DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation Final Report Mid-Term Review UNDP/GEF Improving Coverage and Management Effectiveness of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Project PIMS 4225 GEF ID:3997 Albania Peter Whalley October 2014 Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. v 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope and methodology ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Structure of the evaluation report .......................................................................................... 2 2 Project description and development context ............................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Start and duration ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 The Project .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Objectives of the project ................................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Main Components and Outputs ...................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Baseline indicators .......................................................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Project Budget ................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Main stakeholders................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Expected results ...................................................................................................................... 6 3 Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Project design .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Project M&E design ......................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Assumptions and risks ..................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Lessons from other relevant projects incorporated into the project design .................. 8 3.1.4 Planned stakeholder participation .................................................................................. 8 3.1.5 Replication approach ...................................................................................................... 8 3.1.6 UNDP comparative advantage ........................................................................................ 8 3.1.7 Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector ........................... 8 3.1.8 Management arrangements ........................................................................................... 9 3.2 Project implementation .......................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Adaptive management .................................................................................................. 10 3.2.2 Partnership arrangements ............................................................................................ 10 3.2.3 Feedback from the M&E activities and adaptive management ................................... 10 3.2.4 Project Finance .............................................................................................................. 11 3.2.5 Monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................................... 12 3.2.6 UNDP Implementation .................................................................................................. 12 3.2.7 Ministry of Environment Execution .............................................................................. 12 i 3.3 Project results ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Overall results (attainment of objectives) .................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.3 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.4 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.5 Country ownership ........................................................................................................ 19 3.3.6 Mainstreaming .............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.7 Sustainability ................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.8 Communication ............................................................................................................. 21 3.3.9 Impact ........................................................................................................................... 21 4 Conclusions, Ratings, Recommendations and Lessons ................................................................. 22 4.1 Overall Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 22 4.2 MTE Ratings .......................................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 23 4.3.1 Corrective actions for the design, implementation and M&E of the project ............... 23 4.3.2 Actions to follow-up or reinforce initial benefits from the project .............................. 24 4.3.3 Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives ........................................ 24 4.4 Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Annex 1 - Mid Term Evaluation Terms of Reference ............................................................................ 28 Annex 2 – Documents reviewed ........................................................................................................... 46 Annex 3 - Inception Report ................................................................................................................... 47 Annex 4 – Persons Met ......................................................................................................................... 65 Annex 5 - Financial data ........................................................................................................................ 66 Annex 6 - Evaluation Consultant Code of Conduct and Agreement Form............................................ 67 ii Acknowledgements This independent Mid-Term Evaluation has been prepared by Dr Peter Whalley. The views expressed and comments made are his own. He would like to express his gratitude to all those who have assisted during the mission by offering their time to present their perspective on the Project’s activities and performance. In particular, he would like to thank Ms Violeta Zuna (Project Manager), Mr Eno Dodbiba (Project Expert) and Ms Ema Moci (Administration / Financial) from the Project Co-ordination Unit for their assistance in organising and facilitating the mid-term evaluation mission. iii Acronyms and Abbreviations BD Biodiversity (GEF Focal Area) CBD Convention on Biodiversity CEO (GEF) Chief Executive Officer EA Executing Agency (MoE) EU European Union GEF Global Environment Facility ha Hectare IA Implementing Agency (UNDP) IW International Waters (GEF Focal Area) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCPA Marine and Coastal Protected Area METT Management and Effectiveness Tracking Tool MoE Ministry of Environment MoU Memorandum of Understanding MPA Marine Protected Area MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organisations NIM National Implementation PA Protected Area PCU Programme Co-ordination Unit PIR Project Implementation Review ProDoc Project Document PSC Project Steering Committee (Project Board) SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (targets) SP Strategic Programme (GEF) ToR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abstract Book Progeo 2Ed 20
    Abstract Book BUILDING CONNECTIONS FOR GLOBAL GEOCONSERVATION Editors: G. Lozano, J. Luengo, A. Cabrera Internationaland J. Vegas 10th International ProGEO online Symposium ABSTRACT BOOK BUILDING CONNECTIONS FOR GLOBAL GEOCONSERVATION Editors Gonzalo Lozano, Javier Luengo, Ana Cabrera and Juana Vegas Instituto Geológico y Minero de España 2021 Building connections for global geoconservation. X International ProGEO Symposium Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación Instituto Geológico y Minero de España 2021 Lengua/s: Inglés NIPO: 836-21-003-8 ISBN: 978-84-9138-112-9 Gratuita / Unitaria / En línea / pdf © INSTITUTO GEOLÓGICO Y MINERO DE ESPAÑA Ríos Rosas, 23. 28003 MADRID (SPAIN) ISBN: 978-84-9138-112-9 10th International ProGEO Online Symposium. June, 2021. Abstracts Book. Editors: Gonzalo Lozano, Javier Luengo, Ana Cabrera and Juana Vegas Symposium Logo design: María José Torres Cover Photo: Granitic Tor. Geosite: Ortigosa del Monte’s nubbin (Segovia, Spain). Author: Gonzalo Lozano. Cover Design: Javier Luengo and Gonzalo Lozano Layout and typesetting: Ana Cabrera 10th International ProGEO Online Symposium 2021 Organizing Committee, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España: Juana Vegas Andrés Díez-Herrero Enrique Díaz-Martínez Gonzalo Lozano Ana Cabrera Javier Luengo Luis Carcavilla Ángel Salazar Rincón Scientific Committee: Daniel Ballesteros Inés Galindo Silvia Menéndez Eduardo Barrón Ewa Glowniak Fernando Miranda José Brilha Marcela Gómez Manu Monge Ganuzas Margaret Brocx Maria Helena Henriques Kevin Page Viola Bruschi Asier Hilario Paulo Pereira Carles Canet Gergely Horváth Isabel Rábano Thais Canesin Tapio Kananoja Joao Rocha Tom Casadevall Jerónimo López-Martínez Ana Rodrigo Graciela Delvene Ljerka Marjanac Jonas Satkünas Lars Erikstad Álvaro Márquez Martina Stupar Esperanza Fernández Esther Martín-González Marina Vdovets PRESENTATION The first international meeting on geoconservation was held in The Netherlands in 1988, with the presence of seven European countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Assessment of the Lake Ohrid Region - Albania
    TOWARDS STRENGTHENED GOVERNANCE OF THE SHARED TRANSBOUNDARY NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE LAKE OHRID REGION Baseline Assessment of the Lake Ohrid region - Albania IUCN – ICOMOS joint draft report January 2016 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................... i A. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 B. The study area ........................................................................................................................................... 5 B.1 The physical environment ............................................................................................................. 5 B.2 The biotic environment ................................................................................................................. 7 B.3 Cultural Settings ............................................................................................................................ 0 C. Heritage values and resources/ attributes ................................................................................................ 6 C.1 Natural heritage values and resources ......................................................................................... 6 C.2 Cultural heritage values and resources....................................................................................... 12 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges of the Albanian Legislation on the Protection of Biodiversity
    Environment and Ecology Research 4(2): 79-87, 2016 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/eer.2016.040205 Challenges of the Albanian Legislation on the Protection of Biodiversity Erjon Muharremaj Faculty of Law, University of Tirana, Albania Copyright©2016 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Abstract This paper strives to offer a brief overview of Albanian Sea Turtle (Pelophylax shqipericus) and the the challenges that Albania faces in its efforts to complete its Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio), for which Albania is of special legislation on the protection of biodiversity. It starts with a importance. [1] short introduction of the situation of the diverse flora and Unfortunately, the damages caused to the biodiversity are fauna of the country, and continues with an overview of the numerous, such as the loss and fragmentation of the habitats, legal framework for the protection of biodiversity in Albania. damage, impoverishment and degradation of ecosystems and Analyzing the efforts to harmonize its domestic legislation habitats, extinction of wild animals in their natural habitats, with the international environmental treaties, and because of etc. The losses in biodiversity in Albania in the last 50 years the European integration process, with the acquis are rated as among the highest in Europe. Damages have communautaire, the paper goes through the gradual changes been caused even from the intensive gathering of medicinal that have been made in the Albanian legislation. Because of plants, where Albania is ranked as the second exporter in their particularly important role on the biodiversity Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental and Evolutionary History of Lake Ohrid (FYROM/Albania): Interim Results from the SCOPSCO Deep Drilling Project
    Biogeosciences, 14, 2033–2054, 2017 www.biogeosciences.net/14/2033/2017/ doi:10.5194/bg-14-2033-2017 © Author(s) 2017. CC Attribution 3.0 License. The environmental and evolutionary history of Lake Ohrid (FYROM/Albania): interim results from the SCOPSCO deep drilling project Bernd Wagner1, Thomas Wilke2, Alexander Francke1, Christian Albrecht2, Henrike Baumgarten3, Adele Bertini4, Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout5, Aleksandra Cvetkoska6, Michele D’Addabbo7, Timme H. Donders6, Kirstin Föller2, Biagio Giaccio8, Andon Grazhdani9, Torsten Hauffe2, Jens Holtvoeth10, Sebastien Joannin11, Elena Jovanovska2, Janna Just1, Katerina Kouli12, Andreas Koutsodendris13, Sebastian Krastel14, Jack H. Lacey15,16, Niklas Leicher1, Melanie J. Leng15,16, Zlatko Levkov17, Katja Lindhorst14, Alessia Masi18, Anna M. Mercuri19, Sebastien Nomade20, Norbert Nowaczyk21, Konstantinos Panagiotopoulos1, Odile Peyron11, Jane M. Reed22, Eleonora Regattieri1,8, Laura Sadori18, Leonardo Sagnotti23, Björn Stelbrink2, Roberto Sulpizio7,24, Slavica Tofilovska17, Paola Torri19, Hendrik Vogel25, Thomas Wagner26, Friederike Wagner-Cremer6, George A. Wolff27, Thomas Wonik3, Giovanni Zanchetta28, and Xiaosen S. Zhang29 1Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany 2Department of Animal Ecology & Systematics, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany 3Leibniz Institute for Applied Geophysics (LIAG), Hanover, Germany 4Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy 5CNRS UMR 7194, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Institut
    [Show full text]
  • The Vjosa River in Albania BEAUTIFUL, UNKNOWN and THREATENED
    SAVE THE BLUE HEART OF EUROPE – THE BALKAN RIVERS Europe´s wild jewel - The Vjosa River in Albania BEAUTIFUL, UNKNOWN AND THREATENED The extensive braided river section near Tepelena would drown in a reservoir of the future Kalivaç dam (Romy Durst). The Vjosa River in Albania is one of Europe’s last living wild rivers. Along its entire course of over 270 kilometers it is untamed and free flowing and characterized by beautiful canyons, braided river sections, islands, oxbows and meandering stretches. In some areas the riverbed expands over more than 2 km in width. Together with its tributaries, the Vjosa provides a dynamic, near-natural ecosystem. It is without par on this continent - a true, though unknown European natural heritage. On its first 80 kilometres the river flows through Greece and is named Aoos. In Albania it turns into Vjosa. The meandering lower part opens up into a valley with extensive wetlands providing habitats for spawning fish, migratory birds and others. Finally, it drains into the sea the north of the Narta lagoon – one of the biggest and ecologically richest lagoons of Albanian, designated as Managed Nature Reserve. The Vjosa is draining a total area of 6,700 km² in Albania and Greece and discharges an average of 204 m³/s into the Adriatic Sea. Left: Major river catchments of Albania with the Vjosa River basin marked in red. Source: Wikipedia # Biodiversity Scientific knowledge about the Vjosa and its biodiversity is very limited. It is one of the least explored rivers in Europe: we might know more about the biodiversity of river systems in South America or Asia than we do about the Vjosa.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan Journal of Botany
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313842333 RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES AFFECT ORCHID DIVERSITY OF ALBANIAN GRAVEYARDS Article · February 2017 CITATIONS READS 4 142 7 authors, including: Attila Molnár V. Zoltán Barina University of Debrecen Hungarian Natural History Museum 157 PUBLICATIONS 610 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 361 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Gábor Sramkó Jácint Tökölyi Hungarian Academy of Sciences University of Debrecen 92 PUBLICATIONS 495 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 284 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Hydra Eco-Evo-Devo View project NKFIH K-119225 - How can plant ecology support grassland restoration? View project All content following this page was uploaded by Attila Molnár V. on 19 February 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Pak. J. Bot., 49(1): 289-303, 2017. RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES AFFECT ORCHID DIVERSITY OF ALBANIAN GRAVEYARDS ATTILA MOLNÁR V.1,2*, ATTILA TAKÁCS1,2, EDVÁRD MIZSEI3, VIKTOR LÖKI1, ZOLTÁN BARINA4, GÁBOR SRAMKÓ1,2 AND JÁCINT TÖKÖLYI5 1Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1., H-4032, Debrecen, Hungary 2MTA-DE “Lendület” Evolutionary Phylogenomics Research Group, University of Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1., H-4032, Debrecen, Hungary 3Department of Evolutionary Zoology, University of Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1., H-4032, Debrecen, Hungary 4Department of Botany, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1431 Budapest, Pf. 137, Hungary 5MTA-DE “Lendület” Behavioural Ecology Research Group, University of Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1., H-4032, Debrecen, Hungary *Corresponding author’s email: [email protected], Phone: +36-52-/512-900/62648 ext.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) Categories Approved by Recommendation 4.7, As Amended by Resolution VIII.13 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
    Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7, as amended by Resolution VIII.13 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. Note for compilers: 1. The RIS should be completed in accordance with the attached Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for completing the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Compilers are strongly advised to read this guidance before filling in the RIS. 2. Once completed, the RIS (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Ramsar Bureau. Compilers are strongly urged to provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the RIS and, where possible, digital copies of maps. 1. Name and address of the compiler of this form: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. DD MM YY Zamir Dedej Director of Nature Protection Directorate Ministry of Environment Rr. Durresi, Nr. 27 Designation date Site Reference Number Tirana – ALBANIA Tel: + 355 4 270624 Fax: + 355 4 270 627 E-mail: [email protected] Saimir Beqiraj, hydrobiologist, PhD Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tirana Bulevardi Zog I, Tirana, Albania Tel: ++355692134745 E-mail: [email protected] 2. Date this sheet was completed/updated: May 10, 2005 3. Country: Albania 4. Name of the Ramsar site: Lake Shkodra and River Buna 5. Map of site included: Refer to Annex III of the Explanatory Note and Guidelines, for detailed guidance on provision of suitable maps. a) hard copy (required for inclusion of site in the Ramsar List): yes -or- no b) digital (electronic) format (optional): yes -or- no 6. Geographical coordinates (latitude/longitude): Lake Shkodra: 42°10’N 19°15’E River Buna: 41°50'30''N 19°20'19''E; 42°03'15''N 19°30'30''E Velipoja: 41°52’N 19°26’E 7.
    [Show full text]
  • GEO Biodiversity Days 2014, Vjosa River REPORT
    Biodiversity Days in Vjosa River, June 13th-15th 2014 GEO Biodiversity Days 2014, Vjosa River REPORT Biodiversity Days in Vjosa River, June 13th-15th 2014 Aim & Scope Between June 13th-15th, the Geo Days of Biodiversity took place at the Vjosa River in Albania. This unique event was organized by the NGOs Riverwatch, Euronatur and PPNEA (Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania) in cooperation with the German GEO Magazine. The Vjosa River is one of the last living wild rivers in Europe. Along more than 230 kilometers in Albania it is untamed and free flowing, characterized by beautiful canyons, braided river sections and meandering stretches. Together with its tributaries, the Vjosa creates a dynamic near-natural ecosystem ̶ a true European natural heritage. However, eight dams are foreseen along its course in Albania. These dam projects would destroy the unique river system. With respect to EU law, the projects would violate Natura 2000 Directives and the Water Framework Directive. At the same time, the Vjosa is one of Europe´s least explored rivers. Ecological and hydro- morphological data is extremely limited. We might know more about rivers in the Amazon © A.Guri © A.Guri Upstream near Këlcyra The wide part of the Vjosa River near Qesarati village Basin than about the Vjosa River. The GEO Days of Biodiversity were a first attempt to change this, to gather more knowledge and promote this unique river ecosystem as a European heritage. Summary of Activity Approximately 70 participants were engaged in three days of field camp: biodiversity experts, student volunteers, journalists, celebrities and mayors of municipalities within the Vjosa basin (Tepelena, Qesarati, Memaliaj).
    [Show full text]
  • The Biodiversity National Network of Albania
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal Nature Conservation 25: 77–88 (2018) BioNNA database 77 doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.25.22387 DATA PAPER http://natureconservation.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity conservation BioNNA: the Biodiversity National Network of Albania Michela Pacifici1, Fabio Attorre2, Stefano Martellos3, Ferdinand Bego4, Michele De Sanctis2, Petrit Hoda5, Marjol Meço4, Carlo Rondinini1, Enerit Saçdanaku5, Elson Salihaj6, Edoardo Scepi7, Lulëzim Shuka4, Andrea Ghiurghi8 1 Global Mammal Assessment programme, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy 2 Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy 3 Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste 4 Tirana University, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Biology, Tirana, Albania 5 Tirana University, Faculty of Natural Sciences, QKFF, Tirana, Albania 6 NaturAL, IPA 2013 – Natura 2000 and Protected Areas Torre Drin, Tirana, Albania 7 A.R.E.A. Gis s.r.l. – Ambiente Ricerca E Applicazioni, Rome, Italy 8 International Union for Conservation of Nature ECARO, Belgrade, Serbia Corresponding author: Michela Pacifici ([email protected]) Academic editor: S. Lengyel | Received 20 November 2017 | Accepted 20 February 2018 | Published 13 March 2018 http://zoobank.org/C48082C8-D7DC-436E-B906-3C3F65BBF1CC Citation: Pacifici M, Attorre F, Martellos S, Bego F, De Sanctis M, Hoda P, Meço M, Rondinini C, Saçdanaku E, Salihaj E, Scepi E, Shuka L, Ghiurghi A (2018) BioNNA: the Biodiversity National Network of Albania. Nature Conservation 25: 77–88. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.25.22387 Abstract Recently, the Albanian Government started the process to join the European Union. This process also involves matching the EU parameters in protecting its biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Ohrid Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
    Lake Ohrid Experience and Lessons Learned Brief Oliver Avramoski, Macedonian Project Implementation Unit, Lake Ohrid Conservation Project, Ohrid, FYR Macedonia Sandri Kycyku, Albanian Project Implementation Unit, Lake Ohrid Conservation Project, Pogradec, Albania Trajce Naumoski, Hydrobiological Institute, Ohrid, FYR Macedonia Dejan Panovski, Macedonian Project Implementation Unit, Lake Ohrid Conservation Project, Ohrid, FYR Macedonia Veli Puka, Hydrometeorological Institute, Tirana, Albania Lirim Selfo, Ministry of Environment, Tirana, Albania Mary Watzin*, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA, [email protected] * Corresponding author 1. Description of Lake Ohrid and Its Watershed domestic tourism destination. In Albania, it is the second most important domestic destination for recreation on lakes. 1.1 Introduction and Background Population growth and development have impacted the lakes Lake Ohrid is an ancient lake, formed by tectonic forces 2-3 in many ways. These include intense fi shing pressures, natural million years ago, in the Tertiary period. Because the lake is habitat destruction in the littoral zone, and the introduction so old and is isolated by surrounding hills and mountains, a of pollutants, especially phosphorus, into lake waters. The unique collection of plants and animals have evolved. These eutrophication that is resulting from this phosphorus threatens include a number of relict species, or “living fossils,” and the character of the lakes, their unique biodiversity, and the many endemic species, found only in Lake Ohrid (Stankovic crystal clear water that is Lake Ohrid’s major tourist attraction. 1960). For example, 10 of the 17 identifi ed fi sh species of the Lake Ohrid are endemic, as are many of the lake’s snails, In 1980, UNESCO declared the Macedonian side of Lake worms, and sponges.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and the Protected Areas System in Albania ______Стручни Рад Економика Пољопривреде Број 3/2009
    Biodiversity and the protected areas system in Albania ____________________________________________________________________________ Стручни рад Економика пољопривреде Број 3/2009. УДК: 504.05(496.5) BIODIVERSITY AND THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM IN ALBANIA M. Metaj1 Abstract. Albania possesses a wide range of ecological systems including coastal zones, estuaries and lagoons, lakes and wetlands, grasslands, middle-low altitude coppice forests, high altitude forests, alpine vegetation and glacial areas. The country possesses about 3,250 species of vascular plants, 165 families and more than 900 genera. Medicinal plants (botanicals) and non-timber forest products have a long history of importance in the culture and traditional knowledge of Albania. Proper legislation and especially legal and regulatory framework enforcement for the regulation of this developing industry remains lacking. A Strategy of Biodiversity plan developed in 2000 calls for an increase in the Protected Areas system which currently covers some 6 % of Albania’s area to a total area of 435,600 ha, approximately 15 % of the country’s territory. Changes in the legal and policy framework as well as institutional structures is required to move forward and provide an environment for biodiversity conservation and a sustainable protected areas system. The various threats to biodiversity and constraints to improvement are outlined as well as recommendations for sustainable use, assessment and regulation. Introduction Albania, formally named the Republic of Albania, is a country in southeastern Europe. It is bordered by Montenegro in the north, Serbia (Kosovo) in the north-east, the Republic of Macedonia in the east, and Greece in the south. Its land area totals 28,750 km2. Albania is mountainous, with about 70 % of the land above 300 m.
    [Show full text]
  • 00060315 Marine Prodoc
    TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... 3 1. SITUATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT ................................................................................................. 4 1.2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT IN COASTAL AND MARINE AREAS ...................................................................... 5 1.3. KEY DRIVERS OF THE LOSS OF MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............... 6 1.4. BASELINE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONSERVATION OF COASTAL AND MARINE BIODIVERSITY ....................... 7 1.5. DESIRED LONG-TERM SOLUTION AND BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING IT ............................................................ 10 2. PROJECT STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 CONFORMITY WITH GEF POLICY .............................................................................................................. 12 2.2 COUNTRY OWNERSHIP: COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY AND COUNTRY DRIVEN-NESS .......................................... 12 2.3 PROJECT GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS ........................................................................... 13 2.4 KEY INDICATORS, RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]