SELF-ASSESSMENT OF COUNTRY CAPACITY NEEDS FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

CAPACITY SELF-ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA OF BIODIVERSITY

Prepared by

Svetozar Petkovski, Ph.D., Museum Advisor – Macedonian Museum of Natural History, Skopje Vlado Matevski, Ph.D., Professor – Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Skopje Ljupco Melovski, Ph.D., Professor – Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Skopje Sreten Andonov, Ph.D., Professor – Faculty of Agriculture, Skopje Zoran Spirkovski, M.Sc., Scientific Collaborator – Institute of Hydrobiology, Ohrid

SKOPJE, JANUARY, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 2 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

TABLE OF CONTENT

Executive Summary 4 Section I. Introduction 10 A. General Aspects...... 10 B. Methodological Approach...... 11 Section II. Country Framework 12 A. Natural Geographic Framework...... 12 A.1. Location, borders, and land area ...... 12 A.2. Physical geography and climate...... 12 A.2.1. Topography and relief ...... 12 A.2.2. Surface hydrology ...... 13 A.2.3. Climate ...... 14 A.2.4. Soils...... 14 B. Socio-economic Framework ...... 15 B.1. Population...... 15 B.2. Human settlements ...... 15 B.3. Social and economic situation...... 16 B.4. Land use ...... 16 C. Economic Framework ...... 17 C.1. Agriculture...... 17 C.2. Forestry...... 18 C.3. Fisheries...... 18 C.4. Industry...... 19 C.5. Construction ...... 20 C.6. Mining ...... 20 C.7. Energy ...... 20 C.8. Transport ...... 21 Section III. Status of Biodiversity 22 A. Flora ...... 22 A.1. Species diversity...... 22 A.2. Endemic species ...... 22 A.3. Habitats and Vegetation ...... 22 A.4. Threatened species ...... 24 A.5. Threatened habitats ...... 24 B. Fauna...... 26 B.1. Species diversity...... 26 B.2. Endemic species ...... 26 B.3. Threatened species...... 26 C. Agrobiodiversity...... 27 D. Threats to Biodiversity...... 27 D.1. Underlying causes of biodiversity loss...... 27 D.2. Analysis of economic sectors...... 28 D.3. Basic causes for biodiversity loss...... 28 D.4. Direct causes of biodiversity loss...... 29 D.5. Other factors...... 30 Section IV. Status of Biodiversity Conservation 31 A. Protected Areas ...... 31 A.1. National Park Management...... 31 A.2. Management of Natural Lakes ...... 32 A.2.1. Lake Ohrid ...... 32 A.2.2. Lake Prespa ...... 34

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 3 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A.2.3. Lake Dojran...... 35 A.2.4. Measures for protection of the three natural lakes in Macedonia ...... 35 A.3 Management of other protected areas ...... 36 B. Management Outside Protected Areas ...... 36 B.1 General Measures ...... 36 B.2 Agriculture Management...... 36 B.3 Forest Management ...... 38 B.4 Fisheries Management...... 39 B.5 Hunting Management ...... 41 B.5.1. Hunting Grounds and Concessions ...... 41 B.6 In-Situ Conservation...... 42 B.7 Ex-Situ Conservation ...... 42 Section V. Strategy and Policy Framework 44 A. Policy Framework ...... 44 B. Legislation Framework ...... 44 B.1. Laws ...... 44 B.2. International Conventions and Agreements ...... 47 C. Institutional Framework ...... 48 C.1. Government of Macedonia...... 49 C.2. Other Institutions...... 50 Section VI. National Priority Issues 52 A. Assessing National Priority Issues ...... 54 Section VII. Capacity Constraints for National Priority Issues 56 A. Assessing Capacity Constraints at the Systemic Level ...... 56 B. Assessing Capacity Constraints At The Institutional Level...... 61 C. Assessing Capacity Constraints At The Individual Level...... 66 D. Overall Constraints Assessment...... 72 E. Capacity Constraints Matrix...... 73 Section VIII. Capacity-Building Opportunities 76 A. Creating new capacity ...... 76 A.1. Individual level...... 76 A.2. Institutional level...... 76 A.3. Systemic level ...... 77 B. Mobilizing / Redeploying Existing Capacity ...... 78 B. 1. Individual level...... 78 B. 2. Institutional level...... 78 B. 3. Systemic level...... 78 C. Enhancing Existing Capacities...... 78 C. 1. Individual level...... 78 C. 2. Institutional level...... 79 C. 3. Systemic level...... 79 Section IX. References 80

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 4 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this study is to identify the status of biodiversity and its threats in order to find out the common aspects of its protection with other global threats like climate change and land degradation. The over-riding goal of the NCSA process is to identify and analyse country-level priorities and needs for capacity development related to the implementation of the CBD and the other two Rio Conventions. The NCSA process and outputs can catalyse both domestic and external support for meeting the identified needs in a planned and co-ordinated manner. Hence, the NCSA can form a basis for mobilizing new and additional resources and for improving environmental and natural resources’ management.

I. Since the period of when the Convention on Biological Diversity was opened (1992), Macedonia still does not have regular membership in the Organization of United Nations. After acceptance in the OUN, as well as many years’ efforts by the competent ministries and scientific institutions, in 1997 the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia ratified CBD. With agreement to the regulation of the Convention, the general secretary of the OUN, notified that Macedonia had become a party to the Convention on 2 March, 1998.

II. Macedonia is situated in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula and has a very favourable geographic position. It extends between 40°50’ and 42°20’ North Latitude, and between 20°27’30” and 23°05’ East Longitude. It is characterized by a very complex geology and diverse and developed relief, and consequently a great variation of soil types. This is the chief reason, together with hydrological aspects (including three natural lakes) and different climatic influences, for supporting the rich biodiversity in this respectively small territory. The influence of human factor throughout the millennia should not be neglected. The human population numbers 1,945,932 inhabitants (according to the 1994 census), with a population density of approximately 75.7 persons/km2. About 60 % of the population live in urban areas, and over the last 20 years there have been absolute decreases in population in many of the rural areas. Land use within Macedonia has been categorized on the basis of productive purposes (agriculture and forestry – 87.2 %) and non-productive purposes (water and watercourses, infrastructure, settlements, and non-arable land – 12.8 %), in accordance with data from the year 2000 State Survey Administration. Over the past twenty years there has been a slight decrease in productive land. Agriculture, together with hunting and forestry, has been providing a relatively stable contribution to the GDP (by method of production) of about 11 % over the course of the last several years. The total area of agricultural production has noted a declining trend (which is the main indicator of non-sustainable and inefficient utilization). Thus, from 1,291,000 hectares in 1996, the area of production fell to 1,236,000 hectares in 2000. Forests in Macedonia cover 997,000 hectares, representing 38.8 % of its land area. By growth form, high forests constitute less than 30 % of the total forest cover, while low forests account for 70 %. As a result, only one-third of the forests are considered to be suitable as a source for raw materials for the lumber industry. Macedonia has 56,000 hectares of water surfaces for the breeding of fish. 46,700 hectares of these are lake surfaces, 6,400 are reservoirs, 2,200 hectares are rivers, and 700 hectares are fish breeding tanks. The total fish production in Macedonia amounts to 2,000 tonnes/per year, while 1,500 tonnes of frozen or live imported fish are consumed per year. Industry, in terms of its contribution to the Macedonian GDP, still occupies the leading position in the Macedonian economy (18 %), despite the fact that, from the beginning of the process of transition, industry’s average share has been declining.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 5 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

The construction sector in Macedonia has undergone a great upheaval during the last several years. Its contribution to the generation of domestic macro-economic aggregate variables has exhibited a decreasing trend, from 10.4 % in 1980 to 4.6 % in 1990 and 5.2 % in 1999). The mining sector is represented by the extraction of both metals and non-metals. The mining of lead and zinc ore (eastern Macedonia), iron ore (central and western Macedonia), coal (south-western Macedonia) and non-metals, mainly marbles and travertine (central and north- eastern Macedonia), dolomites, lime, silicates, ceramic clay, feldspar, gypsum, diatomaceous earth, etc., is of particular importance. The energy sector (together with gas and water supplies) participates with a modest 4.5 % in the GDP of Macedonia. The transportation system, except for the road network, is probably has one of the oldest in the Balkans, with a relatively low density of roads, railways and airports.

III. The major composition in origin and content, and the most striking feature of the Macedonian biodiversity today is its great heterogeneity with a high level of endemic and relict species, residuals of an ancient living world, not only at low, but also at higher taxonomic scales. The vegetation of Macedonia represents a mosaic of diverse plant communities with representatives of various vegetation types. With regard to the lower plant groups, algae represent an especially diverse group of organisms. The Green, Silicate and Blue-green algae are dominant, with other groups found in smaller numbers. Fungi represent a very heterogeneous group of organisms; however, studies to date have dealt mainly with Ascomycota and Basidiomycota. There are approximately 1,250 recorded species of Fungi. Lichens (lichenoid Fungi) (Lichenes) number approximately 340 species. The flora of higher plant groups is quite rich, with a mosaic of diverse floral elements (Tertiary relicts, Mediterranean, Greek-Anatolian, Ilyric, Caucasian, Middle-European, Eurasian, arctic-alpine and cosmopolitan) and large number of endemic species (Macedonian, South Balkan and Balkan). 210 families, 920 genera and approximately 3,700 species represent it. The most numerous group is flowering (Angiosperm) plants, with about 3,200 species, followed by mosses (350), ferns (42) and Gymnosperm plants (15). Among the lower plant groups, algae are represented by the greatest endemism, with 135 endemic taxa, or 8.5% of the total algal flora. Most have been recorded in Ohrid and Prespa Lakes, with lesser numbers in Dojran Lake, on Pelister Mountain and the Babuna River. There are also many endemic species in the flora of higher plant groups (117 species in total), with most recorded among the Angiosperms (114). A general characteristic of the fauna of Macedonia is its high degree of taxonomic diversity, represented by 9,339 species and 228 subspecies, for a total of 9,567 taxa. In addition, the complex zoogeographical structure, with faunal elements of various origins and zoogeographical affiliations (resulting not only from the geographical location within the country, but also from the complex historical development of the organisms [i.e., from the Tertiary through the Ice Age to the present]), is manifested by a high degree of relict and endemic forms. Macedonian endemic faunal elements are represented by 674 taxa, including 602 species and 72 subspecies (7 % of the total current number of recorded taxa). Representatives of Arthropoda, the largest phylum in the animal world, also occur in large numbers in Macedonia (7,743 taxa). The degree of endemism at the phylum level, in descending order, is as follows: Porifera – 60 %, Plathelmintes – 41 %, Mollusca – 35.8 %, Annelida – 29.6 %, and Protozoa – 28.3 %. Major portions of the endemic invertebrate fauna in Macedonia are intrinsically linked to the aquatic ecosystems. The high threat level to this fauna results from the decline in the water levels of certain lakes, eutrophication of these lakes, and the pollution of riverine ecosystems. Over the centuries Macedonia has become home for numerous diverse plant species and varieties. Some of the indigenous populations and ecotypes are still present in the fields, as yet not endangered by extinction due to extensive agriculture in rural areas. However, many of them

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 6 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA within the last 50 years were replaced by newly created varieties, mainly with a foreign origin. As is the case in other countries, there are indigenous breeds and varieties of domesticated animals in Macedonia, which are fully accommodated to local breeding conditions. During the past 50 years, however, new and more productive breeds have been imported. Both the original imported breeds and crosses with local varieties are still present today. The basic factors, which have led to the current unfavourable state of the environment in Macedonia in all of its spheres, including biodiversity, include general historical processes, a bad socio-economic situation, an unstable political situation, inadequate implementation of spatial planning and inappropriate land use. In the desire to accomplish economic development at any cost, a general trend toward the erosion of moral and traditional societal values can be observed, neglecting the principle of sustainable development. Instead, natural resources are used beyond the limits of their sustainability, which produces a real threat of extinction for endangered plant and animal species and varieties, and thus impinges upon traditional rural landscapes.

IV. Macedonia has a total of 7.31 % of the state under some form of protection. This is below the internationally strived for 12 %. However, there are some efforts for enlargement of the protected areas’ system (Draft National Physical Plan; unpublished National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan). Management of the protected areas varies in terms of the responsible institutions, overlapping of responsibilities among different ministries, viz. the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MoEPP) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy (MAFWE). Currently, the national parks are each managed more or less independently and relatively cost-effectively. The parks are managed as “enterprises” in a somewhat para-statal, non-profit format. Exploitation of resources is allowed in the park and is the main source of revenue generation for management. The MoEPP and MAFWE both are involved in the management of the lakes, yet neither has clear control or responsibility for their protection or management. Local government authorities also play a role in the management. Hence, this creates a confusing situation again. The three lakes, Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran, are a special feature for Macedonia and are characterized by exceptionally rich biodiversity, with 216, 24 and 12 endemic taxa in Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran respectively. The management of other protected areas except for the Strict Natural Reserves (see Table 6) does not have any kind of management authority. They are also not monitored at all except for the exceptional cases emerging from a sudden necessity. The Strict Natural Reserves (Ezerani and Tikves) are given for management to the local water management companies (Resen and Kavadarci respectively). These companies do not have capacities for running the management of reserves. Their aim is water use and they do not pay attention to the nature conservation. There are some measures to protect biodiversity outside protected areas. These include National Spatial Plan, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for investment objects and projects, international trade with some species (respecting CITES regulations) and certain provisions in some sectoral laws (Law on Forests, Law on Fishing, and Law on Hunting).

V. Macedonia does not have a state strategy and common policy concerning biodiversity management yet. There is still no clear picture in respect to responsible institutions and ministries considering the use of bio-resources. The first strategic document that was ever adopted was The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). It was completed in 1996 and adopted in 1997. It serves for both the protection and promotion of the environment but it is also the first document that treated biodiversity as a separate part of the environment. The NEAP, although in need of revision and updating, represents a first step towards the long-term ambition of the country to integrate all aspects of environmental protection. This was the first step towards European Union integration as well.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 7 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

In the year 2000, a National Committee for National Biodiversity was founded, within the framework of the MoEPP, as an obligation of the State arising from the Convention of Biological Diversity. Its objectives are to monitor the implementation of the Convention requirements at the national level, and to contribute to the decision-making process concerning biodiversity issues. The Committee has prepared a draft proposal for preparing a National Biodiversity Strategy, which after elaboration has been submitted to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for financial support. During the process of the elaboration of the Strategy, the "Country Study for Biodiversity of the Republic of Macedonia – First National Report", was published in the second half of 2003. The study represents an overview of the situation in the country related to species and ecosystems diversity, the level of threats, as well as the uses of biodiversity for commercial purposes and the impacts driving its alternation. This study was a solid basis for preparing the "Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan", that is to be finished by the end of the year (2003). As a national document, BSAP define the priorities for effective and integrated conservation, as well as indispensable actions, projects, and programmes for biodiversity conservation. The BSAP comprises the overall aim for biodiversity conservation in Macedonia, which should be attained in the period 2004-2008, over which the Biodiversity Action Plan will operate. The Action Plan encompasses specific activities that should be realized in order to achieve the overall aim and the guiding objectives, ascertained within Biodiversity Strategy for Macedonia. In general, within Macedonia the legislation contains numerous laws and bylaws that are directly or indirectly related to biodiversity conservation. However, the whole legislation is outdated and does not respond to the current international policy for biodiversity conservation. Therefore, having in mind the ambition of the country to be integrated in the EU and other international associations, it is an urgent necessity to harmonize the existing laws in order to approximate the EU directives and international conventions. Currently, Macedonia is undergoing a process of the harmonization of the legislation with the EU directives. In that scope, the MoEPP is elaborating a new horizontal and vertical legislation in the frame of the PHARE project “Capacity Building for the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning”. The outcome of the project will be the new framework law on environment, general law on nature protection, law on waters and law on waste management, as well as the law on air protection. The Law on Nature Protection was drafted in 2003 and passed the governmental discussion. Presently it has entered the parliamentary procedure. After adoption of this law, the existing laws on natural rarities and national parks will be abolished. An integral part of the national legal system is also the 30 global and regional conventions, protocols, and their amendments (multilateral acts) that apply to the matter of biodiversity conservation.

VI. The Project Team within the thematic area of Biodiversity has been faced with the huge responsibility of accepting the challenge to ascertain the National Priority Issues. It is one of the most strategically important and potentially difficult activities of the NCSA process, because of the many competing interests and values that have to be considered and balanced. Therefore, the national priority issues have been ascertained taking into consideration the strategic approaches established within the BSAP (Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Republic of Macedonia – not yet adopted), as well as the efforts of UNDP to develop a comprehensive, strategic approach of capacity building to meet the global environmental challenges. During this process the team was permanently relying on country specifics. In this way, the results of the implementation of the priority issues should improve national environmental and natural resources management, through capacity building on systemic, institutional, and individual levels, in accordance with the challenges of the CBD, financially supported from inside the country, by the international community and the GEF.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 8 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Consequently, 20 national priority issues have been recognized. The assessment of the national priority issues has been determined on the basis of the experience and peer debate on the working team. The priority issues were ranked by four criteria i.e., problem level, concern, ability to adequately address issue, and priority. Mostly the issues are related to the national level due to the size of the country. In some specific cases they can be linked to local level (endemic forms, habitats), while natural lakes are in a trans-boundary group. The global issues are common for all countries, particularly countries where biodiversity protection have not been adequately considered. Having in mind the fact that previous actions in biodiversity protection were on a low level, the level of concern is generally medium to high. The priority on approximation of national laws to EU legislation and implementation of international obligations, as well as legal inter-sectoral harmonization (19), appears to be very low ranked, despite its strategic importance. The working team is of the opinion that most of these processes will be carried out under the pressure of the international community. Beside that, this is an important issue among both the government and opposition, so it represents a political consensus. Since the process under this priority issue is already on-going, it is not necessary to be ranked higher. Principally, the process of inter-sectoral harmonization is performing, at least in some sectors (see Section V). The government has mandated responsibility for sustainable development and inter-sectoral approach for environmental protection to MoEPP – sector for sustainable development.

VII. The identification of the constraints for effective biodiversity conservation at the systemic, institutional and individual level has been conducted through the methodology of questionnaires, interviews, as well as in-depth analysis of the working team members. The results have helped in understanding the nature of the causes and key barriers, as well as identification of obstacles. This will enable suggestion making for capacity-building opportunities. Based on the analyses of the designed matrix the following conclusions have been drawn: • Generally, the capacities available on the individual level are not constraints in most of the priority issues in biodiversity conservation, with the exception of four of them. The constraints on institutional (20) and systemic (15) levels are much more frequent in the realization of the priority issues; • For the priority issues 4, 7, and 20 the constraints are present in all levels (individual, institutional, and systemic), while in case of priority issues 10, 11, 17, and 18 the constraints are related to the institutional level only. For the rest of the priority issues the constraints are present in both institutional and systemic levels; • The working team is of the opinion that even though the potential of country on the individual level is limited, it can significantly contribute in realizing almost all priority issues. It is clear that human capacities should be enlarged and better trained in order to improve the mechanisms, conservation, sustainable development of biodiversity, ex-situ conservation, development and introduction of measures regulating the access to genetic resources, etc., that are important and high-ranked priority issues; • According to the working team, the constraints on the systemic level (15 priority issues) are consequence of the still not clearly defined legal and political framework for environment management and biodiversity protection. There are numerous gaps and overlapping among current legislation, not clearly defined responsibility, low economical base, absence of databases, low financial resources, etc.; • According to the extensive analysis of questionnaires, as well as the results from matrices, the biggest constraint for the realization of the priority aims concerning the biodiversity conservation is the institutional set up and its functioning. This is especially valid for those institutions, which are directly involved in biodiversity protection (ministries, services, national park offices, etc). This situation is due to the unsuitable structural set up, very often quite unclear and undefined responsibilities, the financing, the equipment, and especially due to

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 9 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA the insufficient and very often incompetent staff in the respective institutions. The lack, or inconsistent monitoring of planned activities and evaluation of the achieved results is also evident. The institutional constraints are reflected in the realization of all (20) established national priority issues for biodiversity conservation (see Chapter VII.B). Even the highest ranked priorities such as in-situ and ex-situ conservation, identification, and monitoring of the biodiversity components important for its protection and sustainable use, management of the protected areas, implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment studies, etc.

VIII. Concerning the Capacity-Building Opportunities, the capacity-development was broken down into three categories: “creating new capacities”, “mobilizing / redeploying existing capacities”, and “enhancing of existing capacities” analysed at individual, institutional, and systemic levels. This analysis will be further developed in the next step of the project i.e., within the Opportunities for Capacity Building Across the Thematic areas of Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Desertification / Land Degradation.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 10 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL ASPECTS

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was opened for signing in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and more than 180 parties have since ratified the Convention. The Convention provides a comprehensive document underlining the principles of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, or more precisely this Convention clearly defines relations between protection, sustainable use of natural resources, and sustainable human development. In ratifying the CBD, the Parties to the Convention undertake a commitment to implement the Convention at a national level in contribution to the achievement of its goals and objectives at a global level. During the period when the Convention was opened (1992), Macedonia did not have a regular membership in the Organization of United Nations. After acceptance in the OUN, as well as of the many years’ efforts by the competent ministries and scientific institutions, in 1997 the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia ratified CBD. With agreement to the regulation of the Convention, the general secretary of the OUN, notified that Macedonia had become a party to the Convention on 2 March, 1998. Humans are an inherent part of the global ecosystem, whether we recognize it or not, and we have a unique role to play, because of our ability to influence the system, because the threat to biodiversity is also a threat to our basic life-support systems that keep (maintain) the living world on planet Earth. The role that micro-organisms, plants, and animals play in providing ecological services of value to humanity is the most important anthropocentric reason for conserving the biodiversity. Multiplicities of organisms underpin the ecological life-support functions that enable human societies to exist. The value of biological diversity thus lies in the value of the ecological services supported by the interaction between the organisms, populations, and communities of the natural environment, and the value of biodiversity loss reflects the sensitivity of ecological services to both the depletion and the extinction of species. There is a threshold of diversity below which most ecosystems cannot function. That is, all self-organizing living systems require a minimum diversity of species (which, by the way, is very difficult to assess or to predict) to capture the sun’s energy, and to develop the cyclic relation of fundamental compounds between producers, consumers, and decomposers. The major threat to the loss of biodiversity is not caused by direct human exploitation of species, but the habitat alteration and destruction that results from the expansion of human populations and human activities. Habitat change by humans is caused directly through land-use changes, urbanization, infrastructure development, and industrialization. Indirect habitat change is caused through environmental effects by the use and extraction of resources from the environment, and the discharge of various wastes to air, soil, and water. In this process, global changes due to fossil-fuel burning and the emission of greenhouse and ozone-depleting gases are included. The natural process that creates new species constantly generates the biological diversity. That process of the differentiation of populations (speciation) normally operates on a time scale of thousands to millions of years. All estimates of present day extinction rates are shown to be vastly higher than the rates at which the natural process that creates biodiversity could expect to compensate for the losses. The extinction outputs far exceed the speciation inputs, and Earth is becoming impoverished because of it.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 11 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

The global, regional, and national processes that cause biodiversity losses do not exclude Macedonia. Notwithstanding the fact, that on the national level, the components of biological diversity are in better condition in comparison with the developed European countries, the present situation suggests that there is an increased rate of biodiversity degradation in the country. This situation should be a challenge for further, more expressed activities focussed on entire biodiversity conservation. The aim of this study is to identify the status of biodiversity and its threats in order to find out the common aspects of its protection with other global threats such as climate change and land degradation. The overriding goal of the NCSA process is to identify and analyse country- level priorities and needs for capacity development related to the implementation of the CBD and the other two Rio Conventions. The NCSA process and outputs can catalyse both domestic and external support for meeting the identified needs in a planned and co-ordinated manner. Hence, the NCSA can form a basis for mobilizing new and additional resources and for improving environmental and natural resources’ management.

B. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

During the process of the analyses of the biodiversity issues, e.g., biodiversity components, their characteristics, status, threats, socio-economic and geographic aspects, and legal and institutional framework (Sections II - VI), documents already published were used (Country Study for Biodiversity, National Strategy and Action Plan, and other relevant scientific papers and expert reviews), as well as existing national legislation. In terms of identifying constraints (Section VII) on individual, institutional, and systemic levels, the questionnaires designed in accordance with the NCSA guidelines were used. The specific features of the country were incorporated into questionnaires. The Section VIII – capacity-building opportunities incorporates the outcomes of the analyses of the Section VII, taking into consideration the findings in Section II – VI. The personal opinion of the authors, based on their experience was crucial in final fine-tuning of the document.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 12 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION II. COUNTRY FRAMEWORK A. NATURAL GEOGRAPHIC FRAMEWORK A.1. Location, borders, and land area Macedonia is situated in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula and has a very favourable geographic position. It extends between 40°50’ and 42°20’ North Latitude, and between 20°27’30” and 23°05’ East Longitude. Macedonia borders Albania to the west, Greece to the south, Bulgaria to the east, and Serbia and Montenegro to the north. The total length of the border is 849 km, of which the western border is 191 km, the southern, 262 km, the eastern, 165 km, and the northern, 231 km in length. The northern and southern borders are roughly parallel, while the western and eastern borders form opposing convex arcs. The total area of the country is 25,713 km2.

A.2. Physical geography and climate Macedonia is characterized by a very complex geology and a diverse and developed relief, and consequently a great variation of soil types. This is the chief reason, together with hydrological aspects (including three natural lakes) and different climatic influences, for supporting the rich biodiversity in this respectively small territory. The influence of human factor throughout the millennia should not be neglected.

A.2.1. Topography and relief The chief reason for the complex geo-tectonic evolution of the internal part of the Balkan Peninsula (Macedonia) is the large number of orogenic cycles, from the oldest yet known, to the youngest alpine orogenesis. These cycles led to multiple metamorphoses of the surface relief; there were rhythmic patterns of advancement and regression of the seas, allowing for the creation of a series of various sediments. Whenever the regime changed, faulting, fissuring, and metamorphosis tectonically transformed the sediments. Mountains are the most important among the large relief forms, and cover approximately two-thirds of the territory. They fall into two groups depending upon their time of formation, geological composition and size of extension; these are the Rodope and Dinaric groups. The Rodope group is considered to be older and was formed during the so-called Hercynian orogenesis phase. The mountains Osogovo (Ruen peak – 2,252 m), Plackovica (Lisec – 1,754 m), Ograzden (Ograzden – 1,745 m) and others, situated primarily in the eastern part of the country, are characteristic representatives. The Dinaric group extends through the western, southwestern, southern, and central portions of the country. These mountains were formed during the alpine orogenesis and are considered to be young mountains. These include the Sar Planina mountain group, Vardar zone, and Pelagonian horst anticline. The Sar Planina mountain group includes the Sar Planina mountain (Titov Vrv peak – 2,748 m), Korab (Golem Korab, the highest peak in Macedonia – 2,764 m), Bistra (Medenica – 2,163 m), Stogovo (Golem Rid – 2,268 m), Jablanica (Crn Kamen – 2,257 m) and Galicica (Livada – 2,253 m). This is the highest group of mountains and extends into the western part of the country. The Vardar zone includes the smaller mountains (except Kozuf and Nidze) distributed along both banks of the Vardar river. The Pelagonian horst anticline includes the following mountains: Baba (Pelister – 2,601 m) in the southwest, Jakupica massif, Karadzica, Babuna, Golesnica, Selecka, and others. With the exception of Baba Mountain, which is situated on the south, these mountains are located in the central portion of the country. Valleys and larger plains are the second distinct morphological feature of the relief structure. They are distributed over approximately one-third of the country. Most distinct are the ones extending along the Vardar River. From the northwest to the southeast, they are situated as

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 13 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA follows: Polog (373 km2), Skopje (1,840 km2), Tikves (604 km2), and the Gevgelija-Valandovo Valley (620 km2). They are intersected by the gorges. The largest valley in Macedonia is the Pelagonia Valley, which is situated in the southwestern part of the country and occupies an area of some 4,000 km2. A portion of this valley extends into Greece, where it is called the Florina (Lerin) Plain. In western Macedonia, the following valleys and plains are most characteristic: Ohrid-Struga Valley, Prespa Valley, and Debarsko Pole Plain. In eastern Macedonia: Berovo Valley, Pijanec Valley, Kocani Valley, and Ovce Pole Plain. The most fertile valley in the country is the Strumica-Radovis Valley, situated in the southeastern part of the country. In the north, the Kumanovo Valley and the Slavisko Pole Plain extend along the watershed of the rivers Pcinja and Kriva, respectively. Traces of glacial relief can also be found in Macedonia. There are remnants of both glaciers and cirques on some of the mountains, and of only cirques on others due to the small size of the glaciers. Such relief is characteristic mainly of the high mountains in western Macedonia, such as Sar Planina, Jakupica, Bistra, Korab, Pelister, Galicica and Stogovo. Some of the cirques are filled with water and represent glacial lakes. Karstic relief is present on Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Palaeogenic and Neogenic limestones. Considerable portion of the limestone is found mostly on the Suva Gora, Zeden, Jakupica, Galicica, Bistra, and higher parts of Sar Planina, mountains. All types of karstic forms are present, both on the surface and underground. The former includes depressions, crevices, fissures and karstic plains, while the latter includes caves as well as pits and sinkholes (including about 164 caves and 12 pits and sinkholes). Other relief forms include gypsum and younger fluvial relief, which also have economic relevance.

A.2.2. Surface hydrology With respect to surface waters, 4,414 springs have been recorded, with a total capacity of 6.63 billion m3 per year. A great number of them are located in the various tributary watersheds of the Vardar River (80 %), Crn Drim River (15 %) and Strumica River (5 %), especially in the mountainous areas of Jakupica, Bistra, Pelister, Plackovica, Osogovo, Sar Planina, and others. The rivers of Macedonia are divided into three watersheds: the Adriatic Sea, the Aegean Sea and, to a very small extent, the Black Sea. The Vardar River is the largest river, containing 80 % of the water flow leaving Macedonia. Of the remaining 20 %, 13 % flows through the Crn Drim River (Adriatic watershed), with only 7 % through the Strumica River (again Aegean watershed). The total length of the Vardar River is 388 km, of which 300 km are present in Macedonia and the remainder in neighbouring Greece. Its headwaters are the springs near the village of Vrutok, and it flows into the Aegean Sea near the Thessalonica Gulf. At the point where it exits Macedonia near Gevgelija, its flow is 174 m3/sec. Its major western tributaries are the Crna River (207 km in length) and the Treska River (138 km). The longest eastern tributary of the Vardar River is the Bregalnica River (225 km). The second largest eastern tributary is the Pcinja River (135 km). The Crn Drim River flows only 48 km within the territory of Macedonia and, together with its tributary, the Radika River, one of Macedonia’s most attractive rivers, encompasses 1,772 km2 of watershed area. The Strumica River’s watershed is 1,465 km2. There are several natural and artificial lakes in Macedonia. Of the natural ones, the most attractive are the tectonic lakes: Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran. Ohrid Lake is the largest, occupying an area of 358.8 km2, of which 229.9 are in Macedonia and the remainder in Albania. It is 30.5 km long, 15 km wide and 287 m deep at its deepest point. The average depth is 144.8 m and the total length of the shore is 83.8 km. The temperature of the water in the summer period reaches 25°C. The lake is situated at 695 m msl. The lake is mostly fed with water from more than 80 surface and numerous underground springs and from Prespa Lake, which is located at a higher altitude. Prespa Lake, with an area of 274 km2, is the second largest in the Republic, 176.8 km2 of which belong to Macedonia, 47.8 km2 to Greece and 49.4 km2 to Albania. Its length is 28.6 km and its width is 16.9 km. Its greatest depth is 54 m, its average depth is 18.76 m and the length of the shoreline is 100.1 km. Prespa Lake is situated at 853 m msl. Because the lake has

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 14 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA no major tributaries and because a portion of the water migrates downward through the soil into Ohrid Lake near the locality of Zavir, the level of the water fluctuates considerably. The highest summer temperature reaches more than 25°C. Dojran Lake, unlike the other two lakes, which are located in western Macedonia, is situated in the south of the country, occupying an area of 42.74 km2; 27.1 km2 of the area belong to Macedonia and the rest to neighbouring Greece. Prior to the recent hydrologic perturbations caused by both climatic and human factors, the lake’s maximum depth was 10 m and the average, 6.7 m. At that time, the maximum water volume of its basin was 202,000,000 m3. The mean annual temperature of the water is 14.8°C, which contributes to its high level of fish production in comparison with other lakes in the world. Among other Macedonian water resources, discounting the glacial lakes, which have limited hydrologic capacity, there are 110 major and minor artificial lakes, but only 20 with volumes larger than 1,000,000 m3. They are used for irrigation, water supply, and production of hydroelectric power.

A.2.3. Climate Due to specific natural and geographic characteristics, there are two main types of climate in Macedonia: modified Mediterranean and continental. Thus, two prominent seasons occur: cold, wet winters and dry, hot summers. In addition to these, in the high, mountainous areas there is also a mountainous climate characterized by short, cool summers and considerably cold and moderately wet winters, where precipitation is mainly in the form of snow. The average annual temperature is 11.3°C. The hottest towns are Valandovo and Gevgelija in the sub-Mediterranean region), with temperatures of 14.5°C and 14.3°C, respectively. In the mountainous climatic areas, the mean annual temperatures are: on Popova Sapka (1,750 m msl), 4.7°C, in Lazaropole (1,330 m msl), 6.8°C and in Krusevo (1,230 m msl), 8.2°C. The average precipitation of the Republic is 683.7 mm/year. The areas of highest precipitation occur in Mavrovi Anovi and Resen, with 1,197 mm and 757.9 mm, respectively, and the least in Ovce Pole Plain with only 490.3 mm.

A.2.4. Soils Macedonia, although a small country, abounds in various soil types: Automorphous (undeveloped – rocky soil, serozem on loose substratum, aeolian sand and colluvial soil; humus- accumulative – limestone-dolomitic mould, rendzina, humic-silicate soil, chernozem, and smonica (vertisol); cambic – eutric brown soil, acid brown soil, brown soil over limestone and dolomite, and red soil; eluvial-illuvial – luvic soil and brown podzolic soil; anthropogenic – regolithic soil, garden soil and landfill soil); Hydromorphic (undeveloped – alluvial soil; pseudogley – pseudogley; meadow – meadow soil; gley – pseudogley-gley, black hill soil, gley soil and peat-gley soil; peat – high peat, intermediate peat and low peat; anthropogenic – regolithic peat soil, rice soil and irrigated soil); Halomorphic (acute saline soils – solonchak; solonetz – solonetz); Subaquatic (undeveloped – protopedon; developed – “gitja,” “daj” and sapropel).

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 15 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK B.1. Population The human population numbers 1,945,932 inhabitants (according to the 1994 census), with a population density of approximately 75.7 persons/km2. About 60 % of the population live in urban areas, and over the last 20 years there have been absolute decreases in population in many of the rural areas. The population of the country and its dynamics over the past 50 years is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Population dynamics in Macedonia (according to census data) Population Census Total Number Number Number of Males (%) of Females (%) 1948 1,152,986 584,002 (50.7) 568,984 (49.3) 1953 1,304,514 659,861 (50.6) 644,653 (49.4) 1961 1,406,003 710,074 (50.5) 605,929 (49.5) 1971 1,647,308 834,692 (50.7) 812,616 (49.3) 1981 1,909,136 968,143 (50.7) 940,993 (49.3) 1994 1,945,932 974,255 (50.1) 971,677 (49.1) Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia (First National Report), MoEPP, Skopje 2003

The demographic development of Macedonia deserves special attention, especially with respect to the natural population growth. From 1948 to 1994, a period of 46 years, the total population grew by 729,946 inhabitants or 69 %. The number of migrants included within the total population figures increased from 12 % to 36% during the period 1948-1994. According to the census of 1994, 46 % of the migration was of local origin, 42 % was between municipalities and 12 % was from abroad. “Village to town” migration recorded the greatest increase during the period, 1961-1971. These migratory movements contributed greatly to the enlarging of regional differences in the age and educational structure of the population, primarily in the villages. The country-average population structure is as follows: 33.2 % are of the age 0-19, 30.8 % - 20-39 years, 22.8 % - 40-59 and 13.0 % are 60 and older (0.2 % - unknown) (Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia - First National Report, MoEPP, Skopje 2003). About 5.4 % of the population are illiterate (age 10 and older) and 8.7 % of the people are with advanced and university education (Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia - First National Report, MoEPP, Skopje 2003).

B.2. Human settlements Modern settlements within Macedonia differ from each other in size, spatial organization, and social and cultural characteristics. Rural and urban social organization varies mainly with demographic and economic indicators. The principal differences between villages and towns can be seen in the orientation of their communities. Villages are oriented towards agriculture, in contrast to towns’ professional/industrial orientation in the secondary and tertiary sectors. There are also other rural-urban differences, such as the size of the community, level of dispersal of structures, social differentiation and stratification, mobility, ambient surroundings, and systems of interaction. High population concentrations in the larger cities (Skopje – 444,760 inhabitants, Bitola – 86,174, Kumanovo – 94,589, Prilep – 71,899 and Tetovo – 65,318), the inappropriate siting of industrial capacities and an inadequate communal infrastructure create serious problems in ensuring a quality of the environment. Demographic, economic, social and environmental

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 16 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA characteristics within the population demonstrate significant rural-urban differences. According to the census of 1994, 121 rural settlements have been completely abandoned. While the processes of industrialization and urbanization have had a positive influence on the development of towns and their nearby villages, they have negatively impacted upon the distant hill and mountain villages. The official territorial limits of Macedonian villages encompass 86.7 % of the nation’s land area and include 40.2 % of the total population (records from 1994). Villages having fewer than 50 inhabitants represent a specific problem (360 villages – 20.6 % of the total number of villages). Of 1,715 rural settlements, 508 (29.6 %) are located in hilly or mountainous areas (over 800 m msl) (According to the Law on Support for the Development of Less Developed Areas, Official Gazette of Socialist Republic of Macedonia 39/89).

B.3. Social and economic situation The most noticeable characteristics of the past few years are the significant changes in societal structure (i.e., economic stratification of the population) and an increase in the number of impoverished citizens of Macedonia. The level of poverty has increased from 19.0% in 1997 to 22.3% in 2000 (Table 2).

Table 2. Dynamics of poverty by location 1997 1998 1999 2000 Index Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Index per Capita (%) 20.3 23.3 21.6 25.8 18.7 28.1 17.7 29.4 Index of Poverty Gap 4.3 6.2 4.8 6.6 3.7 6.9 4.0 6.2 Source: State Statistical Institute

B.4. Land use Land use within Macedonia has been categorized on the basis of productive purposes (agriculture and forestry) and non-productive purposes (water and watercourses, infrastructure, settlements and non-arable land), in accordance with data from the year 2000 State Survey Administration (Table 3). Over the past 20 years there has been a slight decrease in productive land.

Table 3. Balance of land by category and use Type of Surface '000 ha % Total land 2,571 100.0 Non-productive land 330 12.8 Productive land 2,241 87.2 100.0 Forests and forest land 997 38.8 44.5 Agricultural land 1,244 48.5 55.5 100.0 Pastures 630 24.5 28.1 50.6 Wetlands and fish ponds 2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Arable land 612 23.8 27.3 49.2 100.0 Ploughed land and fields 512 19.9 22.8 41.2 83.7 Orchards 17 0.7 0.8 1.4 2.8 Vineyards 28 1.1 1.3 2.3 4.5 Meadows 55 2.1 2.5 4.4 9.0 Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia (First National Report), MoEPP, Skopje 2003

Forestland includes 22,000 hectares of non-productive areas (rocky terrain). As a result of the measures taken for forest maintenance and artificial reforestation, today the forests in Macedonia have been rehabilitated, with a large part of the scrublands converted into low forests (woodlands), and low forests into high forests. Unfortunately, seedlings of White and

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 17 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Black pine have been used in the reforestation process rather than naturally occurring species. Of special note is the fact that 250,000 hectares of forest and forestland are currently almost devoid of vegetative cover (both inside and outside the main forest canopy). Of these, 0.4% is under sparse cover. These are areas suitable for replanting or for allowing natural re- colonization to occur. Agricultural land includes pastures, temporary pools, drained wetlands still containing reeds, and arable land. High quality pastures (192,000 hectares) are located in almost all high mountain areas, but the best ones are located in the western mountains (Sar Planina, Bistra, Stogovo, Korab, Deshat, and others). Arable land includes ploughed land and gardens, meadows, and a small amount of vineyards and orchards. Cereals dominate within this area (62 %), which does not correspond to the favourable soil moisture and temperature conditions. In general, approximately one-third of farm fields and gardens remain unplanted each year, that is, fallow or untilled (total of 193,000 hectares). These are mainly areas of low cadastral class (VI, VII, and VIII) located on hilly or mountainous terrain, having unfavourable relief or climatic conditions. The structure of the unproductive land is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Nature of unproductive surfaces Type of Surface ha % Water and waterways 44,083 13.3 Natural lakes 43,410 13.2 Religious objects 1,300 0.4 Roads and railroads 34,094 10.3 Settlements 35,113 10.6 Other barren land 172,000 52.1 Total 330,000 100.0 (Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia (First National Report), MoEPP, Skopje 2003) The main part of the unproductive surface is accounted for by water bodies (37.8 %), followed by other barren land (31.6 %), and settlements (15.2 %). A considerable part is taken up by roads and railroads and related land (14.8 %).

C. ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK C.1. Agriculture Agriculture (together with hunting and forestry) has been providing a relatively stable contribution to the GDP (by method of production) of about 11 % over the course of the last several years. The total area of agricultural production has noted a declining trend (which is the main indicator of non-sustainable and inefficient utilization). Thus, from 1,291,000 hectares in 1996 (Table 3), the area of production fell to 1,244,000 hectares in 2000. This same trend can be seen in arable land, which fell from 658,000 hectares (1996) to 612,000 hectares (2000). Arable land area typically completely covers valley relief. In the case of pastures, which comprise the remaining areas of agricultural production, an opposite or increasing trend has been observed. About one-third of this area is of the mountain or high mountain-type, while the remaining two- thirds is situated in the hilly areas of the valleys. The cultivated land is largely centred on valley or old lake basins and an extensive area of it is irrigated. The main crop products based on official statistical data for 1999-2001 are wheat with average annual production of 288,328 tonnes, barley (109,418 tonnes), corn (134,334 tonnes), and rice (14,588 tonnes). In 2001 industrial crops were cultivated on 9.4 % of ploughed land with the predominance of sugar beet, sunflower, and tobacco. Vegetable production is one of the most recognized due to the favourable climate conditions, where tomato (129,783 tonnes), pepper (118,165 tonnes), potato (166,116 tonnes), cabbage (71,946 tonnes), bean (6,358 tonnes), and melon (125,439 tonnes) dominate. In case of forage production alfalfa accounts for

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 18 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

63 % of the total production while other forage accounts clover, vetch, fodder peas, corn and turnip. Fruit growing and viticulture is also important agricultural production with more than seven million fruit trees and 27,315 hectares of vineyards. The contribution of livestock sector in the agriculture in 1999 was 30.1 %. However, it is worth mentioning that the average export of animal products for the period 1996-1998 was US$ 7,618,000. The main products are lamb and pork meat, cow and sheep milk, and eggs. The current state of agriculture is burdened with many problems: agrarian overpopulation in the lowlands, fragmentation of agricultural areas and the need for their more effective use, poor quality of equipment, and the need for modernisation and the degradation of soils. The impact of agricultural sector to biodiversity is elaborated in detail in section III.A.4 (Threatened habitats) and IV.B (Agriculture management).

C.2. Forestry Forests and forestland in Macedonia cover 997,000 hectares, representing 38.8 % of its land area. By growth form, high forests constitute less than 30 % of the total forest cover, while low forests account for 70 %. As a result, only one-third of the forests are considered to be suitable as a source for raw materials Oak for the lumber industry. 36% Over the course of the Beech last ten years, the average Other hardwoods gross volume of timber Other softwoods harvested has totalled 3 Fir and Spruce 1,033,000 m , of which 2% 3 Pine 76 % (786,000 m ) 2% originated from state-owned 1% 2% 56% Other coniferous 1% forests (with area of 82.90 % of total economic forest surface) and 24 % (247,000 Figure 1. Composition of the timber harvest m3) from private ones (with area of 10.24 % of total economic forests). At present, it is not possible to make a satisfactory estimate of the tree harvest, nor is possible to estimate the level of utilization of harvesting equipment. Usage, by category, of timber harvested from state-owned forests has been economically inefficient for a long period of time. Wood fuel is the predominant use. Primarily harvested are Beech and Oak (Figure 1), with a share of more than 75 % of the total volume of harvested timber. Wood intended for industrial processing, that is, sawing for lumber, constitutes less than 20%. Inefficient economic utilization is evidenced by the fact that the highest and best usage of logs, for veneer, either does not occur or exists only in negligible quantities. The impact of forestry to biodiversity is elaborated in detail in section IV.C (Forest management).

C.3. Fisheries Macedonia has 56,000 hectares of water surfaces for the breeding of fish. 46,700 hectares of these are lake surfaces, 6,400 are reservoirs, 2,200 hectares are rivers, and 700 hectares are fish breeding tanks. The total fish production in Macedonia amounts to 2,000 tonnes per year, while 1,500 tonnes of frozen or live imported fish are consumed per year. There is no published data on the total income from the fishing industry in Macedonia. According to official statistical data, the consumption of fish in Macedonia amounts to around 7,500-8,000 tonnes/year, or consumption of 3.8-4.1 kg per capita. Officially, domestic production meets only 13.2-13.5 % of the total annual demand; however, in practice, 25-30 % is

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 19 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA a more realistic value. Most of the fish caught comes from natural lake ecosystems, mainly Dojran and Ohrid lakes. There is no commercial fishing in the rivers. Multi-year development plans for fisheries envisaged a production of 2,500 tonnes in 1995 and 3,000 tonnes in 2,000, and 5,000 tonnes by 2005. The current political and economic circumstances within the country and region have had an adverse impact on fisheries and on the implementation of adopted plans, however. Total fish production (farming and commercial catch) in 1999 was about 417 tonnes (249.3 tonnes of trout, 138 tonnes of carp, and 30.3 tonnes of other species). Unfortunately, this is less than half of the fish production recorded for 1990, when total production amounted to 1,000 tonnes. Drastic reductions in the annual fish catch in the three natural lakes is due to degraded hydrological conditions, particularly in Dojran and Prespa Lakes, and due to the decline of fish population in Ohrid Lake as a result of the former and present over fishing. Macedonia exports between 10 and 37 tonnes of fish annually, mainly farmed trout, generating a profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year. Many more fish are imported than exported, however, especially young eels for the stocking of Lake Ohrid. The impact of fishing upon biodiversity is elaborated upon in detail in section IV.D (Fisheries management).

C.4. Industry In terms of its contribution to the Macedonian GDP, industry still occupies the leading position in the Macedonian economy, despite the fact that, from the beginning of the process of transition, industry’s average share has been declining. According to the new classification system of activities and sectors, light manufacturing is particularly noteworthy in this context. It is interesting that, during the last years of the past decade, industry contributed about 18 % to the Macedonian GDP (Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2001, State Statistical Office, Skopje, pp. 314-315). This provides evidence that, despite the problems faced by industry, its contribution to the Macedonian economy has remained relatively stable. Moreover, during last several years, modest signs of a gradual recovery from the transitional recession have been noted (e.g., the basic indices of production in industry). For example, in 1996, the basic index of production compared with 1990 (arbitrarily defined as 100) was only 49; however, in 2000 the index was 53 (ibid. p. 485). In reference to the existing industrial structure (i.e., the shares individual types of industries control among the industry as a whole - Figure 2), it can be concluded that several changes have occurred over the course of the last several years. In essence, production of raw materials and semi- finished products is still dominant (around one- third); however, over time, the shares of the tobacco industry; construction materials industry; chemical industry and the generation, transmission and distribution of energy have increased. Figure 2. Share of individual industrial branches in current production (%) Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia (First National Report), MoEPP, Skopje 2003

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 20 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

The industrial sector of Macedonia contributes both direct and indirect adverse impacts upon the environment (air, water, and soil) and, thus, on biodiversity as well. Industry also significantly and adversely affects humans due to its geographical distribution, old technology, failure to apply technical and technological standards for the treatment of gaseous pollutants, poor management of effluents and wastes, use of toxic production materials and dirty energy sources, non-compliance with environmental codes, etc. Impacts of industry on biodiversity may be observed through: • air pollution (full monitoring is under development); the highest emissions of air pollutants have been recorded in urban/industrial centres, supplemented by additional emissions from vehicular traffic; the most frequently detected air pollutants include SOx, NOx, COx, CFCs, smoke and breathable dust (diameter of less than 10 µm) with high concentrations of heavy metals; effects on biodiversity are directly noticeable through acidification, and through changed relationships within animal food webs; • water contamination; • improper disposal of various types of solid waste (often toxic); • contamination of soil.

C.5. Construction The construction sector in Macedonia has undergone a great upheaval during the last several years. Its contribution to the generation of domestic macro-economic aggregate variables has exhibited a decreasing trend, from 10.4 % in 1980 to 4.6 % in 1990. A minor improvement was recorded in 1995 (7.3 %), when the first modest signals of a Macedonian economic recovery appeared; however, in the course of the next two to three years, its contribution to the GDP had stabilized at about 5-6 % (Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia (First National Report), MoEPP, Skopje 2003). The construction sector adversely affects biodiversity through: air pollution, new impacts upon natural land areas, use of mechanization, noise, pollution of aquatic ecosystems and soils (due to the disposal of waste materials from construction and demolition activities), destruction of habitats, etc. There are no specific data available on the extent of these impacts in Macedonia.

C.6. Mining In Macedonia, this sector is represented by the extraction of both metals and non-metals. The mining of lead and zinc ore (eastern Macedonia), iron ore (central and western Macedonia), coal (south-western Macedonia) and non-metals, mainly marbles and travertine (central and north- eastern Macedonia), dolomites, lime, silicates, ceramic clay, feldspar, gypsum, diatomaceous earth, etc., is of particular importance. In the past, the non-metal industry contributed 2.2 % of the economic structure of the country; however, since the establishment of the value-added tax (VAT) for industry and metallurgy, it now represents 2.7 % of total current production. The main activities causing negative impacts on biodiversity are excavation, the opening of new mines, and pollution caused by wastewater from the flotation process and from slag piles. In conjunction with the opening of a new mine, construction activities and new transportation infrastructure cause additional losses of biodiversity, most frequently by the fragmentation of un-relocatable communities.

C.7. Energy The energy sector (together with gas and water supplies) contributes a modest 4.5 % to the GDP of Macedonia. This percentage of participation has been maintained during the second half of the 1990s. The share of capital expenditures in electricity is relatively high compared with

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 21 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA overall investments in the social, co-operative, mixed and state-owned sectors. They constitute about a quarter of total capital expenditures, indicating high investment efforts under restrictive conditions (26.1 % in 1997, 26.4 % in 1998, and 22.2 % in 1999). With regard to energy consumption, it is clear that the beginning of the transitional process has brought about a decrease in consumption, due to the transitional recession through which the Macedonian economy has been passing. This trend was particularly notable during the first half of the 1990s, that is, up to 1995/96. In contrast, if the issue is observed from the perspective of the period that followed, it is obvious that the situation is extremely troubling. The most important domestic energy resources available for use in the future are coal reserves (for the next 10-15 years), fuel wood, hydropower, and geothermal energy. It is necessary to decrease the consumption of fuel wood, accompanied by a gradual increase in the areas of solar energy, wind power, biomass, etc. This sector impacts upon biodiversity through electricity generation, transportation, and distribution. Energy generation leads to air, water, and soil pollution. Electricity transportation requires construction activities. Spatial distribution of long-distance aerial power lines is one the main reason for changes in the structure of habitats. The effects from wastewater generated by production processes for energy generation are similar to those from the industry sector. However, the thermal impacts upon those habitats receiving the heated effluent wastewater are specific to this sector. Slag piles occupy natural habitats, increase the concentration of dust in the atmosphere, and impact upon the quality of groundwater resources through changes in pH and increases in the concentrations of heavy metals. The effects from the construction of hydropower reservoirs in river gorges are particularly important since valuable habitats are lost in that way.

C.8. Transport Except for the road network, Macedonia probably has one of the oldest transportation networks in the Balkans, with a relatively low density of roads and airports, and especially railways. This is due to a lack of investment in the development and maintenance of transportation facilities over the past several years. It has resulted in the current insufficient level of development and a lack of modern technical knowledge and technologies. A comparison of data on the levels of railway development from 1937 and 1996 shows that progress was actually greater in 1937, indicating a 50-year period of stagnation. In 1937, Macedonian railways were in full compliance with the European regulations of that time concerning stability and speed of transportation, which is not currently the case. The outdated technology used by the railways reduces, to a great extent, their stability and speed of the transport. Transportation Infrastructure: Macedonia contains 9,573 km of roads in a categorized road network (1995 data), of which, 5,400 km (56.4 %) are of modern construction (asphalt, concrete, stone blocks, etc), 1,182 km (12.4 %) are of macadam construction, and the remaining 2,991 km (31.2 %) are unimproved (either soil base or no improvement whatsoever). Railroad transportation in Macedonia is poorly developed. It is managed over a network of 699 km of open railway lines, 226 km of rail yards and 102 km of industrial tracks. Out of the total railway network, 231 km are electrified. The transportation sector impacts upon biodiversity through the fragmentation of habitats, as well as through air pollution and noise. Considering the current circumstances in Macedonia, these impacts are low by comparison with those of developed European countries. Nevertheless, this is one of the most severe threats to biodiversity in Macedonia.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 22 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION III. STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY A. FLORA A.1. Species diversity With regard to the lower plant groups, algae represent an especially diverse group of organisms. The Green, Silicate, and Blue-green algae are dominant, with other groups found in smaller numbers. To date, 1,580 species of algae have been identified, of which Diatoms (40.1 %) and Green algae (35.3 %) form a majority. The most important centres of algal diversity are Ohrid and Dojran Lakes, while on Prespa Lake there are no current systematic studies. In addition to the relic lakes, mountain aquatic ecosystems appear to be equally important centres of algal diversity. Fungi represent a very heterogeneous group of organisms; however, studies to date have dealt mainly with Ascomycota and Basidiomycota. There are approximately 1,250 recorded species of Fungi, e.g., the orders Ascomycota (130), Basidiomycota (1050), Myxomycota (10), Oomycota (20), and Zygomycota (35). Lichens (lichenoid Fungi) (Lichenes) number approximately 340 species. The flora of higher plant groups is quite rich, with a mosaic of diverse floral elements (Tertiary relicts, Mediterranean, Greek-Anatolian, Ilyric, Caucasian, Middle-European, Eurasian, arctic-alpine, and cosmopolitan) and large number of endemic species (Macedonian, South Balkan, and Balkan); 210 families, 920 genera, and approximately 3,700 species represent it. The most numerous group is flowering (Angiosperm) plants, with about 3,200 species, followed by mosses (350), ferns (42), and gymnosperms (15).

A.2. Endemic species Among the lower plant groups, algae are represented by the greatest endemism, with 135 endemic taxa, or 8.5 % of the total algal flora. Most have been recorded in Ohrid and Prespa Lakes, with lesser numbers in Dojran Lake, on Pelister Mountain and the Babuna River. There are also many endemic species in the flora of higher plant groups (117 species in total), with most recorded among the Angiosperms (114). The most important centres of endemism are on the high mountains (Galicica, Sar Planina, and Jakupica), in river gorges (Babuna, Treska, and Vardar) and in portions of the lowland belt (Mariovo, vicinity of Prilep).

A.3. Habitats and Vegetation The vegetation of Macedonia represents a mosaic of diverse plant communities with representatives of various vegetation types, of which the most important are as follows: • Aquatic communities: Aquatic vegetation consists of floating (i.e., present on the water surface) and submersed (underwater) forms. It develops in the natural lakes of the Republic, is well studied and is represented by six associations, two alliances, two orders, and two classes (Potametea and Lemnetea); • Wetland communities: Lowland marsh vegetation is well studied and represented by 13 associations, five alliances, three orders, and two classes (Phragmitetea and Isoeto- Nanojuncetea). In the past, these communities were widely distributed within numerous marshes and swamps, but drainage activities in the major valleys (Pelagonia, Strumica, Skopje, Ohrid-Struga, Polog, Ovce Pole Plain, etc.) destroyed large portions of these communities, and the areas they occupied were converted into arable land; • Meadow communities: Lowland meadows extend from 80 to 1,000 m in almost all valleys. They belong to the class Molinio-Arrhenatheretea (alliance Trifolion

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 23 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

resupinati). The areas on which they develop are now considerably reduced, especially on moist soils. The meadows of the mountain belt (1,000-1,400 m) belong to the alliance Rumicion thyrsiflori; • Halophytic and steppe-like communities: These develop in the central portion of Macedonia, in the region between Negotino, Stip, and Veles. Halophytic communities are present on small areas within the Ovce Pole Plain and in the steppe-like zone (between Negotino and Veles). Taxonomically, they belong to the class Thero- Salicornietea, in which the halophytes Camphorosma annua, C. monspeliaca, Salicornia herbacea, Suaeda maritima, etc., dominate. Steppe-like vegetation develops on Palaeogenic and Neogenic marls and has a high concentration of steppic species, such as: Astragalus parnassi, Hedysarum macedonicum, Morina persica, Onobrychis hypargyrea, etc.; • Highland pasture communities: These communities develop at an elevation of from 80 to approximately 1,100 m, on soils of heterogeneous geological origin – andesites, arsenics, dolomites, limestones, serpentines, silicates, etc. These communities are often of secondary origin and are formed primarily by the destruction of lowland forests, and are represented by over ten associations belonging to the class Festuco-Brometea; • Forest communities: Forest ecosystems cover a large portion of Macedonia and are included in several regions. Such communities cover a large portion of the land area of Macedonia at elevations of 150-2,200 m. Broadleaf forests dominate (Oak, Hornbeam, Hop-hornbeam, Chestnut, and Beech – Querco-Fagetea), while evergreen forests (Pine, Fir, and Spruce – Vaccinio-Picetea) as well as mixed forests (Fir-Beech) are distributed in small areas. The “Oak region” is distributed within the lowlands and highlands up to 1,100 m and covers 73% of the total forested area. Climate-zonal, mostly thermophilic Oak and Chestnut forests, as well as orographic-edaphic and hydrologically conditioned forest and shrub communities (including Willow, White poplar, Plane tree, Common ash, etc.), are located in these areas. The “Beech region” covers the mountainous areas between 1,100-1,700 m (about 22 % of the total forested area). It may be differentiated into a sub-mountain and a mountain belt. The sub-mountain Beech region is present between 1,100-1,300 m (an area of the climate-zonal community, assn. Festuco heterophyllae-Fagetum), where refugial types of Beech forests as well as Pine forest communities (Black pine) can be found. The mountain belt spreads between 1,300 and 1,700 m (the area of the climatogenic assn. Calamintho grandiflorae-Fagetum.) and is formed by various types of Beech, Beech-Fir forests and, in the secondary habitats; forests of White pine, Aspen, and Birch are present. The “pre-mountain (sub-alpine) region” is located between 1,700 m and approximately 2,100 m. In these areas, the forests are almost destroyed. Forests of Spruce (Picea abies), Mountain pine (Pinus mugo) and Molika (P. peuce), however, as well as heath of Bruckenthalia spiculifolia, Vaccinium myrtillus etc., can be found. • Sub-alpine and alpine communities: These are distributed at the upper boundary of the forested areas, at 1,600-2,700 m, where climatic conditions are the most unfavourable (long winters, short summers and short growing seasons). Here the various communities develop on heterogeneous substrates (acid soils – Caricetea curvulae, carbonate substrates – Elyno-Seslerietea, eroded cliffs, mountain peats, mountain streams, rocks, etc.). Additional communities of other vegetation types are also present, such as those found at forest margins, weeds in crops (on cereals and other crops), ruderal communities (growing on waste or in waste places), communities in trampled places, bush and shrub communities, etc.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 24 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A.4. Threatened species Data concerning the degree of threat to algal taxa exist only for the Silicate algae. According to the research to date, many imperilled species are to be found in Ohrid and Prespa Lakes (Achnanthes inflata, A. minuscula, Diploneis domblitensis, Eucocconeis quadratarea, and Hippodonta rostrata), Dojran Lake (Navicula oblonga, Nitzschia elegantula, and N. reversa), and the glacial lakes on Sar Planina and Pelister Mountains (Decussata hexagona, Navicula amphibola, N. concentrica, N. tridentula, Pinnularia alpina, P. infirma, Planothidium peragallii, Stauroneis obtusa, etc). The Red List of endangered plant species within Macedonia has not yet been prepared, although there is sufficient data to do so. Great numbers of higher plant species exist within Macedonia, representing a portion of the globally threatened species included in many international documents – international Red Lists, conventions and directives (IUCN Global Red List, Bern Convention, CORINE species), species of national importance (local endemic and relict species), endangered species (EN) and, unfortunately, a certain number of extinct species (EX). The IUCN Global Red List 1997 (Walter and Gillet, 1998) contains 70 taxa from Macedonia (of which 18 are local endemics). Of these, one species has the world status EX (Extinct) – Thymus oehmianus Ronninger & Soska. It is our belief that this information is incorrect since vital populations of this species still exist within Macedonia; a more suitable category would be “En” (Endangered). Two species have world status “Ex/En” (Extinct/Endangered) – Astragalus physocalyx Fisch. and Ranunculus degenii Kummerle & Jav., while one species has world status “V” (Vulnerable) – Ranunculus cacuminis Strid & Papan. Of the remaining 66 taxa, 61 have world status “R” (Rare) and five have status “I” (Indeterminate).

A.5. Threatened habitats Within Macedonia, many rare, relict and endemic communities occur in almost all vegetation types. Of special importance are those with restricted distribution among the aquatic, wetland, meadow, halophytic, steppe-like, forest, sub-alpine, and alpine vegetation communities, as well as those present in the vegetation of highland pastures. Nevertheless, some of them are seriously endangered and threatened with extinction, while others are considerably reduced in their populations and biological viability (Table 5).

Table 5. Rare and threatened plant assemblages in Macedonia Assemblage Location Type of threat assn. Myriophyllo-Nupharetum Dojran Lake: Nikolic Water receding assn. Lemno-Spirodelletum polyrhizae Limited distribution, Prespa: Ezerani subassn. aldrovandetosum water receding assn. Caricetum elatae subassn. Limited distribution, Ohrid Lake: Studenciste lysimachietosum desiccation Limited distribution, land assn. Osmundo-Thelipteretum Bansko usurpation Limited distribution, assn. Mariscetum Negorci Spa fragmentation assn. Cypero-Caricetum acutiformis Gostivar Limited distribution, drainage Limited distribution, assn. Scirpo-Alopecuretum cretici Monospitovo Marsh drainage Pelagonia: village assn. Glycerietum maximae Drainage Cepigovo Limited distribution, assn. Hordeo-Caricetum distantis Gevgelija, Skopje areas lowering of the groundwater table

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 25 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Limited distribution, assn. Camphorosmetum monspeliacae Ovce Pole Plain direct destruction Limited distribution, assn. Pholiureto-Plantaginetum balcanicum Ovce Pole Plain direct destruction Limited distribution, assn. Crypsidetum aculeatae balcanicum Ovce Pole Plain direct destruction assn. Ephedro-Prunetum tenellae Kavadarci-Ljubas Reforestation assn. Aesculo hippocastani-Fagetum Village Izvor: Suvi Dol Relict, rare assn. Periploco-Alnetum glutinosae Monospitovo Marsh Drainage assn. Abieti-Piceetum scardicum Tetovska River Forest desiccation assn. Castanetum sativae macedonicum Forest desiccation assn. Pinetum mugo macedonicum Jakupica Forest fires assn. Pulsatillo macedonicae-Pinetum nigrae Karadzica Forest fires assn. Querco-Carpinetum orientalis Forest fires macedonicum assn. Phillyreo-Juniperetum excelsae Demir Kapija Forest fires assn. Caricetum macedonicae Bistra, Pelister Water capture/extraction Mariovo: Gorge of Crna Construction of artificial assn. Sclerantho-Biserruletum pelecinae River reservoir assn. Edrayantho-Oxytropetum Bistra Limited area assn. Seslerietum korabensis Korab, Bistra Limited area assn. Rindero-Acantholimonetum Galicica Limited area assn. Diantho kaimakczalanicensis- Kajmakcalan Limited area Festucetum assn. Diantho scardici-Festucetum Sar Planina Limited area assn. Diantho jakupicensis-Elynetum Jakupica Limited area assn. Micromerio-Violetum kosaninii Jakupica, Kozjak Limited area (Source: Country study for Biodiversity of the Republic Macedonia (First National Report), MoEPP, Skopje 2003) In Macedonia, habitat loss, modification, and fragmentation have been occurring from prehistoric times to the present; however, these processes have intensified over the past few decades. The terms “loss” and “modification” of habitats are interwoven and often cannot be separated because the loss of a habitat is always connected with its modification. The loss of natural habitats due to conversion is most evident within aquatic habitats, particularly swamps and marshes. During the decades following World War II, almost all of the major swamps and marshes were drained, mainly for two reasons: to acquire new agricultural areas and to combat malaria. Because of this, marsh biocenoses became seriously endangered, fragmented or threatened with extinction. In Macedonia there are severe examples of shrinking the water volume of two natural lakes – Dojran and Prespa – due to over exploitation of the water for irrigation during the dry hydrological years. This has tremendously affected the fish and benthic fauna with decreasing of their populations and destroying of spawning grounds. Physical habitat modification, apart from the previously explained shrinking of the lakes’ volume in the recent years, has been made with the constructions of the electric hydropower reservoirs on the River Crn Drim, when the natural path of the eel in Lake Ohrid was disrupted. Since than (beginning of the ‘sixties) the eel population is maintained by stocking. Other electric hydropower reservoirs have destroyed significant habitats. Currently, the conversion of natural habitats into agricultural uses does not represent a serious threat to biodiversity. On the contrary, the most striking losses have been of the various extensive meadows (in the foothills and mountain areas) and of the pastures in the lowlands. The diversity and mosaic-like distribution of habitats characteristic of traditional agricultural are

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 26 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA seriously threatened. As a result, it is expected that, in two or three decades, this portion of the landscape will disappear, having been modified into shrubs and low forests.

B. FAUNA B.1. Species diversity A general characteristic of the fauna of Macedonia is its high degree of taxonomic diversity, represented by 9,339 species and 228 subspecies, for a total number of 9,567 taxa. The major factors contributing to the great diversity of the country are its central position in the Balkan Peninsula and, its exposure to varying climatic influences, modified by complex and prevailing mountain relief, and various petrographic and edaphic conditions of land. The diversity of invertebrate fauna is enormous; nevertheless it is still inadequately investigated. Even in extremely small areas, the diversity of invertebrate species can exceed that of the coral reefs. Thus far, on the territory of Macedonia 8,833 invertebrate species have been ascertained, from which the largest number (7,574 species) belong to the Arthropods. The vertebrate fauna of Macedonia consist of 506 species, from which 58 species belong to the freshwater fishes, 15 amphibians, 32 reptiles, 319 birds, and 82 species of mammals. In addition, the complex zoogeographical structure, with faunal elements of various origins and zoogeographical affiliations (resulting not only from the geographical location within the country, but also from the complex historical development of the organisms [i.e., from the Tertiary through the Ice Age to the present]), is manifested by a high degree of relict and endemic forms. B.2. Endemic species Macedonian endemic faunal elements are represented by 674 taxa, including 602 species and 72 subspecies (7 % of the total current number of recorded taxa). Representatives of Arthropoda, the largest phylum in the animal world, also occur in large numbers in Macedonia (7,743 taxa). The degree of endemism at the phylum level, in descending order, is as follows: Porifera – 60 %, Plathelmintes – 41 %, Mollusca – 35.8 %, Annelida – 29.6 %, and Protozoa – 28.3 %. Lower taxonomic groups (subphyla, classes, orders, families) show higher degrees of endemism. The level of endemism within the subphylum Ciliophora is 88 %, the order Isopoda – 85 %, the order Amphipoda – 81.4 %, and within aquatic Gastropods – 74.5 %. Among the Vertebrates (Vertebrata), the highest degree of endemism appears within the class Pisces – 34.5 %, a real curiosity even within Europe.

B.3. Threatened species Because the National Red List of Fauna in Macedonia does not exist, the numbers of threatened species listed are in accordance with the European Red List of Vertebrates. The European Red List includes 113 of the vertebrate species present within Macedonia (30 fishes, 66 birds, 16 Mammals, and one species of Reptile). The most threatened group of organisms in Macedonia is fishes, with 51.7 % of the total recorded species. Seventeen of the 20 endemic fishes are included within the category of globally threatened species. Seven are restricted to Ohrid Lake (Acantholingua ohridana, Phoxinellus epiroticus, Rutilus ohridanus, Salmo aphelios, S. balcanicus, S. letnica and S. lumi), six to Prespa Lake (Alburnus belvica, Barbus prespensis, Chondrostoma prespense, Cobitis meridionalis, and Rutilus prespensis), one to Dojran Lake (Sabanejewia doiranica) and three endemic species occur within other aquatic ecosystems (Gobio banarescui, Salmo pelagonicus, and S. peristericus). In this group, Salmo lumi is considered an extinct species (EX), whereas populations of Carp (Cyprinus carpio) are at a level of critically endangered (CR).

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 27 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Of birds, 20.7 % of the total recorded numbers of species are threatened. Among them, the most threatened species are the Bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus) and the Black vulture (Aegypius monachus). Mammals have 19.5 % of their species listed as threatened; however, the formerly and locally extinct species Cervus elaphus (Red deer) and Dama dama (Fallow deer) have been successfully reintroduced and now have steadily increasing populations. Amphibians and Reptiles, according to the European Red List of Vertebrates, are regarded as the least threatened. However, on a national level, a considerable reduction in the populations of most of the species has been recorded, with the most noteworthy cases being the Balkan spadefoot toad - Pelobates syriacus balcanicus (due to draining of marsh ecosystems) and the Yellow-bellied toad - Bombina variegata (due to water capture/extraction from natural springs). Major portions of the endemic invertebrate fauna in Macedonia are intrinsically linked to the aquatic ecosystems. The high threat level to this fauna results from the decline in the water levels of certain lakes, eutrophication of these lakes, and the pollution of riverine ecosystems.

C. AGROBIODIVERSITY Over the centuries Macedonia has become home for numerous diverse plant species and varieties. Some of the indigenous populations and ecotypes are still present in the field, yet not endangered by extinction due to extensive agriculture in rural areas. However, many of them within the last 50 years were replaced by newly created varieties, mainly of a foreign origin. Although there has been a recent trend towards intensification and specialization, particularly in livestock and vegetable production, private farms tend to be highly diversified and maintain a significantly large number of crops. This diversification is partly due to a tradition of self-sufficiency in basic food needs and partly a risk-aversion strategy in response to climatic variation and unreliable markets. Typically, the small farmers maintain cereals, vegetables, fruit trees, and livestock for their own needs and, for cash crops, a similar mix, plus tobacco and grapes. There is certain geographical specialization within private farming, wherein lowland or valley farmers mainly grow arable and horticultural crops and fruit trees for sale, primarily in the local market, while in the hill and mountain areas, cereals, and livestock predominates. Some of the crops very high diversity of various ecotypes and forms could be still found, some of them even are even spontaneously cultivated from the wild forms. Many of them are endangered by extinction due to the agricultural intensification and unstable politics. Traditional production management practice is fitting into the world trend toward organic production. There are some farmers that are practising organic production in a sustainable way. The production has been based mostly on locally adapted crop varieties with a low, but stable yield. The value of these products is higher due to the several important characteristics of the local varieties: disease resistance and richness in both taste and flavour. Especially that those products are mostly grown in unpolluted areas. Therefore, appropriate legal recognition and certification is necessary to keep the farmers’ tradition. On the other hand, the large agricultural production is not organized according to the recognized environmental friendly principles. It is based upon commercial varieties, which could give high yields only if cultivated with high inputs.

D. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY D.1. Underlying causes of biodiversity loss The basic factors, which have led to the current unfavourable state of the environment in Macedonia in all of its spheres, including biodiversity, take into consideration general historical processes, a bad socio-economic situation, an unstable political situation, inadequate implementation of spatial planning, and inappropriate land use.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 28 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

In the desire to accomplish economic development at any cost, a general trend towards the erosion of moral and traditional societal values can be observed, neglecting the principle of sustainable development. Instead, natural resources are used beyond the limits of their sustainability, which produces a real threat of extinction for endangered plant and animal species and varieties, and thus impinges upon traditional rural landscapes. Special attention should be paid to insufficient trans-boundary co-operation in reply to nature conservation and water management of the natural lakes.

D.2. Analysis of economic sectors A careful analysis of the previously presented data will show that not all sectors impact upon biodiversity equally. A preliminary ranking of the main economic sectors by their impact on biodiversity includes: • Agriculture, which has had a particular impact on biodiversity in the decades following the World War II; serious threats to fish diversity in Macedonia are caused by over- fishing (especially in Ohrid Lake); • Transport sector, especially due to the fragmentation of habitats; • The energy sector represents a threat to biodiversity for several reasons, including pollution, construction of hydropower reservoirs and, especially, the transmission of energy; • Industry and mining; • Tourism also poses a serious threat to biodiversity; in this context, illegally constructed weekend settlements and incomplete communal infrastructure in the main tourist resorts are of particular concern; • Construction poses a threat due to the use of agricultural land of high cadastral class for non-productive purposes; however, this sector would not be ranked very high; The most important secondary benefit related to the protection of biodiversity in Macedonia would be the adoption of an inter-sectoral approach. Such an approach towards problem solving is posed as a matter of urgency.

D.3. Basic causes for biodiversity loss Several basic reasons for the permanent loss of biological diversity can be distinguished: • A low level of education concerning the environment and a lack of information, especially in rural areas, which has contributed to a low awareness in the general population of the relationship between human activities and the environment, the sustainable use of biological resources and the sustainable transfer of biotechnology; • Low public and institutional awareness of the importance of biodiversity and insufficiently developed awareness among non-governmental organizations (NGOs); • Reduced and unstable economic power of the state, in addition to the military actions that have been rocking the region for a long period of time; • Growing poverty, which does not recognize the principles of sustainable development, is manifesting itself through illegal forest and other resource overuse, hunting and fishing overuse, non-sustainable development of agriculture, etc.; • Inadequate and incomplete legislation which fails to clarify duties or avoid the overlap of responsibilities and competencies within the agencies responsible for enforcement (see Section V.2); • Non-compliance with existing regulations; • Lack of spatial planning regulations and management plans for areas with special natural values; inappropriate implementation of spatial planning guidelines; • Uncontrolled urbanization, de-agrarianization (in the traditional sense) and industrialization are the main processes that disturb the environmental balance

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 29 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

(considering the cumulative effects of pollution and loss of traditional agricultural habitats); • The continual process of migration of the population from villages to towns. Increased concentrations of people in urban centres represent a growing problem not only from a global, socio-economic aspect but also from a spatial aspect; • Stagnation of the economy and use of outdated technologies, poor quality of energy sources resulting from low economic power and lack of treatment of wastewater and waste gases, which leads to the deterioration of the air, soil, surface water, and groundwater quality; • Overuse of agricultural inputs – fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides – with subsequent impact upon the lakes in the south with high endemism and biodiversity, as well as other water and terrestrial ecosystems. Eutrophication of the aquatic ecosystems is an issue presently; • Outdated spatial planning with insufficient continuity (lack of biological corridors, especially for lowlands, tends to isolate biodiversity in islands), improper land use changes, construction of infrastructure systems, and previous agricultural conversion; • The process of earning a profit under highly competitive market conditions, the permanent trend toward globalization and the favouring of newer, more profitable varieties which have fully supplanted the indigenous, low producing and / or less profitable genetic types. • Climate change and threat to specific mountain and gorge habitats.

D.4. Direct causes of biodiversity loss The direct causes of biodiversity loss are many and varied. Most of them are common to all components of biodiversity, while some are specific to flora, fauna or ecosystems: • Inadequate management of the waters of aquatic ecosystems; • Shrinking of the water volume of natural lakes due to over exploitation of the water for irrigation during the dry hydrological years; • Drainage of marshes and swamps; • Construction of hydropower reservoirs in river gorges; • Lack of water treatment plants (for riverine and lake ecosystems); • Mine excavations and other geological works; • Construction of ski lifts, transmission lines, television transmitters, and other antenna systems (such as mobile telecommunication); • Loss of habitats (or their parts) during unplanned expansion of urban centres, weekend settlements, and tourist-recreation zones; • Modification of habitats; • Fragmentation of habitats, due mainly to traffic infrastructure (terrestrial ecosystems), and dam construction (aquatic ecosystems); • Destruction of areas with natural vegetation (halophytes and meadows); • Uncontrolled destruction of forests through illegal logging, forest fires, through clearing, for the expansion of tourist settlements, and through forest desiccation;

• Overuse of private forests (see Section II.C.2); • Over fishing and inadequate fishing practices are threats in specific water ecosystems, especially at Lake Ohrid; • Uncontrolled collection of medicinal plants and wild animals; • Illegal collection of rare plants (especially endemic plants) by professional and commercial collectors, illegal collection of birds’ eggs, certain species of butterflies, etc.; • Introduced and invasive species.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 30 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

D.5. Other factors Other factors that can have negative impacts on biodiversity or cause a chain of effects are: • Erosion is a serious problem, and it develops as a result of previous and current agricultural practices in Macedonia; • Incomplete research on various aspects of biodiversity in Macedonia: there are no Red Lists or books, vegetation maps, pedological maps, maps of ecosystems and habitat distribution, lists of characteristic and endangered species, information systems nor databases, and there is a low number of professional, scientific, and institutional personnel working in the field of biodiversity; • Insufficient personnel in the institutions of the governmental system: MoEPP, inspection services, customs, Fund for the Environment, etc., and poor interagency co- operation; • No monitoring system for biodiversity (except for partial monitoring in the three national parks).

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 31 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION IV. STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION

A. PROTECTED AREAS Macedonia has a total of 7.31 % of the state under some form of protection. This is below the internationally strived for 12 %. However, there are some efforts for the enlargement of the protected areas’ system (Draft National Physical Plan; unpublished National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan). The following table represents the categorization of these protected areas according to IUCN.

Table 6. Protected Areas in Macedonia by IUCN Category % size No. of Total size of IUCN Category of the areas Areas ha State I – Strict nature reserves (scientific) 4 12,855 0.50 II – national park 3 108,338 4.21 III – natural monuments 33 61,655 2.40 III – Individual stems or group of stems 17 0 0 IV – Natural reserves, areas of special natural features 3 2,338 0.09 V – Individual plant and animal species outside nature reserves 14 2,709 0.11 TOTAL 74 187,895 7.31 Source: MoEPP of the RM

Management of the protected areas varies in terms of the responsible institutions, overlapping of responsibilities among different ministries (MoEPP and MAFWE). The management regimes for protected areas are described in the sub-sections below.

A.1. National Park Management There are three national parks in Macedonia. National Park Pelister is the oldest one (established in 1948) with an area of 12,500 hectares. National Park Mavrovo is the largest one with a total area of 73,088 hectares. The elevation difference is from 600 to 2,774 m msl with great diversity of ecosystems. National Park Galicica has 22,750 hectares. It is situated between the two tectonic lakes – Ohrid and Prespa. Currently, the national parks are each managed more or less independently and relatively cost-effectively. The parks are managed as “enterprises” in a somewhat para-statal non-profit format. Exploitation of resources is allowed in the park and is the main source of revenue generation for management. Timber harvest revenues are the main source of this funding and may not be appropriate for sustained protected area management. Other forms or revenue generation, more traditional for protected areas, concession fees for hotels (or ski resorts in the case of two parks) or entry fees are currently not being pursued. The three parks are joined in a higher level of organization – Administration for National Parks and Hunting Grounds with a general director, who sits in Skopje and serves more of a representational rather than a functional role in co-ordinating management between or with any of the individual parks. There appears to be no specific cross-collaboration or communication between the individual parks. With that said, all the directors of the national parks are however part of an NGO – “Union of National Parks”, through which some informal level of communication and collaboration takes place.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 32 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A kind of a management plan, a solid foundation of any protected area, is in existence only for the National Parks in Macedonia. However these are restricted plans, which amount to primarily broad directions on the harvesting of timber, hunting, and staffing issues in respect to that. In general, they are run more as very effective forestry concessions rather than as national parks. Aspects of staff development, interpretation, visitor relations and tourism, financial management and revenue generation, monitoring, law enforcement, public relations, and collaborative management all remain poorly addressed in regards to a mode of logical proactive planning. With that said, the staff are indeed aware of these other areas of management and are making efforts to integrate them and are eager to learn more. Generally, the parks appear to be managed relatively sustainable for their “current” expressed objectives. In many ways, they function as a cross between forest reserves and national parks. For example, the management staffs are almost completely foresters by training (a few administrative, accounting, and legal positions are also held). As with almost all other environmental organizations in the country, there are virtually no social scientists, economists, public relations, interpretations or other form of “human” relation specialists in the park staff. In addition to the lack of social scientists, the parks also lack biologists. Since biodiversity or other forms of ecosystem monitoring are rarely performed at present, current management is able to informally outsource this work by relying on academics to conduct assessments for them. No protected area system or network exists. As in many other countries, the highlands were set aside primarily as protected areas. Similarly, these were established less for reasons of biodiversity conservation and more for watershed, scenic, forests, or other reasons. Since there is a large variation in elevation within these areas, which are located in the more diverse western region of the country, they indeed tend to be areas of high biodiversity concentration. However, lowland areas with other forms of biodiversity, i.e., wetlands and Mediterranean forest and other ecosystems are severely under represented (if at all) in the existing protected areas system. A bio-corridor network has never been established. With the increased designation of both Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa as areas with a higher level protection status, the unique components of biological diversity occurring within these ecosystems is therefore represented within the broader (though undefined) protected area network. Under the new draft law of Natural Protection, the MoEPP will manage strict natural reserves and the national parks will be only supervised. In some ways, this rationalizes their management under one organization that has a mandate for overall environmental management for the country.

A.2. Management of Natural Lakes Both the MoEPP and the MAFWE are involved in the management of the lakes, yet neither has clear control or responsibility for their protection or management. Local government authorities also play a role in the management. Who actually makes decisions and champions biodiversity conservation for these areas is uncertain. Hence, this creates a confusing situation again. The three lakes, Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran, are a special feature for Macedonia and are characterized by exceptionally rich biodiversity, with 216, 24, and 12 endemic taxa in Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran respectively, and are therefore described in more detail below.

A.2.1. Lake Ohrid Lake Ohrid, the biggest of the three lakes, is approximately 2-3 million years old, and is one of the world's oldest lakes, possessing unique flora and fauna that are extinct elsewhere. It is also know as one of the largest biological reserves in Europe. Only Lake Ohrid, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Caspian, and Lake Baikal are believed to have been formed during the Tertiary period some 2-25 million years ago, leading to their being characterized by unique flora

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 33 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA and fauna distinct to that period. The Ohrid Lake is known as the deepest lake (287 m) on the Balkan Peninsula. Due to its age, geographic isolation, and favourable hydrographic conditions, 216 endemic taxa are present in Ohrid Lake. Some of the species are living fossils, and they are remaining unchanged from the Tertiary period up to now. But, also from the relict species due to sublacustrine speciation new taxa were formed on a level of subspecies, species, genera, and even families. Finally, the reed belts in the littoral zone have high ecological significance as a biotope for various aquatic birds, as well as for fish spawning grounds. Because of its rich history and unique flora and fauna, Lake Ohrid was declared an UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage Site in 19801. The fact that Lake Ohrid is a trans-boundary lake, presents additional challenges to its sustainable management. The GEF is implementing a trans-boundary protected area management project to address these issues. The catchment area of the lake currently covers 1,487 km2 (with Lake Prespa included – more than 2,000 km2). The lake’s watershed has been artificially enlarged by 460 km2 in 1962 when the River Sateska, previously a tributary of River Crn Drim, was diverted into the lake near Struga. In reality, the effective size of the catchment is substantially larger since several springs along the shores of Lake Ohrid are supplied from Lake Prespa (which lies 160 m higher and is separated from it by a limestone mountain range). Approximately 46 % of the inflow of water to Lake Ohrid comes from Lake Prespa; hence, biodiversity conservation issues for Lake Ohrid are critically linked to the situation of Lake Prespa. A clear danger exists in maintaining the long-term ecological stability of Lake Ohrid; action is needed to improve environmental management of both the catchment area and the shoreline (in order to prevent the accumulation of pollutants in the lake) as well as land-use change around the lake. These actions are critical since the inflow and the outflow is very small compared to the lake volume so the lake water has a retention time of 83 years. The total vertical mixing of the water masses, occurring every 6-7 years and the long water retention time is the main reason for the slow response of the lake to pollution. More then 75 % of wastewater in the Macedonian catchments area is treated. After untreated wastewater, the second major source of pollution is the inflow of nutrients from non-point sources (i.e., erosion and agricultural run-off). The use of fertilizers and herbicides that are infiltrating the lake basin cause the pollution. The current loading of dissolved phosphorus is approximately 180 tonnes per year, half of which comes from the use of phosphate detergents, and this would need to be reduced to 100 tonnes per year to keep the mean concentration of phosphorus below 7 mg/m3. In 1965 by construction of a dam on the river Crni Drim (the Ohrid Lake effluent), the natural route of eel (Anguilla anguilla) was interrupted, by which the natural migration in and out of the lake was disabled. Presently Ohrid Lake is artificially stocked with eel. Fishing in Lake Ohrid: Since the establishment of the Hydrobiological Institute in Ohrid in 1934, the Ohrid Lake is stocked with fish by the nursed progeny of Ohrid trout. Up to now the lake is stocked with over than 850 million fish offspring. This is enabled by the breeding installations at the institute, whose capacity is 22 million grains of roe per year. The spawning is organized in such a way as to enable the natural reproduction of Ohrid trout during the closed fishing season. According to the recent published data on fishery statistics for the period 1969/2001 for the Macedonian part of Lake Ohrid the fish catch amounts to an average 185 tonnes with a maximum of 302 tonnes in 1988 and minimum of 53 tonnes in 1998 mainly comprising Ohrid trout, Belvica (both endemic species), and bleak. For this period the trout and belvica contributes to the total catch with 42 % (trout 35.6 %; belvica 6.8 %) – which on the other hand

1 Ohrid Lake was listed in 1979 in the World Heritage List, and in 1980, due to the important historic-cultural values of the broader territory, this region was designated as the Ohrid natural and historic-cultural region.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 34 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA gives the lake the characteristic of a "trout lake" – while the bleak was represented by 43.7 %. Unfortunately, for the period 1999/2001 the two Salmonids together were present in the catch with the reduced amount of 19 % for the trout and 13.5 % for belvica, whereas the participation of bleak (Cyprinidae) was increased up to 55 %. The data from 2003 show tremendous change in the composition of the trout population as in terms of disruption age and sex classes, as well in changes of the spawning ecology. During the winter spawning period of trout 5-6 years ago, there were clearly designated zones in the upper littoral, at water depths from 0.5-3 m, where the trout mated and spawned. In these areas, the trout nest density was 5-8 per 10 m2. Today, it is almost impossible to find nests in the whole upper littoral; the trout spawning that is occurring is happening at greater depths.

Species composition in the commercial fishing for the Macedonian part of the lake in 2002 (total amount 118.6 t)

gudgeon (0.01%) roach (8.51%) caras (0.06%) undermouth (0.00%) burbel (0.20%) chub (1.34%) trout (18.03%) carp (0.94%)

belvica (10.82%)

eel (0.50%)

bleak (59.58%)

Over-fishing seems to be the major cause of the decline of the trout population, although the adverse influence of waste water, which is causing the destruction of natural fish breeding grounds and decrease of organisms’ abundance upon which the indigenous fish species are feeding, plays a significant role. Controls on the number and size of fish must be implemented and co-ordinated on both sides of the lake. Because the fish in the lake are one single, linked population, they must be managed collectively, with similar requirements in both Macedonia and Albania. The socio-economic pressures that have led to over-fishing have impacted upon the trout more than other fish stocks because of the greater demand and higher economic value of this fish. Another unfavourable moment is the presence of several introduced alohthonous fish species, such as: gambusia, goldfish, rainbow trout, sunfish, and bitterling, which are exhibiting an adverse effect upon the endemic fish fauna of the lake through competition.

A.2.2. Lake Prespa Lake Prespa is the second largest lake (307 km2, surface at its current state – 287 km2) and is situated just east of Lake Ohrid on the junction of three borders between Macedonia, Greece,

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 35 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA and Albania. Pelister and Galicica national parks are on either side of it. The deepest part of the lake was 54 m, before the drop in level. The problems of Lake Prespa are similar to those of Lake Ohrid. In addition, the level of the lake has dropped considerably during the last 15 years, which is due to the same reasons noted for Lake Dojran – unfavourable hydrological regime and over-exploitation (extraction) of the water by the bordering countries. As of 1994, the strict natural ornithological reserve Ezerani, situated on the north shore of the Lake Prespa, has existed. It is included on the World Ramsar list obligating Macedonia, as a full member of this Convention, to protect the region around the reserve. Lake Prespa and surrounding protected areas (in all three countries) are being proposed in a larger trans- boundary national park currently being developed with the support of GEFand KFW.

A.2.3. Lake Dojran Lake Dojran, situated in the southwest, is the smallest tectonic lake in Macedonia (43.1 km2). It is a shallow lake, the deepest part of which is only several metres in depth. The Lake Dojran basin was created during the young Pliocene, while the lake in Pleistocene. Actually, Lake Dojran is a relict reminder of former Pleistocene Lake Peon, which occupied an area of about 127 km2. Lake Dojran is an eutrophic lake, rich in phyto- and zooplankton. The blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) are the most abundant in the phyto-plankton. During August and September their biomass is so big, that the whole lake surface is covered by water bloom. Due to the high plankton production, Dojran Lake is rich with fish biomass and species. The annual catch was about 500,000 kg i.e., 150 kg/hectare (178 kg/hectare production in Lake Dojran because of lots of food, the highest freshwater production in Europe). This lake is very famous because of the specific way of fishing in "mandri" with the aid of birds. The fish fauna in Dojran Lake is represented with 15 species, one of them being endemic. Like the other lakes, this is a trans-boundary area between Macedonia and Greece. Unfortunately, as is the case in many trans-boundary situations, the priority to manage Lake Dojran varies dramatically between the two countries. For a small land-locked country like Macedonia the importance is high, where as for Greece it has a much lower priority. The level of Dojran Lake has dropped considerably during the last 15 years. Individual lake zones and groups of species are endangered. Birds were threatened first due to the drying up of the reed belt, which was the most important nesting place for birds. Fish and wildlife populations have been severely impacted upon. The littoral zone has undergone the largest changes and many algal species, endemic for the lake have vanished. For example, a large number of 257 algae taxa that were previously present in the lake cannot be found now. The main reason for these disappearances was extraordinary dry years and over-exploitation of the water for irrigation from both the Macedonian and Greek sides. Unfortunately, all adverse influences which were mentioned for the Lake Ohrid are present in this lake as well, thus, undertaking the same measures for protection is priority, including extension of the collector system and care for its maintenance and regular functioning.

A.2.4. Measures for protection of the three natural lakes in Macedonia In order to protect the three natural lakes in Macedonia, the following steps should be undertaken: • Implementing the existing laws for the protection of these lakes (considering the urbanization, communal waste, coastal zone, exploitation of mineral resources, etc.); • Implementing the obligations toward UNESCO considering Ohrid Lake; • Implementing the obligations of the Ramsar Convention considering Prespa Lake or the EZERANI reserve;

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 36 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Establishing of relevant management bodies (i.e., Council for Protection of the Lakes) for carrying out obligations toward corresponding international organizations as well as Macedonia's own legislation; • Improvement of the existing collector systems and care for their correct functioning.

A.3 Management of other protected areas Other protected areas except for the Strict Natural Reserves (see Table 6) do not have any kind of management authority. They are also not monitored at all except for the exceptional cases emerging from a sudden necessity. Presently no one knows what is going on in these areas, whether they are under some pressure or not, is their status declining or not, etc. Except for the act for their declaration, there is no other documentation (evaluation, management plans, or anything else). It is obvious that they exist only “on paper”. Strict Natural Reserves (Ezerani and Tikves) have been given for management to the local water management companies (Resen and Kavadarci respectively). These companies do not have the capacities for running the management of reserves. Their aim is water use and they do not pay attention to the nature conservation.

B. MANAGEMENT OUTSIDE PROTECTED AREAS B.1 General measures There are some measures to protect biodiversity outside protected areas. These include National Spatial Plan, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for investment objects and projects, international trade with some species (respecting CITES regulations), and certain provisions in some sectoral laws (Law on Forests, Law on Fishing, and Law on Hunting). The National Spatial Plan includes biodiversity conservation (protected areas and proposed protected areas) in its content. The existing Spatial Plan is outdated and the new one has been drafted but is still in the adoption procedure. The EIA process is in the early developing stage, but biodiversity consideration is an integral part of such studies. The sectoral laws, mentioned above, conceptually are for biodiversity conservation, but only declaratively. There is an urgent need of their harmonization with EU directives. The present status of species protection in the country is at a very low level. There is no National Red List of Threatened Species and Red Data Books. Consequently, it is not possible to distinguish the strictly protected and protected species according the IUCN recommendations. The only protection of certain species exists within the Law on Hunting (as game animals). Some protection measures exist in the Law on Forests and Law on Fishing, concerning particular populations or temporary bans. Cadastres of protected areas and evidences of species do not exist in Macedonia. There are no action plans, except for certain incomplete cases – Brown bear, vultures, for protection of threatened species of plants animals and fungi. Monitoring outside protected areas does not exist. It is only case-by-case when ministry officials visit irregularly some sites of threatened species. All these issues are listed as high priorities in the National Strategy and Action Plan. Beside that, the new draft law on nature has provisions for all of these aspects of biodiversity conservation. In the following chapters specific management concerning related sectors are described in more details. B.2 Agriculture management Agriculture is a sector posing a severe threat to the biological diversity of Macedonia, especially due to the current unfavourable conditions and negative development trends. The

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 37 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA impact of agriculture on biological diversity is the draining of wetlands (already in a very bad condition); destroying of valuable habitats (like halophytic vegetation); pollution of the soils; destruction of bio-corridors; etc. No assessment is available on how the processes of denationalization and privatization might affect biological diversity in Macedonia. During the period 1969-1971 several hundreds of flora genetic resources, mainly landraces and wild relatives originating from different regions of Macedonia were collected, evaluated, documented by international codes and conserved into gene-banks in USA. They are free for repatriation at a time when Macedonia will have the conditions for their maintenance. Since the independence of Macedonia in 1991, there have been several attempts at the reorganization of the gene-bank activities, which had previously been carried out through Belgrade. In the meantime the existing accessions were being maintained in the trial fields only, which largely contributed to the loss of biodiversity. Within the last five years, as a result of several separate projects financed by the MAFWE, cold chambers have been built at three institutes: Institute of Agriculture in Skopje, Institute for Southern Crops in Strumica, and Institute for Tobacco in Prilep. The collection of 28 crops consisted of 1,433 accessions in total is maintained in Skopje and Strumica and a field collection of 13 fruit crops with 309 accessions and 151 accessions of grapevine is maintained in Skopje. The institute in Prilep maintains 117 tobacco accessions. The preserved material, consisting of commercial varieties and breeding lines only, means no valuable landraces or wild relatives have been collected and maintained. The accessions are not characterized properly and there is no created computerized database. From the beginning of this year intensive work has been carried out on the organization of the national programme for crop genetic resources. At the moment this programme is planned to be financed only by the MAFWE. According to the draft programme, among the first responsibilities would be inventory and collection of landraces and old varieties. The existing collections should be revised and documented in accordance with IPGRI standards. The three mentioned research institutes would implement the programme, each in charge of a specific group of crops. The seeds and planting material will be stored at the central gene-bank placed in the Institute of Agriculture in Skopje, while duplicates will be distributed to the other two institutes. A biodiversity co-ordination body will be established to direct the activities of all the relevant institutions, ministries, and organizations. As is the case in other countries, there are indigenous breeds and varieties of domesticated animals in Macedonia, which are fully accommodated to local breeding conditions. During the past 50 years, however, new, more productive breeds have been imported. Both the original imported breeds and crosses with local varieties are still present today. Crosses between indigenous breeds / strains and imported breeds are known in several species: Busha is a local breed of cattle found in highland and mountain areas. During the last 30-40 years, it was crossed with many imported breeds. According to official statistical data (Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia, 2000), Bushas comprise 50% of the total number of cattle raised. Buffalo. Latest field studies showed a small population (lower than 200 heads) of buffalos. There has never been any serious investigation and they have never been subject of any breeding programme. The population has to be treated as Endangered. Pramenka (sheep) is represented by three strains: Karakacanska, Ovcepolska, and Sarplaninska. While the Karakacanska strain is considered to be endangered, as classified by the Food and Agriculture Organization – FAO (2000), the other two strains are widely used in sheep production. Domestic (Balkan) goat. Although its numbers are on the increase, it is difficult to make a clear distinction concerning this breed. The goats come in different colours (white, grey, and multi-coloured), with outstanding long hair and sword-like horns. Local primitive pig is raised on ranges in the regions of Makedonska Kamenica, Strumica, and Sveti Nikole. Although it is a very primitive breed, more field and laboratory research is needed in order to clearly define its status.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 38 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Finally, the agricultural sector needs assistance in knowledge, legislation, technical skills and investments to organize agrobiodiversity conservation according to the global standards.

B.3 Forest management The impact of forestry activities on biodiversity is manifested within forest ecosystems. Impact from forest roads (erosion), over-harvesting, and ecosystem-wide changes in nutrient cycling resulting from the huge quantities of biomass (i.e., waste) left behind after harvesting differ in each different forest ecosystem. This can vary both with soil moisture and temperature factors, as well as with local relief and the manner of harvesting. Changes occurring in indigenous forest types, which result from the introduction of alien tree species or the change in natural vegetation caused by the planting of inappropriate species (Black pine most frequently), are of particular relevance. Forestland represents approximately 40 % (1 million hectares) of the country, although not all of this is actually covered by “forests”. Although a large percentage of the land of Macedonia appears to be under forest cover, less than 29 % of it is actually under relatively solid forest coverage. Low dendriform and degraded forests occupy the remaining 71 % of forest area. This poor quality of forest reserves is concerning. In terms of biodiversity conservation, forests are important since the area allocated as economic forests is almost six times the size of that for protected areas. Hence, a large amount of the biodiversity in Macedonia is concentrated outside of protected areas. The forests are also the most significant natural resource in the system of maintenance, restoration and promotion of primary natural resources (water, soil, and air). In addition to watershed protection, forests play roles in wood production, non-timber products (mushrooms, medicinal plants, berries), hunting, tourism, and recreation. As a result of Macedonia’s location at a geographic crossroads, there is wide diversity of dendroflora, with over 300 species present of which 16 % are Balkan endemics. Forests comprise pure broadleaf stands, mostly oak and beech, (550,000 hectares), mixed broadleaf stands (288,000), pure conifers (mostly Black pine and Scots pine (83,000), mixed broadleaf/coniferous stands (47,000) and mixed coniferous stands (8,000). Although privatization of forest resources is taking place and nearly complete (to revert forest resources to previous ownership in 1939), privately owned forests occupy no more than 15 % of the entire forest stock of the country. Forests that have not been privatized yet or cannot be returned to their previous owners will remain under the administrative management of the State. Thus, the majority of the forest resources remain in the ownership of the state. The role of public enterprises in forestry management is still not clear. To date management is inefficient and in the future management might be run more by concessions. Currently there is a lack of incentive to manage the forest more effectively as managers do not see direct benefits from these additional efforts. The use of community or local level associations might be an interesting option to pursue for management. In addition, assistance will be required to improve marketing efforts of forest products and services.

Table 7. Type of forests according to the purpose and ownership Area Type of forests according to the purpose and ownership ha % Economic forests Public 859,427 82.90

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 39 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Private 106,427 10.24 Forest in national parks 43,589 4.20 Protected forests 17,617 1.70 Recreational resorts 1,101 0.10 Other forest with specific purpose 8,897 0.86

Over 90 % of forests are classified as economic (Table 7). It has been recommended that there be a reclassification performed under the New Forest Law. Although large portions of forest are shown as economic timber harvest is actually below the sustainable level, hence forest stock is increasing. Protected forests are declared by the MAFWE. They are managed by the Administration for National Parks and Hunting Grounds, as well as by public forest enterprises. The MoEPP does not have any jurisdiction and control. Currently these forests are entitled as “forest reserves” and do not belong/fit into the “system” of protected areas. The aim of these forests is not biodiversity conservation but other purposes. Forest Fires and dieback: Over the past 20 years the frequency of fires gradually increased, particularly during the last 13 years. The total number of occurred fires (1989-2000) is 3,272 with annual average of 272.7 fires. The largest number of fires occurred in the year of 2000 (1,187), than in 1999 (452), 1993 (390), etc. The total burnt area is 83,928.3 hectares (1989- 2000) with annual average of 6,994.0 hectares. The increasingly drier climate over the last few decades, has presented greater opportunities for forest fires. In general, there is not much of a policy or public awareness campaign to prevent forest fires, which often are ignited by cigarettes or other careless means. The biggest management limitations to deal with forest fires once they are started are proper communication and transportation equipment. In much of the forest areas, the ability to respond is severely lacking, due to the shortage of these resources. In addition, forestry officials have stated that technical assistance on developing a forest fire control and management system would be a much-needed input. In principle, forestry staff felt that they were well trained to deal with forest fires, but were more limited by the lack of ability to get to them in time. In relation to forest dieback, according to the research carried out, it was concluded that the most threatened tree species are oaks Quercus spp. For illustration, some results from the research in which an assessment of oaks’ health condition is made, 50 % of investigated trees had no symptoms of crown transparence, while only 28.4 % had no symptoms of dieback. Also, 35 % of oak trees had a dead top. This showing that the problems with forest dieback and forest fires are serious threats for the forest biodiversity in Macedonia.

B.4 Fisheries management Like main problems can be listed these: • Over-fishing; • Pollution and eutrophication are also significant problems; • Lack of physical protection and control of the catch; • Lack of recreational catch statistics; • Recreational fishing turning into "commercial"; • Poaching; • Lack of commercial catch statistics in some of the lakes and reservoirs; • Shrinking of the water volume of some of the natural lakes; • Low public awareness; • High pressure on fishing of certain fish species; • Habitat disruption and destroying (reed belts in the lakes, spawning grounds);

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 40 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Low legislative implementation (weak connection between the justice - courts - inspection); • Lack of bi- and multilateral agreements on the lakes for fish stock share; • Weakened reproductive (stocking) facilities; • Not sufficient ichthyological investigations (lack of capacities as in facilities as well in staff); • Uncontrolled selling of banned fishing gear to individuals (nets and other). The future development for commercial as for recreational fishing is to establish the ecosystem and biodiversity approach. Some immediate actions should be taken in improving the abovementioned problems: • Immediate applying of certain restrictions in the fishing in the harmed ecosystems with special attention to the threatened species; • Developing trans-boundary projects for fish stock preservation and exploitation; • Measures for habitat restorations (inshore and around shore - buffer zones); • Strengthening the legislative implementation; • Strengthening the control on fishing; • Revision of the Law on Fishing; • Determining the available fish stock and allowable fish catch in any manner; • Establishing of bi- and multilateral fishery commissions; • Signing of bi and multilateral agreements and harmonizing the fishing laws; • Strengthening the capacity of the wild species reproductive centres for restocking; • Reducing pollution and eutrophication of the ecosystems.

The reduction of the fishing pressure in some cases is implemented during low water levels in the rivers and the reservoirs by order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Water Economy. Also, by proposal of relevant scientific institutions based on the situation of particular species or other ecological negative situations, certain restrictions and changes in the regulations can be made. But sometimes the scientific recommendations are neglected in favour of some other interest groups. Unfortunately, the research on fishing in Macedonia is at a low level of financing, although in the MAFWE money is collected from the concessionaires as well from the fish farmers for improving the fish stock. There is a huge constrain in the jurisdiction between the MoEPP and MAFWE. The inland fishing in Macedonia is regulated under the Law on Fishing (1993). It is divided into commercial fishing, sport fishing, and fish production. The fishery sector is under the jurisdiction of the MAFWE. This ministry is responsible for issuing licences for concessions to commercial fishing companies and sport fishing societies, as well permissions for construction or installation of fish farms. Basically, commercial fishing is present at the three natural lakes Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran, as well as on some of the reservoirs. At the natural lakes every five years a concession is given to one fishing company with the aim of having one master plan for protection, improvement, and usage of the relevant fish stock. Apart from their great biological significance, all of the lakes have great commercial value of the fish stock, which requires particular management. Thus, the master plans should be prior to submit at the MAFWE revised from relevant scientific institution. Therefore, in terms of biodiversity conservation the jurisdiction is under the MoEPP, which on the other hand causes overlapping of jurisdiction and constraints for better actions. It is the very strong desire of the MoEPP and all relevant institutions that a revision of the existing Fishing Law is necessary with integration of the biodiversity concept. In Macedonia there are several measures for this issue: • Revitalization of some lake habitats (Lake Dojran); • Plans for revitalization and protection of wetlands; • Construction of waste water treatment plants;

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 41 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Campaigns for usage of phosphorous free detergents; • Reducing the erosion; • Implementing more rigid control of the import of agrochemicals; • Pilot projects for substitution of the pesticides with bio-protectors.

B.5 Hunting management The current Hunting Law was officially submitted on 17 April, 1996, and adopted by the Parliament on 5 May, 1996 (Official Register of the Republic of Macedonia [RM] 20/96), amended 1997. In accordance with this law, the term “hunting” is defined as “reproducing, raising, and exploiting game.” This law is the only law in Macedonia that defines protected species of animals (except aquatic) outside protected areas. Although defined as game species some of them are strictly protected (see Table 8). In Article 4 of this law, a list containing 127 species of game is presented, consisting of 24 mammal and 103 bird species (Table 8). Of the total of 103 game bird species, 70 are included within the category, “permanently protected species.”

Table 8. Species of game given special consideration under the Law on Hunting. Fur-bearing Level of Protection Number of Species Birds Animals Permanently protected 79 9 70 With a closed season 31 6 25 Without protection 17 9 8 Total 127 24 103

B.5.1. Hunting grounds and concessions After adopting of the Hunting Law in 1996, The MAFWE prepared the additional regulations necessary for implementation of the law (Official Register of RM 16/97). The Department of Hunting, within the Faculty of Forestry in Skopje, also prepared a General Long- term Management Plan for hunting activities within the entirety of Macedonia which was first adopted by the MAFWE, and then by the Government on 5 May, 1997. On the basis of this document, the government adopted specific regulations allowing for the establishment of a total number of 249 hunting grounds (104 for big game and 145 for small game) (Official Register of RM 49/97, amended 19/2001). Four of the 249 have been established as “State Hunting Grounds” (Official Register of RM 56/97). As for the rest of the 245 hunting grounds, in October 2002 an open competition was held awarding concessions to the highest bidders. After the open competition, leases for 233 hunting grounds were awarded. If one takes into consideration, on the one hand, the fact that the users of the hunting grounds (domestic and foreign hunting societies and other legal entities) had to make large financial investments in order to pay for the expensive management plans and concessions, and on the other hand, the slow movement of the legal system in punishing poachers, then it is easy to understand why the hunters are extremely dissatisfied. Under the current set of circumstances, the users of the hunting grounds are not complaining without cause. They are not able to obtain a permanent and effective game warden service, and the poaching is considerably higher than it was before. We are concerned that, unless the confusion concerning the hunting grounds is clarified, there will be a further reduction of the hunting game and in the general biodiversity, resulting from the lack of an organized game warden service to prevent unscrupulous hunters from killing whatever they want (Table 9).

Table 9. Optimal and current numbers of game species in Macedonia (excluding national parks). Optimal Current Status Difference Species of Game Number Number % (+/-) Mammals

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 42 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Alpine chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) 4,309 700 16.2 -3,609 Brown bear (Ursus arctos) 250 60 24.1 - 190 Brown hare (Lepus europaeus) 189,000 38,000 20.1 - 151,000 Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 3,018 200 6.6 -2,818 Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) 43,484 5,400 12.4 -38,084 Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 14,032 3,600 25.6 -10,432 Birds Common partridge (Perdix perdix) 239,200 34,000 14.2 - 205,000 Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) 42,000 10,000 25.4 - 32,000 Rock partridge (Alectoris graeca) 58,800 9,000 15.3 - 49,800

On a positive note, over the last few years the public’s awareness of biodiversity in general, especially bird protection, has been raised as a result of the activities of the MoEPP, NGOs, and the media. In this way, strong pressure has been exerted upon hunters, and they are much more careful to avoid breaking hunting laws. Indirectly, even among the hunters, knowledge concerning nature protection has increased.

B.6 In-situ conservation Within Macedonia, no in-situ conservation measures in broader landscapes have been undertaken to date, with the exception of protected areas (see Section IV, A). In-situ conservation of the components of agrobiodiversity has not been performed in Macedonia so far, except for some cases where different unlinked projects are running in crop and livestock production.

B.7 Ex-situ conservation An organized and systematic ex-situ conservation is not in place in Macedonia. The Botanic Garden of the Botany Department at the Institute of Biology (Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics) in Skopje is the only institution within Macedonia, which attempts to adhere to the ratified Convention on Biological Diversity and is scientifically engaged in carrying out ex-situ conservation of wild flora. There are some other collections and institutions (arboretum Trubarevo, etc.) existing. Most of them are not in appropriate shape and are not sufficiently effective in conserving the biodiversity. The Department of Botany at the Institute of Biology has a herbarium collection of about 160,000 specimens of indigenous higher plants. The Division of Microbiology at the Botany Department within the same institute is developing a rich collection of active aerobic and anaerobic moulds and yeasts used in industry, whereas the Division of Mycology has about 1,000 species of macroscopic fungi at its disposal. The Institute of Agriculture in Skopje maintains varieties’ collections of 1,063 cereal, 95 vegetables, 313 fruits and bearing plants, nine forage crops, and 151 grapes. Additionally the collection of 226 vegetable, and 40 industrial varieties are maintained in Institute for Southern Crops in Strumica. At the Tobacco Institute in Prilep, a total of 117 varieties of tobacco are maintained ex-situ, of which 73 are of the Virginia type, 37 of the oriental and seven of the semi-oriental type. With regard to domesticated animals, concrete measures for conservation of the Pramenka sheep “Karakacanska” have already been undertaken. With the assistance provided by the MAFWE, a collection of 100 sheep and 12 rams has been established. The heads were placed in two independent locations for morphological characterization. They are now undergoing biochemical analyses on DNA and proteins in order to determine polymorphism within the satellite bands and genetic markers. In the future, it is planned to cryogenically preserve a

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 43 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA sufficient quantity of sperm and fertilized embryos, in order to facilitate the long-lasting conservation of genetic material.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 44 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION V. STRATEGY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK A. POLICY FRAMEWORK Macedonia does not have state strategy and common policy concerning biodiversity management as yet. There is still not clear picture in respect to responsible institutions and ministries considering the use of bio-resources. The first strategic document that was ever adopted was The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). It was completed in 1996 and adopted in 1997. It serves for protection and promotion of environment but it is also the first document that treated biodiversity as a separate part of the environment. The NEAP priorities related to biodiversity included: • The improved management of the Lakes Ohrid, Prespa, and Dojran; • Renewal and preservation of forests; • Strengthening the environmental management capacity of institutions; • The development of improved management plans for protected areas. The NEAP, although in need of both revision and updating, represents a first step towards the long-term ambition of the country to integrate all aspects of environmental protection. This was the first step towards European Union integration as well. In the year 2000, a National Committee for National Biodiversity was founded, within the framework of the MoEPP, as an obligation of the state arising from the Convention of Biological Diversity. Its objectives are to monitor the implementation of the Convention requirements at the national level, and to contribute to the decision-making process concerning biodiversity issues. The Committee has prepared a draft proposal for preparing a National Biodiversity Strategy, which after elaboration has been submitted to the GEF for financial support. During the process of elaboration of the Strategy the "Country Study for Biodiversity of the Republic of Macedonia – First National Report" was published in the second half of 2003. The Study represents an overview of the situation in the country related to species and ecosystems diversity, the level of threats, as well as the uses of biodiversity for commercial purposes and the impacts driving its alternation. This study was a solid basis for preparing of the "Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan", that is to be finished by the end of the year (2003). As a national document, BSAP defines the priorities for effective and integrated conservation, as well as indispensable actions, projects. and programmes for biodiversity conservation. The BSAP comprises the overall aim for biodiversity conservation in Macedonia, which should be attained in the period 2004-2008, over which the Biodiversity Action Plan will operate. The Action Plan encompasses specific activities that should be realized in order to achieve the overall aim and the guiding objectives, ascertained within Biodiversity Strategy for Macedonia.

B. LEGISLATION FRAMEWORK B.1. Laws In general, within Macedonia the legislation contains numerous laws and bylaws that are directly or indirectly related to biodiversity conservation. However, the whole legislation is outdated and does not respond to the current international policy for biodiversity conservation. Therefore, having in mind the ambition of the country to be integrated in the EU and other international associations, it is an urgent necessity to harmonize the existing laws in order to approximate the EU directives and international conventions.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 45 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

The basis for development of the biodiversity related legislation lies in the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. The Constitution establishes the fundamental values of the state. According to Article 8 of the Constitution the protection and promotion of the environment and the nature is one of the basic constitutional gains. Also, with Article 43 of the Constitution the right of all citizens to enjoy the fruits of the healthy environment is established and they are obliged to promote and protect the environment and the nature. Furthermore, the Constitution provides for the possibility of legal limitations on the “freedom of the market and entrepreneurship” (Article 55) on behalf of biological diversity. According to the Constitution, all natural resources of the state, the flora and fauna, the goods in general use, as with the objects of special cultural and historical importance defined by law, are goods of general interest for the state and they enjoy special protection. All that leads to a conclusion that the protection and the promotion of the environment, the nature and the health of the people is embedded as preferential and fundamental values that will be implemented in the economic policy. Following the recommendations of the NEAP process, the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, in December 1996, adopted the Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Environment and Nature. The original text has been modified and supplemented (Revision: 51/00; modification and supplementation: 96/00 and 45/02). By this law, measures, methods, criteria, and means for the protection of the air, water, and land from pollution, prevention of the harmful noise, putting under special protection the natural goods and objects of the nature, protection of the ionization and non-ionization radiation, using and deporting of waste, and the other segments in the protection are confirmed. Officials are aware that the complex matter of biodiversity and nature conservation in general should be removed from the law and regulated separately. Although there are numerous laws in Macedonia connected with biodiversity issue, their implementation is weak. The most important laws regulating the matter of biodiversity protection are the following: • Law on the Protection of Natural Rarities (41/73, with its modifications and supplements, 42/76, 10/90, and 62/93); • Law on the Protection of National Parks (33/80, with its modifications and supplements, 10/90, and 62/93). Other special laws concerning declaration of some protected areas are: • Law on Declaring a Portion of the Forested Areas on Pelister Mountain as a National Park (38/48, with its modification/supplement, 16/65); • Law on Declaring a Portion of the Forested Areas around Mavrovo Lake as a National Park (10/49, with its modifications and supplements, 23/52 and 16/65); • Law on Declaring a Portion of the Forested Areas on Galicica Mountain as a National Park (31/58, with its modification/supplement, 16/65); • Law on the Protection of Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran Lakes (45/77); • Law on Declaring the Ornithological Reserve “Ezerani” as a Strict Natural Reserve (37/96); • Law on Declaring the Ornithological Reserve “Tikves” in the Gorge of the Crna River as a Strict Natural Reserve (35/97). In addition to the laws, the strict natural reserves are subject to the following regulations: • Regulations on the Implementation of Measures for the Protection of the Strict Natural Reserve “Ezerani” on Prespa Lake (29/97); • Regulations on the Implementation of Measures for the Protection of the Strict Natural Reserve “Tikves” in the Gorge of the Crna River (44/97).

Other sectoral laws that are primarily aimed at the use of natural resources, but treat biodiversity (also protection) are: • Law on Fishing (62/93);

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 46 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Law on Hunting (20/96, 26/96 and 34/47); • Law on Plant Protection (25/98, with its modification/supplement, 6/00); • Law on Forests (47/97, with its modification/supplement, 7/00); • Law on Pastures (3/98, with its modification/supplement, 101/00); • Law on Seeds, Seedlings and Materials for Propagation, Recognition, Approval, and Protection of Varieties (41/00); • Law on Livestock Production (61/97); • Law on Veterinary Health (28/98); Additionally, there are eight other laws related to environmental protection, which are indirectly related to biodiversity conservation. Several bylaws (regulations) exist concerning air pollution, water use, etc.

These laws can be affected by or amended by other laws from related sectors, and problem of inter-relationship due to conflicting character. The existing gaps and overlaps of provisions in the laws are evident, so the government is going to revise them throughout the process of approximation and adaptation towards EU legislation. In-depth analysis of gaps and overlaps of sectoral laws related to biodiversity, as well as land use and pollution will be one within the cross-cutting analyses in the next step of the project. The existing PHARE Project “Capacity Building of the MoEPP” is in its final stage, i.e., the law on nature was drafted, and presently the analyses of gaps and overlaps with related sectoral laws (Law on Forests, Law on Fishing, Law on Pastures, Law on Hunting, and Law on Plant Protection) is running. It is expected to be completed within next few months. Currently, Macedonia is undergoing a process of harmonization of the legislation to the EU directives. Within that scope, the MoEPP is elaborating a new horizontal and vertical legislation in the frame of the PHARE project “Capacity Building of the MoEPP”. The outcomes of the project will be the new framework Law on Environment, general Law on Nature Protection, Law on Waters, and Law on Waste Management, as well as the Law on Air Protection. The Law on Nature Protection was drafted in 2003 and passed the governmental discussion. Presently it has entered into the parliamentary procedure. After the adoption of this law, the existing laws on natural rarities and national parks will be abolished. The aim of this law is an integral protection and conservation of nature. Biodiversity conservation takes the most significant part of this law. It regulates obligations, duties, and responsibilities for nature protection. It includes landscape protection as well. The protection of habitats and species is fully harmonized with the European directives for nature protection. It provides for the creation of protected areas network with bio-corridors in accordance with European Natura 2000 and Bern Convention provisions, as well as the Pan- European Biological and Landscape Strategy. The protected areas’ system is in agreement with IUCN’s (International Union for Nature) recommendations and categorization. The law has special chapters for species conservation. It provides for the distinguishing of protection status of certain species according to the national red lists, which are also an obligation of this law. The monitoring, evidences, and cadastres are an obligation and responsibility of the MoEPP (Administration for Nature Protection). Advisory and expert role is given to the National Council for Nature (an inter-ministerial and expert body). The main administrative and executive responsibilities are given to the partly independent body that has to be established in the frame of the MoEPP – Administration for Nature Protection. For the first time in Macedonia, criminal acts and misdemeanours against nature are foreseen.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 47 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

B.2. International conventions and agreements An integral part of the national legal system is also the 30 global and regional conventions, protocols and their amendments (multilateral acts) that apply to the matter of biodiversity conservation: • Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) – ratified by law (Official Gazette of RM 54/97) and implemented in 1998; • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Particularly as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971) – ratified by decree (Official Gazette of SFRY 9/77). Macedonia acceded to this convention with an Act of Succession in 1995; • Convention on the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972) – ratified by law (Official Gazette of SFRY 56/74); • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Washington, 1973) – ratified by law (Official Gazette of RM 82/99). Macedonia has been a member of this convention since 2 October 2000; • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979) – ratified by law (Official Gazette of RM 38/99) and implemented in November 1999; • Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1982) – ratified by law (Official Gazette of RM 49/97) and implemented in April 1999; • Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (London, 1991) – ratified by special law (May 1999) and implemented on 15 October 1999; • Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Water-Birds (Hague, 1995) – ratified by special law (June 1999) and implemented 1 November 1999.

Macedonia is also a party to several other conventions, agreements, and protocols that are indirectly connected to biodiversity conservation, e.g., conventions and protocols on air pollution (long range trans-boundary pollution, protection of ozone layer, climate change, etc.), environmental impact assessment in a trans-boundary context, trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste, land degradation, etc. Ratifying these objective acts the state accepts a great number of obligations. Some have already been conducted, but most of them are yet to be promoted in the national legislation. Therefore, it can be claimed that the existing national legislation regarding biodiversity conservation is not adequate to the ratified international conventions and protocols. So, the priority objective of the normative politics in the sphere of biodiversity conservation should be application of international acts. In addition, Macedonia has signed further bilateral acts that, among others, treat the biodiversity conservation: • Albania: Memorandum of understanding and co-operation on the field of environment conservation and sustainable development; • Austria: Statement for the intention of building friendly relations and co-operation in the field of environment conservation, with the province Lower Austria; • Bulgaria: Contract for co-operation in the field of conservation of environment and nature; • Greece: Memorandum of understanding and co-operation; • The Russian Federation: Agreement for co-operation in the field of conservation of environment and nature; • Croatia: Contract for co-operation in the field of conservation of environment and nature; • Serbia and Montenegro: Agreement for co-operation in the field of environment; • Switzerland: Contract for monitoring system of rivers in Macedonia;

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 48 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• NGO Consortium: Memorandum of understanding for conservation of the four species European vultures. As a result of signed agreements for co-operation in the field of environmental protection with neighbouring countries (Albania and Greece), the trilateral trans-boundary protected area “Prespa Park” was declared. The three governments pledged themselves to the environmental protection and sustainable development of the Prespa Lakes and their surroundings. All three of the parties involved are contracting parties to the Ramsar Convention of Wetlands of International Importance and have each declared Prespa as a Ramsar Protected Site.

C. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK The aspects of biodiversity management (and therefore its conservation) are penetrating into all sectors of the society due to the very complex mixture of use, research, and direct conservation of biodiversity components. In that respect, the institutions having direct or indirect relations to biodiversity issue are numerous. They can be divided into two main groups according to their function, namely institutions that have a regulatory function and institutions that have an operational function. Furthermore, they can be subdivided into two levels – national and local (municipal) level. There is one more level in the case of the city of Skopje, which consists of seven municipalities. However, there is no particular structure in the city administration concerning biodiversity conservation, as in the case of the units of the self- government – municipalities. Institutions with a regulatory function. On the national level the responsibility for the biodiversity management lies in the parliament (legislation) and the government (enforcement). The way of working of the Parliament is through commissions. Within that scope, the responsibility for biodiversity is in the frame of the Commission for Transport, Communication, and Environmental Protection. Other commissions related to biodiversity management are the Commission for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, the Commission for Culture and of course the legislative commission. It is very specific case in current administrative division that the Administration for National Parks is responsible to the Parliament directly, but it is obscure in which way. In the governmental structure three separate sets of institutions that are connected to biodiversity management can be distinguished – ministries, funds, and the Commission for Economic Development and Economic Policy, as well as the Public Enterprise for Urban and Spatial Planning. Direct biodiversity conservation is the responsibility of the MoEPP. Other ministries that have responsibilities for biodiversity management are: - Ministry of Finance with its Custom Administration; - Ministry of Economy with its Bureau for Tourism; - Ministry of Education and Science, especially its Bureau for Promotion of Education, as well as Science Sector - Ministry for Transport and Communications, with its State Inspectorate for Urbanism and Civil Engineering - Ministry for the Local Self-Government - Ministry for Culture with the Natural History Museum - MAFWE with its Administration for Plant Protection, Administration for Seed and Seed Material, Administration for Water Economy and its inspectors, Veterinary Administration and state inspectorates for agriculture, forestry and hunting and veterinary. Under the government, there is a Fund for the Protection and Promotion of the Environment and Nature. Beside that, there are other two funds that are connected to biodiversity management – Fund for Waters and Fund for Agriculture.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 49 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

On the local level there is no particular structure concerning biodiversity management and conservation. The Council of the unit of self-government and the major are responsible for decisions and operation. Institutions with an operational function. Many institutions at the national level have a direct or indirect responsibility for biodiversity management and conservation. Direct conservation function: - Three national parks’ administrations – “Mavrovo”, “Pelister”, and “Galicica”; - Public enterprises – “Macedonian Forests” and “Public Enterprise for Pastures”; - Concessionaires – hunting, fishing, pastures, agricultural land; - Other institutions or physical persons that have been authorized – o Scientific institutions – elaborated in more details in the following text, o Non-governmental organizations.

In the following sub-sections some of the more important institutions concerning biodiversity conservation will be elaborated in more details.

C.1. Government of Macedonia In the beginning of 1999 the MoEPP, having previously been part of the Ministry of Urban Planning and Construction, was established as a separate ministry. It was established in order to realize the references confirmed in NEAP and to realize the Law for Protection and Promotion of the Environment and Nature in the frame of the reforms of the state administration. By law the MoEPP has a broad authority for monitoring, protecting, and improving the environment in the areas of water, soil, air, noise, radiation, and biodiversity. The creation of a separate organ in the state administration is in general a positive step. However, there is some concern that the MoEPP will promote the re-centralization of environmental management, rather than the decentralization. In accordance with the recent law proposal for nature protection, in case of biodiversity, this will be overcome, although to a very limited extent. The basic aims and assignments of this ministry according to the lawful regulations are: • Monitoring the conditions in the environment; • Protection of the water, soil, flora, fauna, air, and ozone layer from pollution; • Protection from noise, radiation, protection of bio-diversity, geo-diversity, national parks, and the protected areas; • Restoration of the polluted areas of the environment; • Suggesting measures for the treatment of litter; • Physical planning; • The spatial informative system; and, • Supervising of the areas that are in its responsibility.

The MoEPP consists of: • Sectors for Legislation, International Co-operation, Sustainable Development, and Physical Planning; • State Inspectorate of Environment; • Service for Environment; • Centre for Monitoring and Information.

Within the Service for Environment, among others, there are two special organizational units: a) Department on Biodiversity (staff, three permanent and one temporary with different backgrounds e.g., geographer, forest engineer, biologist, and environmental engineer);

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 50 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

b) Department on Conservation of Specific Natural Wealth (staff, two permanent and one temporary with backgrounds of geographer, biologist, and agronomist). The departments for biodiversity conservation are understaffed and not all of the employees are with a suitable educational background. The same is true for the Environmental Inspectorate. The Fund for the Environment is an institution that was founded at the beginning of 1998 with a basic aim of mobilizing the disposed financial means and investing them in projects for the protection and promotion of the environment and nature. The usage of the fund’s assets is done on the basis of a programme established by the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, in accordance with the National Environmental Action Plan, i.e., its priorities in the financing activities for biodiversity conservation. In addition, this fund finances campaigns for raising public awareness about the protection of nature, especially, biodiversity. These kinds of financial institutions have a distinctive importance in the creation of the investment policy in the countries in transition and represent basic mobilizing instruments in the engagement of the disposed financial resources.

C.2. Other institutions Public institutions authorized for conducting certain matters regarding biodiversity, can be classified in two large groups. a) Public institutions for conservation and management, viz.: • Macedonian Museum of Natural History; • National Park "Mavrovo"; • National Park "Pelister"; • National Park "Galicica”; • National Parks Management; • Zoological Garden – Skopje; • Zoological Garden – Bitola. b) Public institutions in the field of education and science, viz.: • Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics; • Institute of Biology; • Faculty of Agriculture; • Faculty of Forestry; • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine; • Faculty of Pharmacology; • Hydro-Biological Institute – Ohrid; • Institute of Agriculture; • Institute of Livestock Production; • Institute of Veterinary Medicine; • Institute for Southern Crops – Strumica; • Tobacco Institute – Prilep. Other types of institutions directly related to biodiversity conservation are national park administrations. Most of the abovementioned institutions are more or less sufficiently and adequately staffed, but the main obstacle for their proper functioning in the biodiversity conservation direction is the lack of qualified managers, administrators, and commercially minded people in biodiversity sector. Another constraint is the permanent financial shortage. Financial means are not only limited, but in many cases they are far from being enough for performing minimum protection activities. The equipment is insufficient and mostly very old and outdated. A good example is the fact that due to restrictive budgetary policy even in the MoEPP there is no budget line foreseen for nature conservation in 2004.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 51 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

The specific character of the public institutions for conservation and management is the fact that they belong to different ministries. On the other hand, some public institutions in the field of education and science, from the aspect of biodiversity have special organizational forms. There is also a mix of other actors involved in environment and biodiversity conservation. They include the following: • In Macedonia a lot of non-governmental organizations exist in which programmes of environmental protection are the priority goal. Only a few of them consider biodiversity conservation as their main priority issue. Most of these NGOs consist of members who are generally dedicated to nature conservation on the enthusiastic basis instead of having professional approach. The NGOs are primarily focussed on awareness and advocacy and less on management and community initiatives. Future activities could be directed towards capacity building in respect to gaining knowledge for biodiversity conservation aspects. Just a very limited number of such organizations have experienced staff (or members) for undertaking complex biodiversity investigations and management practices; • The Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC). Its mission is to assist in the solving of environmental problems in the region, through encouraging co-operation among NGOs, governments and businesses, supporting the free exchange of information, and promoting public participation in environmental decision-making. • Media play an important role for advocacy; • Private Sector until now has played a minor role in biodiversity conservation, though possible role in over exploitation, i.e., medicinal plants collection (uncontrolled); • Other stakeholders in biodiversity sector, like industry, forestry, agriculture, energy, and other sectors are not at all involved in biodiversity conservation. Donor activities include GEF, EU (PHARE, CARDS), KfW expressed interest in Prespa, Swiss Agency for Technical Co-operation, USAID, SIDA, JICA, and others. Others involved include UNDP, GTZ, World Bank, Pronatura, Frankfurt Zoological Society, Friends of the Earth, and others. The completed list of all kinds of international involvements in biodiversity conservation is not available due to lack of database at the MoEPP. In addition, whilst many are focussed upon democracy and governance and economic growth, which can be achieved through biodiversity initiatives, awareness of this and / or interest is low.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 52 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION VI. NATIONAL PRIORITY ISSUES The Project Team within the thematic area of Biodiversity has been faced with the huge responsibility of accepting the challenge to ascertain the National Priority Issues. It is one of the most strategically important and potentially difficult activities of the NCSA process, because of the many competing interests and values that have to be considered and balanced. On the one hand, the national priority issues should be uniquely adapted to the national conditions, focussing on issues and questions of national significance and importance; on the other, they should concretely reflect the CBD principles and contribute to their implementation in the country and realize the national and sustainable development goals. Therefore, the national priority issues have been ascertained by the working team, taking into consideration the strategic approaches established within the BSAP (Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Republic of Macedonia), as well as the recommendations of UNDP within the frame of the efforts to develop a comprehensive and strategic approach towards capacity building in order to meet the global environmental challenges. During this process the team was permanently relying on country specifics. In this way, the results of the implementation of the priority issues should improve national, environmental, and natural resources management, through capacity building on systemic, institutional, and individual levels, in accordance with the challenges of the CBD, financially supported from inside the country, from the international community and the GEF. Consequently, the following national priority issues have been recognized: 1. Incorporation (integration) of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within the overriding priorities of the country – economic and social development and poverty eradication; 2. Develop and introduce economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity; 3. Reaching the effective national biodiversity planning; 4. Achieve successful conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through implemental and cross-sectoral integrated planning of the activities, including the participation of all interested groups; 5. Adopt appropriate measures for in-situ conservation of the natural ecosystems and species, restoration of degraded ecosystems and recovery of threatened species; 6. Adopt appropriate measures for ex-situ conservation for the biodiversity components; 7. Identification and monitoring of components of biological diversity important for its conservation and sustainable use; 8. Decreasing of the number of threatened species and habitats (especially wetlands and forests); 9. Exceed (outgrow) the lack of information and knowledge concerning biodiversity as a basic prerequisite for the successful planning and conducting of conservation measures, as well as establishing and maintaining programmes for scientific and technical education and training; 10. Strengthening the capacity of the institutions related to the biodiversity research; 11. Improvement of the public awareness for biodiversity in general and for the importance of the measures required for the conservation of biological diversity; 12. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of measures concerning conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in order to measure their progress and success regularly; 13. Establishing and regularly operating the clearing-house mechanism; 14. Strengthening the capacities of the national and local agencies responsible for the management, conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity, with assistance of external agencies;

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 53 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

15. Establishing and implementing the legal obligation for Strategic Environmental Assessment and EIA for all plans, programmes, polices and other interventions in nature; 16. Promote and encourage national and international investments, local resources, including institutions, agreements, financial mechanisms, plans and programmes relating to the conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity; 17. Increasing of the national and international investments in biodiversity conservation; 18. Access financial resources provided via the financial mechanism of the Convention; 19. Develop and introduce measures regulating the access to genetic resources and providing access for technology transfer that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; 20. Approximation of the national laws to European legislation and implementation of international obligations, as well as legal inter-sectoral harmonization.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 54 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A. ASSESSING NATIONAL PRIORITY ISSUES The assessment of the national priority issues has been determined on the basis of the experience and peer debate on the work team. The priority issues were ranked by four criteria, i.e., problem level, concern, ability to adequately address issue, and priority. In the matrix below the issues that were evaluated with first priority are listed higher. Bearing in mind current activities concerning biodiversity conservation, all issues are ranked form one to three.

Issue Prioritization Matrix within the Thematic Area of Biodiversity

2 1 3

2

Issue Number Number Address Issue Priority Ranking Scale of Problem Level of Level Concern Ability to Adequately Adopt appropriate measures for in-situ conservation of the natural T/N H M 1 1. ecosystems and species, restoration of degraded ecosystems, and recovery of threatened species Identification and monitoring of components of biological diversity N/L H/M M 1 2. important for its conservation and sustainable use Decreasing of the number of threatened species and habitats (especially G/T/ M/H M 1 3. wetlands and forests) N/L Strengthening the capacities of the national and local agencies N/L H/M M 1 4. responsible for the management, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, with assistance of external agencies Increasing of the national and international investments in biodiversity N/G/ H M 1 5. conservation L 6. Reaching the effective national biodiversity planning T/N H M 1/2 Adopt appropriate measures for ex-situ conservation for the N M/H M 2/1 7. biodiversity components Improvement of the public awareness for biodiversity in general and for N H M/H 2/1 8. importance of the measures required for the conservation of biological diversity Establishing and implementing the legal obligation for Strategic N/L H M 2/1 9. Environmental Assessment and EIA for all plans, programmes, polices, and other interventions in the nature Promote and encourage national and international investments, local N/L/ M M 2/1 resources, including institutions, agreements, financial mechanisms, T/G 10. plans and programmes relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity Access financial resources provided via the financial mechanism of the N/G H M 2/1 11. Convention Incorporation (integration) of the conservation and sustainable use of N M M 2 12. biodiversity within the overriding priorities of the country - economic and social development and poverty eradication Develop and introduce economically and socially sound measures that N/L M L 2 13. act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity Achieve successful conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity N M/H L/M 2 14. through implemental and cross-sectoral integrated planning of the activities, including the participation of all interested groups Exceed (outgrow) the lack of information and knowledge concerning N H/M M/H 2 15. biodiversity as a basic prerequisite for successful planning and the

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 55 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

conducting of conservation measures, as well as establishing and maintaining programmes for scientific and technical education and training Strengthening the capacity of the institutions related to the biodiversity N H L 2 16. research Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of measures concerning N/T H/M M 2 17. conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in order to measure their progress and success regularly Establishing and regularly operating of the clearing-house mechanism G/T/ H/M M 2 18. N Approximation of the national laws to European legislation and N/G H M 2/3 19. implementation of international obligations, as well as legal inter- sectoral harmonization Develop and introduce measures regulating the access to genetic N/G L M/H 3 20. resources and providing access for technology transfer that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity 1 Enter: L - local, N - national, T - trans-boundary or G - global. 2 Enter: L - low, M - medium or H - high. 3 Provide relative ranking from 1 to 5 of the problem(s) being faced by the country (1= most severe problem(s), 2= second most problem(s), etc.). The same ranking can be given to different issues where appropriate.

Mostly the issues are related to national level due to the size of the country. In some specific cases they can be linked to local level (endemic forms, habitats), while natural lakes are in a group of trans-boundary. The global issues are common for all countries, particularly countries where biodiversity protection has not been adequately considered. Having in mind the fact that previous actions in biodiversity protection were on a low level, the level of concern is generally medium to high. It is considered an issue related to development and introduction of measures regulating the access to genetic resources and technology transfer, due to the primary need of sustainable system installation (20). Generally abilities to adequately address issues are ranked medium to high, with the exceptions (13, 14, 16) when it concerns the implementation of cross-sectoral integrated planning, economically and socially incentives, and strengthening the research institutions. The most severe national problems in relation to biodiversity conservation are listed from 1 to 6. For the level of concern all these issues are ranked high to medium and the abilities to adequate address issue are medium. The second group of importance is the largest one, containing 12 issues (from 7 to 18). The group is divided in two sub-levels 2/1 and 2, that indicate the prioritization rank. The level of concern in the first sub-group is mostly high while the abilities to adequate address issues are medium. The second sub-group consists of issues that cover the implementation of sustainable system of biodiversity conservation and strengthening national capacity. The third group, ranked with lower priority (issues 19 and 20) is linked to the adoption of recognized legislation and development of measures for genetic resources access and technologies for conservation. Most of the problems need to be solved in the country before the environment for these items will be set. The priority on the approximation of national laws to EU legislation and implementation of international obligations, as well as legal inter-sectoral harmonization (19), appears to be very low ranked, despite its strategic importance. The working team is of the opinion that most of these processes will be carried out under pressure from the international community. Beside that, this is an important issue among both the government and opposition, so it represents a political consensus. Since the process under this priority issue is already on-going, it is not necessary to be ranked higher. Foremostly, the process of inter-sectoral harmonization is performing, at least in some sectors (see Section V). The government has mandated responsibility for sustainable development and inter-sectoral approach for environmental protection to MoEPP – sector for sustainable development.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 56 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION VII. CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS FOR NATIONAL PRIORITY ISSUES Substantial changes in the landscapes and biodiversity of Macedonia have been noticeable over the last hundred years, especially the decline of forest cover and wetlands in order to increase the area of agricultural land. The loss of natural ecosystems has increased dramatically over the last 50 years as a response to the enlargement and distribution of the human population and industrial development. A number of sectors (see Section IV) have posed a strong, negative impact upon biodiversity, encompassing agriculture, forestry, industry, mining, energy, construction, transport, tourism, and harvesting of wild species. These include loss of habitats, overuse, pollution, land degradation, and climate change (see Section III.D). Consequently, certain plant and animal species are facing extinction; numerous ecosystems are threatened and devastated. These impacts ultimately occur as a result of the current economic and social situation of the Country, strongly expressed into a range of constraints regarding conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity on systemic, institutional, and individual levels. The assessment of the capacity of the country on the systemic level should cover the overall policy framework in which individuals and organizations operate and interact with the external environment, as well as the formal and informal relationships of the institutions. The results of the assessment should emphasize the constraints and bottlenecks concerning biodiversity conservation at all levels. The current management system for biodiversity conservation includes legislation and system of protected areas. The current state of biodiversity management in the country is not on an appropriate level; hence, the results of this study will be fundamental in order to build adequate and long-term sustainable capacities. Further on, NCSA will enable the evaluation of the gaps and overlaps among the institutions and individual potentials in relation to biodiversity conservation, climate changes, and land degradation management. The evaluation of the biodiversity capacities are related on the national level due to the fact that the country is very small and institutions and individuals dealing with it are limited. The identification of the constraints for effective biodiversity conservation at the systemic, institutional, and individual levels has been conducted through the methodology of questionnaires, interviews, as well as in-depth analysis of the working team members. The results have helped to understand the nature of the causes and key barriers, as well as identification of the bottlenecks. This will enable the production of suggestions for the capacity- building opportunities.

A. ASSESSING CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS AT THE SYSTEMIC LEVEL In order to assess the capacity for biodiversity protection on a systemic level, the poll was conducted on the basis of the questionnaire containing six sets of questions, all together 32 questions. These sets of questions were prepared Table 10. Listed institutions invited according to the recommendations of the Draft for evaluation NCSA Manual and adapted to the national Name of the institution Number conditions. Scientific Institutions 6 Due to the low response of the employees in Public Institutions 1 the governmental institutions to the questionnaire NGO 2 (systemic level), the conclusions were based not Anonymous 7 only on questionnaires, but also on interviews Total 16 and personal experience and knowledge of the working team members. The total number of

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 57 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA completed questionnaires was 16, out of which seven were anonymous (see Table 10). Half of the questionnaires were completed by people working in scientific institutions and with NGOs). A.1. System/political framework % Question n Comments High Medium Low 1.1 16 0.00 62.50 37.50 1.2 Descriptive 1.2a 13 (NEAP) 7.69 46.15 46.15 A.2. Legal and regulatory framework % Question n Comments High Medium Low 2.1 14 0.00 35.71 64.29 2.2 Descriptive 2.3 12 33.33 58.33 8.33 2.4 13 30.77 38.46 30.77 2.5 14 28.57 50.00 21.43 A.3. Management accountability framework % Question n Comments High Medium Low 3.1 16 6.25 43.75 50.00 3.2 16 0.00 37.50 62.50 3.3 16 0.00 56.25 43.75 3.4 16 0.00 31.25 68.75 3.5 16 0.00 50.00 50.00 3.6 16 0.00 31.25 68.75 A.4. Economic framework % Question n Comments High Medium Low 4.1 13 0.00 7.69 92.31 4.2 Descriptive 4.3 Descriptive A.5. Systems level resources % Question n Comments High Medium Low 5.1 14 7.14 42.86 50.00 5.2 Descriptive 5.3 14 7.14 42.86 50.00 5.4 15 0.00 46.67 53.33 5.5 14 7.14 50.00 42.86 5.6 Descriptive 5.7 Descriptive 5.8 14 0.00 0.00 100.00 5.9 15 6.67 40.00 53.33

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 58 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A.6. Processes and relationships % Question n Comments High Medium Low 6.1 15 6.67 80.00 13.33 6.2 Descriptive 6.3 Descriptive 6.4 15 0.00 60.00 40.00 6.5 15 0.00 60.00 40.00 6.6 13 0.00 53.85 46.15 6.7 14 7.14 14.29 78.57

A.1. Policy framework: It is obvious that the conducting of the overall environmental policy is at the medium level (see Figure A.1.1). A significant part of the assessed questionnaires shows successful implementation of the environmental policy at a low level, while none thinks that there is a high level of specific policy direction. The most frequent answer to question A.1.2. (strategic instruments in place) was NEAP (which is actually almost the truth – National Spatial Plan is another such document). Concerning the effectiveness of its implementation was evaluated as low-to-medium (only 8 % - high; see Figure A.1.2.a).

A.1.1 Policy framework A.1.2a NEAP

High High 0% 8% Low 38% Low 46%

Medium Medium 62% 46%

A.2. Legal and regulatory framework: There is a consensus among the respondents that the legal framework in relation to biodiversity conservation is not adequate, particularly mentioning laws related to natural resources (laws for forestry, hunting, natural lakes, water, national parks, natural rarities, and environment). Generally, the respondents as a part of public society have no adequate knowledge concerning regulations in biodiversity conservation. There is a high (31 %) and medium (48 %) level in overlapping and gaps between those regulations, while only 21 % of respondents are assuming that such problems in regulation does not exist. Perhaps, this response is linked to the governmental institutions that are directly involved in biodiversity conservation.

A.2.1 Appropriate legislation in place A.2.3.-A.2.5. Legal and regulatory framework High Low High 0% 21% Medium 31% 36%

Low Medium 64% 48%

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 59 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A.3. Management accountability framework: With regards to the responsibility of the institutions, their activity, co-ordination and transpiration in the field of biodiversity, answers in the majority were ranked low (57 %) or medium (42 %). A.4. Economic framework: In the current political, economic, and social situation the function of the economy is ineffective and A.3. Management accountability insufficient. This state is clearly reflected within the answers of the respondents, regarding the High interested groups in the research sector, so the 1% majority of the respondents (92.31 %) estimated Medium 42% it low and almost 8 % with medium. There was no answer with a high level. Altogether, 13 Low 57% organizations have been mentioned, that have a major interest and programmes in biodiversity conservation. The organizations listed below are in accordance with the number of quotations respectively: Institute of Biology, NGOs, MoEPP, Institute of Hydrobiology, National Parks, Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Pharmacy, A.4.1. Economic framework Macedonian Museum of Natural History, High Medium MAFWE, Tobacco Institute, Institute for 0% 8% Southern Crops, Local Governments, and Organizations that are buying up wild plants and animals. Concerning the roles of the organizations within the concept of conservation Low and sustainable use of biodiversity, the answers 92% are descriptive, ranging from scientific investigations for the institutes and faculties, through general policy and monitoring for the ministries, conservation for the natural parks, and public awareness for the NGOs. A.5. Systems level resources: Systems level resources (human resources, database, their A.5. Systems level rresources accessibility, and addresses) and financial High resources are on an unsatisfactory or moderate 5% level (58 % - low and 37 % - medium). A small Medium number of respondents evaluated the resources 37% mentioned above as high (5 %). Low A.6. Processes and relationships: The inter - 58% institutional effective collaboration in relation to biodiversity conservation (A.6.1) was estimated as moderate (80 %), 13 % were low and only 7 % with high. One section of the respondents pointed to some of the projects for capacities strengthening (country study for biodiversity, BSAP, NEAP, LEAPs, building capacities in MoEPP, NGO grants) as opportunities for improving relationships. The impact of implemented projects on short- and long-term bases will be a national programme for genetic resources protection, improvement of public awareness, legislation framework, better information system.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 60 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

A.6.1. Interaction of institutions A.6.4.-A.6.6. Processes and relationships High Low High 7% 13% 0% Low 42%

Medium Medium 58% 80%

A.6.7. Evaluation mechanisms The awareness level within governmental High institutions and public in relation to Medium 7% biodiversity conservation (A.6.4. – A.6.6.) 14% was evaluated as medium (58 %) to low (42 %). But in case of present measurements of Low biodiversity conservation and their success 79% and effectiveness, the response was low (79 %), and small portion with medium (14 %) and high (7 %).

General conclusions After a broad discussion of the team members in analysing assessment results several outlines were taken. The underlined ones are estimated as constraints.

1. The opinion of the working group is that the specific performance of the overall environmental policy is at the low-medium level. Apart from NEAP, and to a certain degree the National Spatial Plan, there is no other strategic document concerning the environmental management. However, implementation effectiveness of these two documents is low in practice. 2. The legal framework in relation to biodiversity conservation is inadequate. It is burdened with overlaps, gaps, and inconstancies. 3. The responsibility of the institutions, their activity, co-ordination, and transparency in the field of biodiversity is low. 4. The current political, economic and social situation, and the function of the economy is under-effective and insufficient. There are many institutions with some interest in biodiversity conservation, but they are not directly connected to conservation. NGOs are having a substantial role in the process. 5. Systems’ level resources (human resources, database, their accessibility, and addresses) and financial resources are on unsatisfactory level. 6. The inter-institutional effective collaboration in relation to biodiversity conservation is not insufficient. There are some projects for capacity strengthening running on the state level, but their short- and long-term impact is, at the moment, not very visible.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 61 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

B. ASSESSING CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS AT THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL The institutional level was evaluated through a designed questionnaire with 34 questions prepared according to the recommendations of the Draft NCSA Manual and adapted to the national conditions. The questionnaires were submitted to all institutions that are related to biodiversity protection (see Table 11). In the MAFWE two separate questionnaires were evaluated (agriculture and forestry sector) in order to receive better results. Questionnaires were distributed to the relevant persons in the institutions that are linked to biodiversity protection. On some questions the answers were not received.

Table 11. Listed institutions invited for evaluation Name of the institution Location Response Faculty of Natural Science Skopje Yes Faculty of Forestry Skopje Yes Faculty of Agricultural Skopje Yes Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Skopje No Agricultural Institute Skopje Yes Institute for Livestock Science Skopje No Institute for Southern Crops Strumica Yes Tobacco Institute Prilep Yes Hydro-biological Institute Ohrid Yes Museum of Natural History Skopje Yes MAFWE Skopje Yes MEPP Skopje Yes Bioeco (NGO) Skopje Yes MES – Macedonian Ecological Society Skopje Yes

The questionnaire was consisted of six main sets, covering the main fields of interest of NCSA. The summarized results are presented below.

B. 1 Mission/strategic management % Comments Question n High Medium Low 1.1 Clearly defined mission 14 21.43 57.14 21.43 1.2 Clearly defined mission of other institutions in the country 13 15.38 61.54 23.08 1.3 Clearly defined mandate 14 7.14 42.86 50.00 1.4 Clearly defined mandates of other institutions in the country 12 0.00 75.00 25.00 1.5 Potentials for development structure 14 64.29 14.29 21.43 1.6 Danger of biodiversity loss due to reorganisation 12 16.67 16.67 66.67 1.7 Development linked to legal, regulatory or requirements and responsibilities 14 35.71 14.29 50.00 1.8 Capacity built to be sustainable over the medium- and long-term 13 38.46 30.77 30.77 24.89 39.07 36.05

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 62 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

B.2 Structure/competencies/processes % Comments Question n High Medium Low 2.1 Implementation of processes 14 21.43 57.14 21.43 2.2 Do they work effectively 14 21.43 64.29 14.29 2.3 If yes, précis them Descriptive 2.4 What are the results* 13 7.69 53.85 38.46 Descriptive 2.5 Lessons learned 13 15.38 53.85 30.77 16.48 57.28 26.24 * Described items are mostly the same and evaluated from low to high

B.3 Human resources % Comments Question n High Medium Low 3.1 Adequate human resources 14 28.57 42.86 28.57 3.2 Sufficiently skilled 14 42.86 28.57 28.57 3.3 Human resources available Descriptive 3.4 Linked to biodiversity conservation Descriptive 3.5 Training and human resource programmes 14 14.29 21.43 64.29 3.6 Who are they Descriptive 3.7 What do they offer Descriptive 28.57 30.95 40.48

B.4 Financing % Comments Question n High Medium Low 4.1 Financial resources available 14 0.00 0.00 100.00 4.2 Do they enable effective operation 14 0.00 7.14 92.86 4.3 Appropriate allocation of governmental 14 budget 7.14 21.43 71.43 4.4 Appropriate allocation of international 14 sources 14.29 42.86 42.86 4.5 Used for Institutional capacity improvement 14 14.29 14.29 71.43 7.14 17.14 75.71

B.5 Information resources % Comments Question n High Medium Low 5.1 Information available on national level 14 7.14 78.57 14.29 5.2 Effectively distributed in the institution 14 14.29 64.29 21.43 5.3 Data base existing 14 0.00 35.71 64.29 5.4 Contribution to national Information system 14 21.43 35.71 42.86 5.5 National benefit of institutional information 14 57.14 14.29 28.57 20.00 45.71 34.29

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 63 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

B.6 Infrastructure % Comments Question n High Medium Low 6.1 Institutional available technical capacities Descriptive 6.2 Their effective usage 14 50.00 35.71 14.29 6.3 The use covered financially 14 21.43 28.57 50.00 6.4 Sufficient to address the objectives 14 7.14 57.14 35.71 26.19 40.48 33.33

B. 1 Mission / strategic management: The answers related to questions in section B1, mission and strategic management reflect different states. Most of the assessed institutions evaluated (in terms related to the clearly defined mission of institutions within in the country) with medium (questions B.1.1 – B.1.2). However, in the case of a defined mandate of an institution, the response is between low and B.1.3 The manadate of the institutions medium (see Figure B.1.3), due to the fact that only a few institutions in the country are High 7% responsible solely for biodiversity conservation. Medium On the other hand, the mandate of other 43% institutions in biodiversity conservation is 75 % Low and is evaluated as medium. The potentials inside 50% the institutions for reorganization are very high (64.29 %), which will have a low impact (66.67 %) on loss of biodiversity. For the last two questions of section 1 (1.7 and 1.8) related to the sufficient linkages of existing or future legal, regulatory or institutional requirements, and how responsibilities and capacity building in the past proved to be sustainable over the medium- and long-term, a diverse pattern (Figure B.1.7 and Figure B.1.8) was shown.

B.1.7 Linkege to legal, regulatory B.1.8 Capacity built proved to be or institutional requirements and sustainable over medium and long-term responsibilities Low High High 31% 38% 36%

Medium Low 14% 50% Medium 31%

It is obvious that there is a diverse status of the institutions in the country and how they are foreseen for the future. B.2 Structure / competencies / processes: Section B.2 consisted of five questions where two B.2.5 Lessons learned were descriptive. Over 50 % of the answers were High estimated as medium. In question B.2.1 for the 15% implementation of institutional processes Low (planning, quality management, monitoring, 31% evaluation), 57.14 % replied with medium while the rest were equally split between high and low. Medium The similar result was obtained for their efficiency 54% (B.2.2), where 64.29 % of institutions assigned medium. The description in B.2.3 reflects that the mostly used processes are planning, quality management and evaluations, while the efficiency of those processes were evaluated medium to

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 64 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA low (high – 7.69 %; medium – 53.85 %; and low – 38.46 %). Similarity was found with lessons learned implied to processes (Figure B.2.5). B.3 Human resources: The adequate human resources in the institutions are estimated as moderate (Figure B.3.1). Nevertheless, they are skilled sufficiently for the needs of the institution B.3.1 Adequate human resources (high 42.86 %; medium 28.57 %; and low 28.57 Low High %). In reply to the first two questions, the 29% 29% differences in answers are strongly linked to the institutional background, e.g., the scientific institutions replied high. The human resources available (B.3.3) are in great manner with a Medium higher level of education (over 60 % of all 42% employees), with certain specialization in narrow field of interest (M.Sc and Ph.D). Their devotion to biodiversity conservation (B.3.4) was estimated at roughly 40 %. Perhaps, the fact that there is a low level of training programmes (64.29 %), provides ideas that most of the building capacity in institutions are based on individual motivations and interests (comments in B.3.6 and B.3.7). Generally, in training programmes technical skills and better knowledge are mostly quoted ones. B.4. Financial resources: Section B.4 related to the financing of biodiversity conservation have a clear low pattern. All stakeholders involved in the assessment agreed that financial resources are not available enough (low, 100 %) and disable effective operation (B.4.2, low, 92.86 %). The allocations in the governmental budget are also low (B.4.3, 71.43 %), while international allocations (B.4.4) are used moderate in implementation of biodiversity conservation projects (Figure B.4.4). The financial resources used for institutional capacity improvement (B.4.5) are generally low, although in some institutions it is moderate to high (Figure B.4.5)

B.4.4 International allocations used in B.4.5 Financials used for institutional biodiversity conservation capacity improvement Low High 43% High 14% 14%

Medium Medium Low 14% 43% 72%

B.5 Information resources: The information available on the level related to B.5.4 Contribution into national informations biodiversity conservation is evaluated as system medium (78.57 %), and similarly distributed High in the institutions. The minimal existence of 21% database is noticeable (64.29 %) and a low to moderate contribution into the national information system (Figure B.5.4), due to the fact that such a system has not yet been Low 43% Medium established,. However, the outcome of 36% institutional information for governmental institutions has been assigned as high (57.14 %) in case of scientific institutions. On the other hand some institutions the same outcomes estimated insufficient (low 28.57 %). B.6 Infrastructure: The institutions have sufficient infrastructure in terms of buildings, offices, laboratories, vehicles, computers, etc. Most of them are old fashion, e.g., reparation, renewal or reconstruction needed. However, their usage is moderate to high (FigureB.6.2), and

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 65 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA still operational. Bearing in mind that the use of the institutional infrastructure is financially low covered (about 50 %), financial investment can be foreseen, particularly due to the fact of moderate to low (Figure B.6.4) sufficient to address the objectives of the respective areas.

B.6.2. The effective usag of B.6.4 Sufficiant infrastructrue address to objectives infrastructure High Low Low 7% 14% 36%

High 50% Medium Medium 36% 57%

General conclusion The conclusions for the capacities on an institutional level were taken out on the basis of the assessment result and elaboration by the team members. In some cases some extractions were done in order to have an unbiased conclusion. The constraints are underlined while opportunities are mostly moderately defined. 1. Most of the institutions have a clear mission and structure while their mandate has not been sufficiently explored because only a few of them are dedicated only to biodiversity conservation. The resources of the institutions are high but they are not linked to legal regulations, requirements, and responsibilities. The team considered that the existing institutional structure should be reorganized in terms of their sustainability. 2. The institutional processes (planning, quality management, monitoring, and evaluation) are implemented enough, as well as the results received and lessons learned. The overall evaluation of the implementation is medium to low. In this manner the improvement of institutional processes is desirable. 3. The human recourses available within the institutions are sufficient and can satisfy the needs. Slight difference was observed in non-scientific institutions where the human resources were lower. The human resources are highly educated and mostly indirectly linked to biodiversity conservation. The training programmes are not adequate, and related directly to individual motivation and interest. 4. Financial resources available for biodiversity conservation are extremely low and cannot provide effective operation. While governmental financial support is low, the international is moderate. Also improvement of institutional capacity is not financed. 5. Information resources on institutional level are sufficient. But, the information database and national information system is low. One curious finding is that while the non-governmental institutions assumed that they offered a high level of information to the government, the governmental institutions have the opinion that they are low. 6. The infrastructure of the institutions is sufficient, although in most of the cases it needs renewing, but is still operational. The operation of the infrastructure is not financially covered and can fit to needs to address objectives in the respective areas. 7. Most of the institutions are more or less sufficiently and adequately staffed, but the main obstacle for their proper functioning in biodiversity conservation direction is a lack of qualified managers, and commercialists.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 66 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C. ASSESSING CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL In order to assess the capacity for biodiversity protection on an individual level, the poll was conducted on the basis of a questionnaire containing 24 questions. The set of questions was prepared according to the recommendations of the Draft NCSA Manual and adapted to the national conditions. Most of the questioned individuals were directly connected to biodiversity but mostly in the research in the field of flora, fauna, and ecosystems. Only fewer are engaged in biodiversity protection research, and the least were directly involved in biodiversity protection (both organizational and practical protection). This situation represents the real condition in the country concerning biodiversity issues, thus the sample is representative. According to the participants in the questionnaire the offered form of the questionnaire is to satisfy the goal to a medium level (question No. 1.22).

C1 (Job requirement and skill levels Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.1 Precise definition of job tasks 54 31 10 2 1.2 Job tasks related to biodiversity conservation 54 30 12 1 61 22 3 C2 (Training/re-training) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.3 Possibilities for new experience in biodiversity conservation 55 16 25 3 1.5 Gained knowledge for biodiversity conservation 54 28 13 2 44 38 5 C3 (Career progression) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.6 Career progression 55 15 21 8 C4 (Accountability) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.4 Opportunities for better involvement in biodiversity conservation 55 10 21 13 C5 (Access to information) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.11 Access to necessary information in relation to job requirements or field of interest 55 14 24 6 C6 (Personal/professional networking) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.13 Information exchange between employees for biodiversity conservation 55 1 23 20 1.14 Involvement in professional associations in particular field of interest 54 15 18 10 1.15 constrains in communication in/with relevant institutions 55 12 27 5 28 68 35 C7 (Performance conduct) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.17 Adequate national framework in biodiversity conservation 55 2 22 20

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 67 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C8 Iincentives/security Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.16 Evaluation of activities in biodiversity conservation 54 2 22 30 C9 (Comments) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.24 Other comments Descriptive C10 (Morale and motivation) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.18 Personal ethic in biodiversity conservation 54 31 12 0 1.19 Personal motivation in biodiversity conservation 55 14 18 12 45 30 12 C11 (Work deployment/job sharing) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.7 Possibilities for deployment inside institution 55 2 25 17 1.10 Personal experience used from institution involved in biodiversity conservation 54 4 21 18 6 46 35 C12 (Inter-relationship and team work) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.8 Involvement in team work 55 24 16 4 1.12 Level of internal information exchanged for biodiversity conservation 54 9 23 11 33 39 15 C13 (Interdependences) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.9 Independence in job position 54 31 11 1 C14 (Communication skills) Question n High MediumLow Comments 1.20 Communication skills 55 155 77 15 a. Computers 54 31 9 4 b. Internet 53 28 10 4 c. Foreign languages 46 17 15 3 d. Personal communication 53 31 10 1 e. Presentations 54 22 18 3 f. Professional contacts 55 26 15 3 1.21 Skills used in job position 52 19 19 5 174 96 20

1.22 Efficiency of the questionnaire 53 9 28 6 1.23 Constrains in completing tasks in biodiversity conservation Descriptive

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 68 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C.1. Job requirements and skill levels Since the individuals that took part in the poll were in different ways connected to the biodiversity issues (a considerable part were from scientific institutions), the majority consider themselves as appropriately skilled and on the appropriate job position correctly defined (65 % - see Figure C.1). C.2. Training / re-training It is obvious (see Figure. C.2) that during the educational process and professional engagement the opportunities for gaining knowledge and experience are sufficient. Half of the questioned individuals respond that they had / have high opportunities for training and re- training, while that almost all of the rest had / have medium (only 8 % did not have such opportunities). The rather high percentage of “medium” responses (40 %) is from individuals from non-scientific institutions (governmental and NGOs).

C1-Job requirement and skill levels C2-Training/retraining 4% 8% 31%

52% 65% 40%

High Medium Low High Medium Low

C3-Career progression C.3. Career progression: Almost half of the 16% 33% individuals responded that they have medium opportunities to progress in their professional career and about one-third have high opportunities. It is significant to note that although job requirements and skill levels, as 51% well as training / re-training are at the appropriate High Medium Low level, 18 % of the questioned individuals do not have an opportunity for career progression in the field close to biodiversity protection. C.4. Involvement into biodiversity protection: The possibilities for involvement in the biodiversity protection in both scientific and governmental institutions are medium (see Figure C.4). C.5. Access to information: The access to information is not at a satisfactory level. More than two-thirds of the responses are low or medium and only 27 % of the questioned individuals have high access to information.

C4-Involvment in biodiversity C5-Access to information 27% 18% 13% 27%

55% 60% High Medium Low High Medium Low

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 69 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C.6. Personal / professional networking: C6-Personal/professional Concerning the personal and professional 30%networking 20% networking and information exchange the situation is the same as for the access to information. The high value of answers with "low" (30 %) is mainly due to the low level of inter-institutional communication and 50% information exchange (question no. 1.13 which High Medium Low is in the same C6 group of questions). A similar pattern is valid for scientific and other institutions. C.7. Performance conduct: According to the questionnaire, the biodiversity protection and other activities connected to biodiversity are not systematically measured and evaluated. More than one half of the questioned individuals responded with low, and only 5 % - high. C.8. Incentives / security: There is a consensus about the question whether the structure at the national level is sufficient to promote excellence in biodiversity conservation. Only very small percentages of the questioned individuals (4 %) have a high opinion of the sufficiently well organized biodiversity conservation on the national level. C7-Performance conduct Question group C8 5% 4% 42% 55%

53% 41%

High Medium Low High Medium Low

C10-Morale and motivation 13% C.10. Morale and motivation: There is high morale and motivation for work in the field of biodiversity protection among the people connected to biodiversity (only 13 % have low motivation). If morale is taken into consideration 36% 51% alone (question no. 1.18), the questioned individuals responded 100 % with high or medium. High Medium Low C.11. Work deployment and job sharing: People involved in biodiversity protection and research think that there are low (40 %) or medium (49 %) opportunities for job transfer alternatives in the institution and for use of personal experience. C.12. Inter-relationships and teamwork: Most of the questioned individuals are of the opinion that there are medium inter-relationships and team work in the institutions, but those who think it is low are not negligible (see Figure C.12). It is possible that these responses do not correspond to the reality since the most of the people think that they are effectively involved in team work (see question no. 1.8.), but they also think that the level of information exchange between the individuals in the institution is low (see question no. 1.12.). This is somewhat contradictory.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 70 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C11-Work deployment/job sharing C12-Inter-relationship and team work 40% 11% 21% 35%

49% 44%

High Medium Low High Medium Low

C.13. Interdependencies: The majority of the questioned individuals responded that the level of their independence in the work concerning biodiversity is high (see Figure C.13), i.e., the interdependence is low. The 24 % of individuals responded that they have "medium" independence in their work. This percentage is mainly due to individuals working in the governmental institutions. Most of the individuals from scientific institutions responded with "high" independence in their work. C.14. Communication skills: The level of communication skills among the individuals involved in biodiversity protection and research is quite high. One-third of the questioned individuals possess medium skills and a very small percentage (7 %), low. This is valid for all skills taken into account in the questionnaire (computer, internet, foreign languages - English and others - personal communication, public presentations, professional contacts). Concerning the degree of their effectiveness during the work (question no. 1.21) the difference between medium and high is not that obvious.

C13-Interdependences C14-Communication skills 2% 7% 24% 36%

57% 74% High Medium Low High Medium Low

The most frequently stated constraints for effective performance of the work in the biodiversity field in the questionnaires (question 1.23 and 1.24) are the following (the order of appearance corresponds to the frequency of same comment): • Lack of information; • Lack of co-ordination among the institutions; • Lack of financial support for protection; • Lack of financial support for research; • Lack of precise regulation; • Unsuitable expert staffing of the institutions; • Low technical equipment; • Bureaucratic constraints in the corresponding ministries; • Lack of catalogue of experts and experts in different fields; • Political influence; • Lack of communication; • Training;

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 71 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Unsuitably defined work aims; • Concentration of the power for decision among individuals (in particular institution); • Unsolved taxonomic problems; • The greater part of the people did not respond to these questions.

General conclusion The general conclusion (based on the questionnaire and personal experience of the team members) is that the capacity of the country on the individual level does not represent any significant constraint for the realization of the national priority issues (target, goals, and aims) concerning biodiversity protection. This does not apply to the number of individuals involved in the issue. The institutions and the country as a whole are understaffed. 1. The constraints in the following text are underlined. 2. The current educational process (i), as well as the professional engagement (ii) at the job position are offering possibilities for gaining sufficient knowledge, new experience and to a certain extent career progression (iii) in the field of biodiversity investigation, protection and management. 3. Access to information (i), as well as the exchange of information between individuals on a private basis (ii) are at a satisfactory level (not at the highest level, but well enough). 4. It is obvious that the organizational structure at an institutional level in the field of biodiversity protection is not suitable enough (i). Insufficient exchange of information between the individuals in the institutions (ii) and between the institutions (iii) on the state level is present as well. 5. The individual morale (i) for dealing with the biodiversity issues is very high, while the motivation (ii) is somewhat lower (mainly due to the financial aspects), but satisfactory anyway. On the contrary, the exploitation of individual experience of the expert and scientific community by the institutions (iii) involved in the biodiversity protection is insufficient. 6. Team work (i) in the field of biodiversity is regularly present. However, the habits for team work have to be improved. The connections of individuals who work in biodiversity with the similar domestic or foreign institutions, alliances, non- governmental organizations (ii) are well established and regularly present but they can be improved. Similar connections among the individuals directly involved in biodiversity protection (iii) are not satisfactory. 7. Communication skills (i) among the individuals involved in biodiversity protection and research are high (computer, internet, foreign languages - English and others, personal communication, public presentations, professional contacts), thus they do not represent a significant constraint to dealing with biodiversity issues. It is more the access to the contemporary information technology (ii) that is the constraint.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 72 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

D. OVERALL CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT On the basis of extensive analysis of the questionnaires on systemic, institutional, and individual levels, as well as the personal interviews and experience of the team members, it can be concluded that there are significant constraints in solving the problems of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources at all levels. The summarized review of constraints is presented below.

Systemic level: 1. The performance of the overall environmental policy is at the low to medium level; the implementation effectiveness of strategic documents is low in practice; 2. The current political, economic, and social situation and the function of the economy is ineffective and insufficient; 3. The legal framework in relation to biodiversity conservation is not adequate. It is burden with overlaps, gaps, and inconstancies; 4. The responsibility of the institutions, their activity, co-ordination and transparency in the field of biodiversity is low; 5. Systems’ level resources (human resources, database, their accessibility and addresses) and financial resources are on an unsatisfactory level; 6. The inter-institutional effective collaboration in relation to biodiversity conservation is not insufficient. However, significant improvement should be made.

Institutional level: 1. Only a few of the institutions are dedicated solely to biodiversity conservation. The existing institutional structure (in all scientific, conservation, and administrative institutions) should be reorganized in terms of their sustainability; 2. The improvement of institutional processes (planning, quality management, monitoring, and evaluation) is desirable; 3. The human recourses available within the institutions are close to sufficient at scientific institutions and can satisfy the needs, but in administrative and direct conservation institutions, the situation is different. The training programmes are not adequate, and related directly to individual motivation and interest; 4. Financial resources available for biodiversity conservation are extremely low and cannot provide effective operation; 5. But, the information database and national information system has not yet been established; 6. The infrastructure of the institutions in most cases need renewing, but is still operational. The operation of the infrastructure is not financially covered.

Individual level: 1. The current educational level and knowledge is sufficient only in the scientific institutions. The situation in the administration institutions is different and they need strengthening in that respect; 2. Access to information, as well as the exchange of information between individuals on the private basis (mainly in scientific institutions), is at a satisfactory level. This is not the case in the administrative institutions; 3. It is obvious that the organizational structure at an institutional level in the field of biodiversity protection is not suitable enough (i). Insufficient exchange of information between the individuals in the institutions (ii) and between the institutions (iii) on the state level is present as well; 4. The individual motivation for dealing with the biodiversity issues is low (mainly due to the financial aspects), but satisfactory anyway, but the exploitation of individual experience of

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 73 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA the expert and scientific community by the institutions involved in the biodiversity protection is not sufficient. 5. The habits for teamwork have to be improved. The connections of individuals directly involved in biodiversity protection with the similar domestic or foreign institutions, alliances, non-governmental organizations are not satisfactory; 6. Communication skills among the individuals involved in direct biodiversity conservation are quite low, especially if access to the contemporary information technology is concerned. As far as the particular priority issue is concerned, the constraints at all levels for each issue were evaluated on the basis of the Capacity Constraints Matrix, prepared according to the recommendations of the Draft NCSA Manual.

E. CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS MATRIX In the following table the priority issues for conservation of biological diversity are listed respective to their importance obtained from the analysis in Section VI (National Priority Issues). Furthermore they are correlated to the capacities on individual, institutional, and systemic levels. During the assessment of the national capacities on individual, institutional and systemic level for realization of the priority issues in biodiversity conservation, the working team decided to assign ‘+’ for the constraint and ‘-’ if it is not constraint. The more “+” signs, the more difficult it is to realize the respective priority issue. If the certain priority issue is evaluated with three “+” (all levels), then the bottleneck for respective issue exists.

Once capacity constraints are identified, they can be charted below under the appropriate categories of individual, institutional, and systemic capacity constraints (it is possible that a priority issue pertains to only one or two of the three levels of capacity constraints). This matrix may help to organize the categorization of capacity constrains identified which, in turn, may facilitate the identification of related opportunities for capacity building. Individual Institutional Systemic No. Priority Issues Capacity Capacity Capacity Constraints Constraints Constraints Adopt appropriate measures for in-situ conservation of the natural ecosystems and - + + 1. species, restoration of degraded ecosystems, and recovery of threatened species Identification and monitoring of components 2. of biological diversity important for its - + + conservation and sustainable use Decreasing of the number of threatened 3. species and habitats (especially wetlands and - + + forests) Strengthening the capacities of the national and local agencies responsible for the + + + 4. management, conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity, with assistance of external agencies Increasing of the national and international 5. investments in biodiversity conservation - + + Reaching the effective national biodiversity 6. planning - + + Adopt appropriate measures for ex-situ 7. conservation for the biodiversity components + + + Improvement of the public awareness for biodiversity in general and for importance of - + + 8. the measures required for the conservation of biological diversity

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 74 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Establishing and implementing the legal obligation for Strategic Environmental - + + 9. Assessment and EIA for all plans, programmes, polices and other interventions in nature Promote and encourage national and international investments, local resources, - + - including institutions, agreements, financial 10. mechanisms, plans and programmes relating to the conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity Access financial resources provided via the 11. financial mechanism of the Convention - + - Incorporation (integration) of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within the - + + 12. overriding priorities of the country - economic and social development and poverty eradication Develop and introduce economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives - + + 13. for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity Achieve successful conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through - + + 14. implemental and cross-sectoral integrated planning of the activities, including the participation of all interested groups Exceed (outgrow) the lack of information and knowledge concerning biodiversity as a basic + + - prerequisite for successful planning and 15. conducting of conservation measures, as well as establishing and maintaining programmes for scientific and technical education and training Strengthening the capacity of the institutions 16. related to the biodiversity research - + + Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of measures concerning - + - 17. conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in order to measure their progress and success regularly Establishing and regularly operating of the 18. clearing-house mechanism - + - Approximation of the national laws to European legislation and implementation of - + + 19. international obligations, as well as legal inter-sectoral harmonization Develop and introduce measures regulating the access to genetic resources and providing + + + 20. access for technology transfer that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity Common Constraints within Thematic Area of Biodiversity 4 20 15

Based on the analyses of the designed matrix the following conclusions are extracted:

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 75 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Generally, the capacities available on the individual level are not constraints in most of the priority issues in biodiversity conservation, with the exception of four of them. The constraints on both the institutional (20) and systemic (15) levels are much more frequent in the realization of the priority issues; • For the priority issues 4; 7; and 20 the constraints are present on all levels (individual, institutional and systemic), while in case of priority issues 10; 11; 17; and 18 the constraints are related to the institutional level, only. For the rest of the priority issues the constraints are present in both institutional and systemic levels; • The working team is of the opinion that even though the potential of country on an individual level is limited, it can significantly contribute to the realization of almost all priority issues. It is clear that human capacities should be enlarged and better trained in order to improve the mechanisms, conservation, sustainable development of biodiversity, ex-situ conservation, development, and introduction of measures regulating the access to genetic resources etc., that are important and high ranked priority issues; • According to the working team, the constraints on the systemic level (15 priority issues) are a consequence of still as yet unclearly defined legal and political framework for environment management and biodiversity protection. There are numerous gaps and overlapping among current legislation, unclearly defined responsibility, low economical base, absence of databases, low financial resources, etc.; • According to the extensive analysis of questionnaires, as well as the results from matrices, the biggest constraint for the realization of the priority aims concerning the biodiversity conservation is the institutional set up and its functioning. This is especially valid for those institutions, which are directly involved in biodiversity protection (ministries, services, national park offices, etc.). This situation is due to the unsuitable structural set up, very often not quite clearly defined responsibilities, the financing, the equipment, and especially due to the insufficient, and frequently incompetent staff in respective institutions. The lack, or inconsistent monitoring of planned activities and evaluation of the achieved results is also evident. The institutional constraints are reflected in the realization of all (20) established national priority issues for biodiversity conservation (see Chapter VII.B). Even the highest ranked priorities like in-situ and ex-situ conservation, identification, and monitoring of the biodiversity components important for its protection and sustainable use, management of the protected areas, implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment studies, etc.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 76 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION VIII. CAPACITY-BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES A. CREATING NEW CAPACITY A.1. Individual level It is foreseen that no new individual capacity is necessary in order to meet many of the priority issues goals. Rather, there is only to be the strengthening of the local capacities (in the sense of creating new capacity) agencies responsible for management, conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity. Ex-situ conservation lacks individual capacity, as well, but the redeployment or exchange of capacities may be more appropriate in this case. The lack of knowledge concerning species diversity (especially invertebrate fauna) as a basic prerequisite for successful planning and conducting conservation measures is evident in Macedonia. The lack of sufficient data on landscapes, habitats, and ecosystems is also a constraint. Solving of that constraint requires training and developing new individual capacities. The access to genetic resources is not ranked as a high priority for Macedonia. Due to that, one can say that the minimum (least) capacity was built in Macedonia concerning this issue during the last few decades. However, some capacity does exist, but it is not directed towards biodiversity issues; it needs mobilizing or redeployment. In that case individuals dealing with this issue will not be able to fulfil regular obligations and as a conclusion it can be said that new capacities are necessary. The measures for capacity development on an individual level will be elaborated in the further stage of the project, particularly in the action plan.

A.2. Institutional level There are two departments related to biodiversity issues within the frame of the MoEPP (see Section V), which could be a good basis for the development of the body dealing with expert and administrative issues. There is a positive experience from the existence of such an institution in the recent past. However, the capacity of that body was weak and now, within the frame of the MoEPP, it is even weaker. Developing such an institution will increase the ability of the state to cope with priority issues quoted in the Capacity Constraint Matrix under numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 16 at least. The Inspectorate for Environment should be also strengthened with respective individuals. As stated previously biodiversity conservation is not based on an inter-sectoral approach in Macedonia. Within the MoEPP (International Co-operation Sector and Sustainable Development Sector) there are no departments – or at least individuals which / who are dealing with biodiversity conservation. The same situation is present in other related ministries. Also there are no employees or departments for inter-sectoral co-operation concerning biodiversity conservation. Hence, there is no opportunity for capacities’ development, so in the future the establishment of such a department should be considered. As a conclusion, there is lack of institutional capacities to cope with issues quoted in the Capacity Constraint Matrix under numbers 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, and 19. There are a lot of gaps and misunderstanding concerning sustainable use of biodiversity, since there are no departments (or at least individuals) in the forestry, agriculture, and water management sectors in the MAFWE. Respective offices / individuals do not exist in other sectors affecting biodiversity – Ministry of Economy (Industry, Mining, Tourism, and Energy), Ministry of Transport and Communications, Ministry of Local Self-government, etc.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 77 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

The main users of biodiversity components – Public enterprises (Macedonian Forests, Pastures Management, Water Economy, etc.) also are lacking in capacities related to biodiversity conservation. Due to the fact that inspectorates (forestry, agriculture, water management, plant protection, veterinary medicine, etc.) are not well enough trained for biodiversity conservation, development opportunities are insufficient and the creating of new capacities is necessary. In this way realization of the priority issues quoted in the Capacity Constraint Matrix under numbers 12, 13, and 14 could be met in accordance with requirements of CBD. Institutional capacity concerning ex-situ conservation, as well as genetic resources management does not exist within the frame of both MoEPP and MAFWE. Although not a high priority at the moment, the management of genetic resources should be put on their agendas. On the contrary, such capacities do exist in some other institutions (Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Institute of Agriculture, Livestock Institute, etc.), although not directly related to genetic resources management. However, this is a solid base for significant redeployment of human and technical capacities. There are certain opportunities for capacities’ development in national park administration, but significant retraining and additional recruiting of biodiversity experts is necessary.

A.3. Systemic level It is important to note that the new legislation is currently under preparation in the frame of the PHARE funded Project “Capacity Building of the MoEPP”. In that scope the new Law on Nature Protection was drafted (see Section V). It is assumed that after passing the through Parliament, a lot of gaps and responsibility deployment should be defined since the new law is fully harmonized with the European Union legislation (Directives). There is a solid base for creating new institutions and ensuring a better management of the protected areas and biodiversity status in general. Current opportunities for the improvement of legislative and institutional set up concerning the sectors related to biodiversity conservation are very weak. Harmonizing other sectoral laws such as: Law on Forests, Law on Hunting, Law on Plant Protection, Law on Fishing could provide biodiversity conservation. The current socio-economic context of the country has resulted in biodiversity degradation and consequently its less effective conservation. In that way, since the country is in the stage of transition, burdened with political problems it is difficult to improve the overall economic situation. In order to mitigate the current unfavourable situation, the following opportunities exist: • Promotion the necessity for biodiversity conservation at macro-economic political carriers; • Creation of favourable conditions within the administrative framework for development and implementation of measures for support of biodiversity conservation; • Introduction of tax and customs incentives for implementation of appropriate technologies for biodiversity conservation; • Introduction of tax and customs incentives for economic and legal entities concerned with eco-tourism development; • Establishment of a special item within the state budget regarding biodiversity conservation; • Providing direct support from the central budget for activities in protected areas; • Providing compensation (or changes in tax regulations) for use of biological resources; • Conducting a review of potential external donors and programmes; • Implementation of the measure “debt-for-nature”, etc.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 78 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Bearing in mind that the sectoral capacities at the systemic level are insufficient, the lack of precise measures as National Red List of Threatened Species and Red Data Book are the next steps in strengthening of systemic level opportunities for biodiversity conservation.

B. MOBILIZING / REDEPLOYING EXISTING CAPACITY B. 1. Individual level Although there is no particularly stressed necessity for individual strengthening of capacities (see Capacity Constraints Matrix), it could be very useful if some redeployment or exchange of individuals could be made in relation to improvement of biodiversity conservation in several aspects (1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 16, and some others – see Capacity Constraints Matrix). Ex-situ conservation lacks individual capacity, but redeployment or exchange of capacities may satisfy some of the needs. Redeployment of individuals in the field of genetic resources management will not solve the needs as described in A.1. in this section.

B. 2. Institutional level There are no possibilities for redeployment of either human or technical resources in the governmental institutions concerning biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Public institutions like national parks administration, zoological gardens do not have sufficient human capacity to be redeployed or mobilized. The situation is different with regards to the Macedonian Museum of Natural History. Considerable part of the human capacity could be either mobilized or redeployed in the field of biodiversity conservation. The other structures of the museum are also suitable for mobilizing in that sense. Scientific and educational institutions have the largest human capacity in the country (although not enough) that could be used in biodiversity management, conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources. The government should find incentives in order to promote and stimulate involvement of this capacity in the nature conservation field. The problem is not the same as far as technical capacities are concerned. Since public and scientific institutions involved in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources are scarce anyway, and they are understaffed and with low technical infrastructure, there is no chance of redeployment of capacities.

B. 3. Systemic level As it can be seen from VIII.A.3., almost all capacities should be established for the first time. In that respect, nothing can be mobilized or redeployed since nothing really exists.

C. ENHANCING EXISTING CAPACITIES C. 1. Individual level In most of the governmental institutions that deal with biodiversity the individuals are in need of improved knowledge concerning the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In that way the enhancement of the existing human capacities should be undertaken. The individuals employed in the national parks as well as in the zoological gardens are also faced with a low level of knowledge regarding the concept of biodiversity in general. On the other hand, the experts of the scientific and educational institutions are not engaged sufficiently by the appropriate ministries in the problems of biodiversity conservation, nevertheless the fact that they can obtain training for a wide range of the existing capacities.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 79 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C. 2. Institutional level There is a great need and possibility for the enhancement of the existing capacity on the institutional level, both in human and technical resources within the governmental, scientific, and public institutions concerning biodiversity conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources. Especially pronounced are the financial needs for technical enhancement, equipment, salaries, etc. Further stressed is the need of establishing the new institutions / departments / individuals within the frame of governmental set up instead of enhancing the existing ones, since they do not cover the complex issue of biodiversity conservation enough.

C. 3. Systemic level The most important improvement in the field of the systemic level enhancement concerning biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources can be realized by integral implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Elaboration of this document is in the final stage and the adoption procedure has started.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004 CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE THEMATIC AREA 80 OF BIODIVERSITY IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SECTION IX. REFERENCES A Preliminary European Red List of Vertebrates (A joint project between the Council of Europe and the European Environment Agency). The European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity. 2002. pp. 1-220. Biodiversity Assessment for Macedonia. Chemonics International Inc., Washington, D.C. & USAID/Macedonia, 2001. pp: 1-61. Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Republic of Macedonia. Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Skopje, 2003 (in press). Country Study for Biodiversity of the Republic of Macedonia (First National Report). Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Skopje, 2003. pp. 1- 217. Country Report on the State of the Animal Genetic Resources in Republic of Macedonia. 2003. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Water Economy, Skopje. Gasc, J.-P., Cabela, A., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Dolmen, D., Grossenbacher, K., Haffner, P., Lescure, J., Martens, H., Martinez Rica, J. P., Maurin, H., Oliveira, M. E., Sofianidou, T. S., Veith, M. and Zuiderwijk, A. (Eds.), 1997. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe. Societas Europaea Herpetologica & Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (IEGB/SPN), Paris : pp. 496 Gaston, K. J. & R. David, 1994. Hotspots across Europe. Biodiversity Letters 2, 108-116. Hewitt, G. M., 1999. Post-glacial Re-colonization of European Biota. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68, pp. 87-112. Jovanovic, B., Jovanovic, R. & Zupancic, M., 1986. Prirodna potencijalna vegetacija Jugoslavije. Naucno vece Vegetacijske karte Jugoslavije, Ljubljana, pp. 122. & Karta. Matvejev, S. & Puncer, I. J., 1989. Karta bioma. Predeli Jugoslavije i njihova zastita. Prirodnjacki muzej u Beogradu, Posebna izdanja knj. 36, Beograd. Petrov, B., 1992. Mammals of Yugoslavia. Insectivores and Rodents. Prirodnjacki muzej u Beogradu, Supplementa 37, Beograd. Rodic, D., 1991. Geografija Jugoslavije. I. Naucna knjiga, Beograd, pp. 288. Stojmilov, A., 2003. Fizicka geografija na Republika Makedonija. Prirodnomatematicki fakultet. Skopje., pp. 320 The Atlas of European Mammals. T&AD Poyser Natural History. Academic Press, London. pp. 1-484. Udvardy, M., 1975. A Classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of the World. IUCN Occasional Paper No 18. Varga, Z., 1995. Geographical Patterns of Biological Biversity in the Paleartic region and the Carpatian Basin. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 41: 71-92.

UNDP, Skopje, 2004