentors and substance experts 4. Differences in working cultures between mentors and researchers/trainees 5. Materials for workshops not always delivered in time, prior to the workshops 6. English not at the same level among the group

15 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

38 members

Table 1: SWOT analysis on the researcher training - results of a group work by FOPER team in early 2009

14.4. Putting science-policy interface into practice

Making informed policy decisions based on sound scientific knowledge and good political judgment is a good goal. Progress towards this situation can be facilitated through work on science-policy interface (SPI), which is a concept used for describing the contact and interaction between the actors and stakeholders of policy processes with the information and experts in scientific knowledge. SPI is rather conceptual and its application in practice is sometimes challenging. Of course, when someone with policy-decision powers meets someone who produces relevant scientific information, the interface may or may not happen. The realization of the interchange of information depends on many factors, which may not be always there. The argument here is that if left for casual, unguided events, the interface is likely not to take place in the optimal manner. So how can SPI then be triggered, nurtured and induced? Good practical experience on this was gained through FOPER.

During the first phase of the project two international events were organized, one in Zagreb in 2007 on the role of national forest programs as science-policy interface and other one in Dubrovnik in 2009 on forest policy and economics in support of good governance. Both events were, in addition to their substance-related objectives, also deliberately designed to work as a physical interface between scientists and policy makers. This was done by a few rather simple practices:  The objectives of the event were defined carefully as the starting point of the preparation process.  Based on the objectives, the desired dynamic flow of the discussions in the event was planned prior to the event (see picture 1 below for example). This was used for designing the program (presentations, plenary discussions and group work sessions).  The number and order of presentations was planned carefully, aiming at sufficient time for creative discussions.  Speakers and moderators were carefully selected, bearing in mind the overall plan and objectives of the event.  Targeted invitations were sent out to “fish for” the desired participants and stakeholder groups. The maximum number of participants was defined in terms of the seating arrangement, see next point.  Seating arrangement in the event was not the traditional classroom or conference format, but the participants were placed in several round tables, thus forming groups. Each table had 7- 10 persons. The participants were allocated to the tables, thus avoiding the “natural grouping” of people to organizational, national or any other casual groups. The composition of each group was carefully planned, aiming at the best possible mix of stakeholder representatives.  During the plenary discussions the tables were sometimes asked to do quick 3-5 minute group discussions on an arising issue and report back.  A simple voting system with colored cards was established and used for finding quickly the overall balance of opinions among the participants on certain key issues. In simple terms a question was asked, e.g. “Do you think this issue is important” and the participants raised a green card for yes, or a red card for no. Numbers of the colors were either counted or just estimated by view.  While the event was in process, the dynamics was continuously monitored and adjustments to the planning were made on the spot. The plan was not kept as a straight jacket or blueprint,

39 but the creativity and surprise elements were considered added assets and used in attaining the event targets.

This methodology proved to be rather successful, both by the organizers and participants. The key seems to be bringing the right groups of people together to discuss a clearly defined and relevant topic and providing sufficient time for different interactions. The social program was naturally taken advantage of, too.

14.5. Experiences from organization and management of a regional project

In the beginning of FOPER (around 2005) regional collaboration was still rather unknown or rare experience in the SEE-region. The participants the first regional stakeholder workshop clearly felt unsecure and seemed to be afraid of hidden agendas related to larger political questions. The experience of EFI/FOPER has shown that building fruitful regional collaboration is quite possible and desired even by the people themselves, but it takes lots of time and patience.

In the SEE-region logistics should not be overlooked. Not all major cities are interconnected with flights and during wintertime it is quite frequent to have flights cancelled due to fog, snow etc. Ground transport is popular, but demands lots of time. On the other hand, people are quite happy to travel by car and share cars, so travel costs to regional events can sometimes be surprisingly low. In general, travel in the region is laborious and time consuming. Visa problems between the countries are frequent (eg. Albanians to Bosnia) and difficulties in communication are quite normal. Travel from Albania is particularly complicated and expensive. While the situation is continuously improving, all these should be considered and budgeted for, in terms of time and money.

The focal point system was instrumental for the project coordinator in establishing and working with a regional team. The modality seems to suit well to the cultural working traditions of the region, making it clear who has the lead and mandate to do managerial decisions. It also further enhances regional networking and work which crosses national borders. It was also noted to enhance responsibility taking and motivation.

The focal point system, however, would not have been so functional without the possibility of paying the focal points for project work. In the SEE-region the civil service reform is yet rather incipient and as a result, salaries are low and not in balance with real living costs. For any civil servant it is in practice difficult to engage in a donor-funded project if there is no direct financial, personal benefit from it. Furthermore, it seems that donor coordination is still limited at least in forest sector and the best personnel in public administration are competed for by foreign projects. FOPER would not have reached many of its results, if the key personnel had not been paid a small fee for their working time.

A dispersed team working across several countries can be efficient and form a true team, in case a space and time for the building and maintenance of a team spirit are provided. In FOPER team meetings were held regularly, at least once in every 2-3 months. It was found that the team meetings provided the necessary space and time for deepening the social contacts and building the social capital, the team.

Also the Project Management Team held regular meetings, every two weeks. Each meeting had an agenda and formal minutes were produced. Strategy and operations were discussed and when needed, formal decisions on e.g. awarding travel grants or making a recommendation to EFI Director to sign a subcontract. The PMT was an important backup and discussion forum for the project

40 coordinator in making daily decisions on operations. It was of course important to strike a balance between which issues needed PMT attention and which the project coordinator decided.

Supervisory Committee meetings took every time a big effort to organize. Naturally getting all the documentation ready was one major part, but also coordinating the suitable timing for the meeting and organizing the related logistics took lots of time and work. FOPER SC had about 20 members and when the focal points were included in the meetings as observers, the meeting grew to about 30 people. While this was definitely not the best size for efficient decision making in the project, the SC meetings served another meaning. Gradually the SC meetings created and enhanced networking also on the level of deans and directors, thus adding another layer for the regional integration of forest scientists and educators. In the beginning of the project an attempt was made to downsize the meeting to a more manageable number. This was turned down with the argument of building of social capital and this was proven to be the right choice when the project advanced.

At national level the project attempted integration and networking through the National Working Groups. In some countries several meetings were organized and discussions were well documented. It appeared that in best case such an informal working group can serve as an important tool for testing and introducing new ideas and concepts and for rallying up support for future actions. However, this was not the case in all countries. Often the meetings were not held at all and after a while the instrument stopped functioning.

A similar feature was observed with the national advisers. In some countries the national adviser was very useful for the project and supported the focal point work greatly. In other cases, the impact was a clear nil. However, it is clear that the concept of national adviser did provide the project with possibility of awarding an honorary post, which was sometimes needed for involving key persons in the project in an appropriate manner and thus being able to progress with the planned work.

FOPER I has adopted in practice the modality of flexible work planning and budgeting. Rolling work planning made it possible to adapt the plans to the arising realities. While it is good that annual work plans are rather detailed, the reality is that some issues cannot be foreseen and predicted. This requires that in between the Supervisory Committee meetings the Project Coordinator and the Project Management team have the possibility to make operative decisions which ensure that the objectives of the project are reached, even if specific tasks may need to be altered or even cancelled, or new tasks created.

Sometimes it was felt that the plans used were too complicated and overly detailed and this evidently led to the necessity of rolling planning. Over-complication of the plans was particularly experienced around mid-term, but this problem was later solved naturally when the component task forces took more responsibility and started their own operative work management. The initial work planning period was considered by some to be too long, as it lasted from January to March in 2005.

Subcontracting of project partners to carry out broad packages of work enabled EFI to hand over of the responsibility of implementation of work. Subcontracting also empowered the partners to be fully responsible for relevant and sizable parts of the project budget. Even more importantly, subcontracting implied also that the quality of the work done was responsibility of the partner. During the project lifetime the ownership and commitment of the partners to the project results and their sustainability rose significantly. It is fair to estimate that subcontracting was one of the key factors inducing this development.

FOPER is a big project in terms of budget; four million euro is a significant sum of money. It is only natural that the available budget rose lots of interest among project partners in the beginning. The interests were often expressed in the form of preferences for spending; often well within the objectives of the project, sometimes not. The project management had to walk a fine line of balance in those

41 times, guarding the work planning and budgeting process to be focused on the established objectives, while at the same time keeping and increasing the partner commitment and interest. Balance between the benefits received by the regional partners was also an important item to regulate. In retrospective it may be justified to state that there were times when these balancing acts took over the actual substance and planning work and were rather demanding. These probably could have been avoided through a better project preparation process in which the regional partners were more closely involved. This would have enabled early clarification of targets of spending and eliminated possible false expectations. Participative planning of project with the direct beneficiaries was proven, again, to be an extremely important approach.

Equality of partners came to be an issue for discussion from time to time from another point of view also. It is clear that among the regional partners there are different institutional profiles and related capacities. Sometimes strong opinions were expressed about the necessity of all partners and involved individuals to contribute to the project substance with equal intensity and quality. On the other hand it was clear that within the project the reasons for non-equal contributions and commitment arose at least partly from uneven capacities, which only reinforced the justification for the existence of this project. Capacities needed to be built where they do not exist or are low.

FOPER consisted of three major components – MSc program, professional training program and capacity building in forest research. It could be stated that in fact FOPER I was not only one, but three projects. The project team faced many times the feeling that ambitions were set too high and time and staff resources were grossly limiting the possibilities to reach all set goals. Originally the project was planned to build capacity in research and university education only, but the appraisal mission resulted in adding of the Professional Training, which was actually a very laborious component to implement. This development underlines the importance of project appraisal in the development of a project. Appraisal should help to point out imbalances between objectives and available resources, particularly personnel resources.

The weakest point of FOPER I was probably limited marketing and public relations. An attempt to create a communication strategy was made, but it was never finished. This was due to lack of time and also lack of capacity. The project coordination was a busy and full time job and as there was no specific experience among the PMT on communications issues. For this reason writing newsletters and updating the website was usually the last thing to do in times of pressure. EFI communication capacities were available to the project all the time and could have well been used, but these attempts failed because of lack of time to provide the contents to the media to be produced. The missing communication strategy may have led to unnecessarily low awareness on the project objectives, activities and achievements. This can also be viewed as a problem in prioritizing, may be something else should have been left undone. The evident conclusion on this aspect is that in case communication is viewed as a priority activity, the project needs to be resourced for this when recruitment is being done.

Annexes: - Project Document and agreement on implementation between MFA and EFI - Agreed minutes Supervisory Board Meeting (link to webpage here) - Progress reports - Annual financial statements - Report of the Mid-Term Review by Indufor in 2007

42