GEORGIA Eco-Regional Nature Conservation Programme for the Southern Caucasus (ENCP), Phase III ANNEXES to the FINAL REPORT Cons

GEORGIA

Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources (MEPNR) and German Financial Cooperation (KfW)

Eco-regional Nature Conservation Programme for the Southern Caucasus (ENCP), Phase III

ANNEXES TO THE FINAL REPORT Consulting Services for the Preparation of a Programme Based Thematic Approach

January 2011

Deutsche Forstservice GmbH AGEG Consultants eG

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annexes

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1: Terms of reference for the study

Annex 2: List of Georgia’s protected areas and their administrations

Annex 3: List of relevant institutions and organisations with short descriptions

Annex 4: Description of proposed programme areas

Annex 5: Assessment of the Management Effectiveness of the Selected Areas Using Se- lected RAPPAM criteria

Annex 6: Log frame matrix

Annex 7: Cost and financing plan

Annex 8: Implementation schedule

Annex 9: Organisation diagram of PEA and PIA

Annex 10: List of functions and tasks of the proposed PMU and indication of the needs for international consultants assistance

Annex 11: Diagram of the implementation structure of the programme

Annex 12: Project cycles for investment measures to be financed by the programme

Annex 13: Tabular presentation of the programme

Annex 14: List of persons and institutions contacted

Annex 15: List of literature and documents with comments

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annexes

CONTACT PERSONS AND ADDRESSES

For DFS Deutsche Forstservice GmbH Mr. Christian SCHADE Managing Director DFS Deutsche Forstservice GmbH Wittelsbacherstr. 11 85622 Feldkirchen Germany Phone: + 49 – (0)89 - 94 00 59 21 Fax: + 49 – (0)89 - 94 00 59 79 Email: [email protected]

For AGEG Consultants eG Mr. Harald HIMSEL Managing Director AGEG Consultants eG Jesinger Straße 52 73230 Kichheim unter Teck Germany

Phone: +49 - (0)7021 - 970870 Fax: +49 - (0)7021 - 970879 Email: [email protected]

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 1

Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the Study

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 2

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 3

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 4

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 5

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 6

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 7

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 8

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 9

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 1, page 10

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 2, page 1

Annex 2: List of Georgia’s Protected Areas and their Administrations

Protected Area Area Administration (hectares)

Strict Nature Reserves (IUCN Category I)

Babaneuri Strict Nature Reserve 862 Batsara-Babaneuri PAs Administration

Batsara Strict Nature Reserve 2,986 Batsara-Babaneuri PAs Administration

Borjomi Strict Nature Reserve 14,820 Borjomi-Kharagauli PAs Administration

Kintrishi Strict Nature Reserve 10,703 Kintrishi PAs Administration

Kobuleti Strict Nature Reserve 331 Kobuleti PAs Administration

Lagodekhi Strict Nature Reserve 22,295 Lagodekhi PAs Administration

Mariamjvari Strict Nature Reserve 1,040 Mariamjvari PAs Administration

Sataplia Strict Nature Reserve 354 Sataplia SNR Administration

Tusheti Strict Nature Reserve 10,852 Tusheti PAs Administration

Vashlovani Strict Nature Reserve 10,143 Vashlovani PAs Administration

Liakhvi Strict Nature Reserve(1) 6,388

Pskhu - Gumista Strict Nature Reserve(2) 40,819

Bichvinta - Miusera Strict Nature Reserve(2) 3,645

National Parks (IUCN Category II)

Algeti National Park 6,822 Algeti NP Administration

Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park 61,235 Borjomi-Kharagauli PAs Administration

Kazbegi National Park 8,707 Kazbegi NP Administration

Kolkheti National Park 45,447 Kolkheti NP Administration

Mtirala National Park 15,806 Mtirala NP Administration

Tbilisi National Park 22,425 Tbilisi NP Administration

Tusheti National Park 71,482 Tusheti PAs Administration

Vashlovani National Park 24,610 Vashlovani PAs Administration

Natural Monuments (IUCN Category III)

Alazani Flood Plain Forest Natural Monument 204 Vashlovani PAs Administration

Artsivi Gorge Natural Monument 100 Vashlovani PAs Administration

Jason's Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Khomulo Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Kumistavi Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Nagarevi Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 2, page 2

Navenakhevi Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Okatse Canyon Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Okatse Waterfall Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Sakazhia Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Takhti-Tepha Natural Monument 9 Vashlovani PAs Administration

Tskaltsitela Gorge Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Tsutskhvati Cave Complex Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

White Cave Natural Monument - Sataplia SNR Administration

Managed Reserves (IUCN Category IV)

Ajameti Managed Reserve 5,117 Ajameti MR Administration

Chachuna Managed Reserve 5,200 Chachuna MR Administration

Gardabani Managed Reserve 3,484 Gardabani MR Administration

Ilto Managed Reserve 6,971 Batsara-Babaneuri PAs Administration

Iori Managed Reserve 1,336 Mariamjvari PAs Administration

Katsoburi Managed Reserve 295 Katsoburi MR Administration

Kobuleti Managed Reserve 439 Kobuleti PAs Administration

Korugi Managed Reserve 2,068 Mariamjvari PAs Administration

Lagodekhi Managed Reserve 2,156 Lagodekhi PAs Administration

Nedzvi Managed Reserve 8,992 Borjomi-Kharagauli PAs Administration

Protected Landscape (IUCN Category V)

Kintrishi Protected Landscape 3,190 Kintrishi PAs Administration

Tusheti Protected Landscape 31,320 Akhmeta Municipality

Note (1) – Located in South Osetia Note (2) – Located in Abkhazia

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 1

Annex 3: List of relevant institutions and organisations with short descriptions

1. State organisations

Parliament of Georgia The Parliament of Georgia decides on the establishment of new PAs and changes to the boundaries, or cancellation, of existing PAs upon a proposal from the Government.

Ministry of Finance The Ministry of Finance controls the allocation of state budget funds to government organisations. The ministry represents the Government in international financing agreements.

Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources (MoEPNR) The MoEPNR is responsible for the development and implementation of environmental policy and legislation in Georgia, including biodiversity conservation and protected areas . The MoEPNR’s agreement is needed to any proposal to establish a new PA or to change the boundaries or cancel an existing PA before the proposal is sent to other ministries. The MoEPNR has less influence in the Government than some of the other ministries which play a significant role in relation to PA development and management. The MoEPNR’s structure is shown in Annex 9. Units of the ministry’s central apparatus that are especially relevant to the programme are the following: The Biodiversity Protection Division is responsible for the development and implementation of policy and legislation for biodiversity conservation inside and outside protected areas. It also provides expert advice to the Department of Natural Resources Licensing of the Ministry of Economic Development (regarding quotas for licenses etc.), and hosts various MEA focal points. Current projects include the development of a national biodiversity monitoring system and the implementation of relevant MEAs (e.g. CBD, CITES). The Department of Environmental Policy and International Relations is responsible for environmental policy development and long-term planning of the MoEPNR, as well as liaison with international partners and donors. A number of MEA and international cooperation focal points (e.g. CoE) are located in the Department. The Department is also leading the revision and re-drafting of the NEAP and NBSAP of Georgia, both of which are in preparation currently. The Department Head is also the GEF Focal Point within the MoE. The MoEPNR has the formal powers necessary for the exercise of its functions but has less informal power than other relevant ministries.

Agency of Protected Areas (APA) under the MoEPNR The APA is a legal entity of public law1 under the supervision of the MoEPNR. The Agency’s core functions are: (a) to manage protected areas of IUCN Categories I-IV, and other PAs in cooperation with other institutions; (b) maintaining and supervising PAs; (c) PA system and capacity development planning, and (d) the development of plans, draft laws and guidelines related to PAs. There are some additional functions, such as the monitoring of rules established

1 According to the law of Georgia on Legal Entities of Public Law, such an entity is ”an organization established by a respective law, decree of the President of Georgia or an administrative act of a state management body based on law, independent of state management agencies, that under the state control independently conducts political, governmental, social, educational, cultural or other public activities.”

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 2 by the law, the planning and development of new protected areas, their popularization and the development of ecotourism, as well as the planning and arrangement of protected area infrastructure. The mandate of the APA is laid down in the Regulation of the Agency of Protected Areas (2008). As a legal entity of public law, the APA is entitled to conduct certain economic activities and to collect the revenue of these activities for re-investment in PA system development. One of the sources of such revenues has been ecotourism, and the APA has been actively promoting ecotourism in Georgian PAs.

Environmental Protection Inspectorate (EPI) under the MoEPNR The EPI – a state sub-agency of the MoEPNR – is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with laws related to environmental protection. The EPI has controlling and inspection functions in PAs and is responsible for checking logging concessions, hunting/fishing farm quotas and CITES related licenses. Its most relevant subdivisions are the Urgent Response Unit (responsible for controlling illegal logging, poaching etc.) and the Inspection Unit, which is also responsible for expert inspections in the biodiversity and natural resources field. The Inspector- ate has about 300 staff, 220 of which work in 7 Regional Bureaus. PA rangers and EPI staff cooperate regarding law enforcement in PAs. The EPI has fewer staff than needed for the proper exercise of its functions; existing staff lack the necessary technical knowledge.

Forestry Agency under the MoEPNR The Forest Agency is a legal entity of public law operating under the supervision of the MoEPNR. The agency was established in 2010 and took over many of the functions of the former Forestry Department. The agency’s core functions are to manage those parts of the state forests fund (other than the state forest fund inside protected areas) that has not be assigned to private companies on long term lease.

Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (MoESD) The mission of the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development is to provide stable and high temps of economic growth with working up and implementation an effective economic policy. The main aim of the economic policy is to ensure sustainable economic development based on stable macroeconomic policy and private entrepreneurship development. The government of the country is implementing structural and institutional reforms with aim to provide the most favourable business environment. Consequently, the current economic reforms are targeted at: • Liberalization of entrepreneurship activity, creation of favourable, transparent and stable legislation for private entrepreneurship and attractive business and investment climate. • Realization of active privatization process and support to strengthening of private sector. • Liberalization of the sphere of licenses and permits and reform of the system of technical regulation. • Economic deregulation and providing and protection of terms of competition on local market. • Development of tourist, transport and communication infrastructure and support to growth of the country’s transit potential. • Liberalization of tariffs on import and support to growth of export potential. • Rehabilitation and economic development of the regions of Georgia and post conflict territories.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 3

(MoESD). Issues licenses for the use of natural resources (in existing PAs only with the agreement of the APA). Competes with the MoEPNR/ APA for territories in which it wishes to promote economic development. The MoESD’s and Ministry of Energy’s interests are barriers to pro- gressing the establishment of new PAs in the Svaneti, Lechkhumi and Racha. The MoESD has greater informal powers and has greater influence in the government than the MoEPNR.

National Tourism Agency The National Tourism Agency (the successor to the Department of Tourism and Resorts) under the MoESD is the government organisation responsible for the development and promotion of tourism in Georgia. The agency is an important cooperation partner for the programme because of its interest and potential added value regarding the improvement of services, visitor information and the promotion of the region.

Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure (MoRDI) The Mission of the MoRDI is the development and implementation of policy, legislation and planning instruments for the coordinated development of Georgia’s regions including their infrastructure. The Ministry also has a key role as a coordination agency for infrastructure development projects. It was formed in early 2009 only, incorporating some Departments that were earlier under the Ministry for Economic Development. The MoRDI is mainly concerned with national policy development and implementation and the coordination of ongoing projects. It does not have regional units, which limits its capacity for a strong direct role in the programme’s target areas. Its own budget for infrastructure projects is small but can lever in donor funding.

Ministry of Agriculture: Department of Regional Management Mission: Within the general mission of the Ministry of Agriculture, the mission of the Department of Regional Management is the implementation of agricultural policy and the development of agriculture in Georgia’s regions. Due to the restricted funds of the Ministry and particularly the Department of Regional Management, the Department is interested in cooperation with international donors. However, it apparently has no specific interest in launching activities in the Kaz- begi District and its interest in the other areas selected for the programme has not be identified. Potential areas for sub-projects in the agricultural sector were identified by the Department Head as intensification of meadows, use of improved seeds, and support to the development of dairy farms.

Ministry of Internal Affairs: Border Police The mission of the Border Police of the MIA is the protection of the land and sea borders of Georgia. The Border Police has no particular interest in nature protection, but has an interest in the border areas of Kazbegi and Pshav-Khevsureti. The border police should be involved in consultations as an important local stakeholder and partner of nature protection and sustainable development (e.g. tourism development) in the Kazbegi District. Since they maintain a presence even in the more remote parts of two of the programmes target areas, there might be added value in sensitizing them to nature conservation issues, by involving them in public awareness building and information events that are carried out within the framework of the project.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 4

Ministry of Justice The functions of the Ministry of Justice include scrutiny of draft laws before they are submitted to the Parliament including laws establishing, cancelling and changing the boundaries of protected areas. The ministry supervises the National Agency of Public Registry which is responsible for establishing and administering a registration system for ensuring recognition and protection of immovable property rights by the state. In the programme’s Kazbegi region only small parcels of mostly residential land inside villages have been registered. No agricultural lands have been titled in the target area except for a few plots owned by the Orthodox Church.

Ministry of Energy The Ministry of Energy is responsible for state policy on generation and supply of energy. The Ministry’s missions is to exploit existing energy resources, to diversify imported energy supply, to ensure energy safety, and to develop alternative energy sources. It also pursues the long- term goal of meeting the entire demand on electricity by local hydropower resources. The Ministry of Energy does not administer power stations in the programme’s target areas. In the Kazbegi target area there used to be two hydropower stations - at the confluence of the Sno River and Tergi (upstream from Stepantsminda) and at the entrance to Khde Valley - but they are not operative anymore. A recent study of potential small hydropower stations in Georgia, which was commissioned by USAID, lists six potential sites for new small hydropower stations in the target area (Truso, Kobi, Juta, Tergi, Tsdo and Amali), with a combined estimated capacity of 129 MW. The MoE is promoting the establishment of small hydropower stations in Georgia, to be financed by investors. This interest extends to the Kazbegi target area with its two non-operative stations and additional four potential small hydropower plant sites. The previous feasibility for the Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve could not ascertain any concrete ongoing preparations for the rehabilitation of old or establishment of new hydropower stations. The Ministry of Energy could play an important role for the promotion of the establishment of small hydropower stations in the Kazbegi and Pshav-Khevsureti target areas. Beyond this, the Ministry could become a partner in piloting new innovative schemes of energy trade for the benefit of local communities. The Ministry competes with the MoEPNR/ APA for territories in which it can construct large scale hydro-electricity plants.

Offices of the State Representatives - Governors State Representatives-Governors have the mission to represent the State at the level of the region (the highest level of regional subdivision in Georgia) and to coordinate policy implementation at the regional and sub-regional level. They are also consulted by municipalities regarding local budget allocations. Currently the regions are not legally established because the Georgian Constitution foresees establishment of the necessary legislation only once the Georgian State has full jurisdiction over the entire country. Hence, the State Representatives at the regional level are also not legally established, although fulfilling their de-facto role. The Offices of the State Representative – Governors have Departments of Relations with Local Government and Public Organs, which are mainly responsible for the collaboration with Munici- palities. The Offices take part in the decision-making regarding the allocation of state funds and coordination of donor projects throughout the Region, and support initiatives and activities aimed at the development of the region. The Offices of the State Representatives – Governors can play a strong role as a communication facilitator and advisor to the programme. They should be represented in consultation and

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 5 cooperation mechanisms established in the framework of the socio-economic development sub- programmes.

Municipalities The municipalities are the only tier of representative local government. The elected body is the sakrebulo (similar to the “Stadtrat/ Gemeinderat” in the German system); the executive body is the gamgeoba (corresponds with “Stadt-/ Gemeindeverwaltung”). [] The election system is such that all villages/settlements of a municipality are represented in its Sakrebulo. The mandate of sakrebulos is defined by the Organic Law of Georgia on Local Self-governance (2005). The sakrebulos’ natural interest is safeguarding local participation in the decision making on all issues of relevance to the municipalities, including any changes to the PA boundaries and the establishment of new PAs, the setup of PA “support zones”, and the natural resource use regime in the municipalities. At the same time, the Sakrebulo promotes the interests of the local population. The gamgeobas of the municipalities are responsible for elaborating municipal development plans. However the plans are constrained by lack of resources. Municipalities suffer from low funding and are able to provide only minimal services to their residents. In many instances the sakrebulos have less political influence than the gamgebelis (the gamgebeli is the chief executive of the gamgeoba). Nevertheless the sakrebulos of the municipalities in the selected programme areas will be important partners for the programme. Based on their legal mandate, the sakrebulos should be the main local partner in the decision making processes involved in programme activities in the target areas. The support of the local council will be particularly important in Kazbegi and Pshav-Khevsureti which have a strong traditional sense of independence.

2. Non-governmental organizations

Caucasus Nature Fund (CNF) []The CNF is a German charitable foundation designed as a financing vehicle for nature conservation in the three core Caucasus countries. The CNF was founded by the German government (through BMZ and KfW), WWF, CEPF and Conservation International in 2007 with initial funding of 8 million Euro. Trust fund capital has been increased to 13 million. The CNF also receives donations into sinking funds; in 2010 the GEF granted 2 million USD for investment in Armenia’s and Georgia’s PA systems through the CNF. In 2010 the CNF was supporting one PA in Arme- nia (Khosrov SNR) and one in Georgia (Borjomi-Kharagauli NP). CNF support will be extended to 2 PAs in each of those countries in 2011 and 3 PAs in 2012.

Transboundary Joint Secretariat (TJS) Not a legal entity but operates as form of regional NGO. Financed by German Financial Coop- eration. Second phase due to start in early 2011. Scope of work includes conceptual support and capacity building in the PA sector. Capacity is low at the present time due to the winding down of the first phase. Second phase will bring substantial funding. Influence in the PA sector will be increased by the local implementation partner’s (REC Caucasus) connections to the ministries of environment..

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 6

REC Caucasus REC Caucaus is a regional NGO founded by the EU and the ministries of environment of Arme- nia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Active in integrated water resources management, community forestry, climate change adaptation, sustainable land management, waste management. Will become active in the PA sector as a partner in the consortium which will implement Phase II of the TJS. Suffered for years from poor management. Changes to structure and staff and injection of new project funding are helping to turn the organization around but longer term core finding is not assured. Close connections to the ministries of environment give the organization significant influence.

WWF Caucasus. Implements projects in the PA sector including creation of new PAs (Borjomi-Kharagauli NP, Mtirala NP). Coordinated the elaboration of the ECPC. Acts as the secretariat of the Caucasus Biodiversity Council (see below) WWF has used its influence to bring substantial funds from donor organizations into the PA sector.

Caucasus Biodiversity Council An informal coordination mechanism that brings together representatives of the governments, NGOs and science and research bodies from the Caucasus countries to promote and update the ECPC.

IUCN Programme Office for the Southern Caucasus Contributes to improving PA management effectiveness through trainings, PA system planning, development of formats for local stakeholder participation in PAs.

NACRES (Noah’s Ark Centre for the Rescue of Endangered Species) Carries out research and implements projects in the PA sector. Currently implementing the EU- funded human – wildlife conflicts project in Tusheti and Vashlovani PAs in association with Fauna and Flora International and a component of the UNDP/GEF Catalysing Financial Sus- tainability project in the Tusheti PAs pilot area, also in association with Fauna and Flora Interna- tional.

Georgian Centre for the Conservation of Wildlife (GCCW). Carries out research and implements projects on biodiversity conservation (particularly birds). GCCW is BirdLife’s national partner in Georgia.

CENN Georgian sustainable development NGO/consultancy with a diverse project portfolio, including communication, participation in small hydropower development, advocacy, sustainable land management, EIA.

CUNA Georgica/CWC Promotion of sustainable natural resource use in Georgia, certification (FairWild) and market chains for wild products.

Elkana Promotes, implements projects and provides extension services in the fields of sustainable rural development, organic agriculture, rural tourism.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 7

Local NGOs Smaller NGOs are active in many parts of Georgia and some have the capacity to act as local implementation partners. Local NGOs indentified during the course of the study are recorded in the descriptions of the selected areas in Annex 4.

3. Religious organisations

Georgian Orthodox Church The Georgian Orthodox Church occupies a prominent position in the public life of Georgia. Its relevance as a stakeholder in the programme is threefold: (1) The church is an opinion leader among the local population, (2) a technology leader regarding agricultural technologies and local crafts, (3) and potentially an important land owner.

4. Teaching, science and research organisations

The main teaching, science and research organisations with an interest in the subject matter of the programme are • Faculty of Life Sciences at the Ilia State University. Conducts research into the ecology and conservation of Georgian fauna and has specific experience, and a field station, in Kazbegi National Park. • Institute of Botany at the Georgian Academy of Sciences. Conducts botanical research and is the regional coordinator of the Caucasus Red List assessment for plants. • Institute of Zoology at the Ilia State University. Conducts research into the ecology and conservation of Georgian fauna. • Institute of Geography and Geology under the Ministry of Education and Science. Con- ducts research and carries out geographical and geological surveys and mapping.

5. Private sector organisations

Communities adjacent to PAs Generally communities have few opportunities to participate in the management of PAs and they are not organised and capacitated to exploit whatever opportunities are given to them to influence PA management.

Seasonal livestock herders Seasonal livestock herders use pastures in the Kazbegi and Pshav-Khevsureti for summer grazing. The impacts of their natural resource use and the impacts of PA establishment and management on their livelihoods will need to be taken into account during programme implementation.

Tourism service providers Private tourism service providers include companies operating on a national level selling pack- age and custom tours, providers of outdoor activities (e.g. horse riding, rafting, mountain biking), hotels and family run guest houses. Georgian Tourism Association (GTA) is an umbrella organization of Georgian tourism operators. GTA has a 28 business membership and is active in the fields of destination promotion, capacity building and training. The association initiated cooperation with the APA regarding the devel-

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 3, page 8 opment of sustainable tourism in 2008, and has since been involved in marketing, trail marking and education activities in various PAs of Georgia, in collaboration with APA and local stakeholders.

Private sector actors with a local interest Private sector actors with a local interest are listed in the descriptions of the proposed programme areas in Annex 4.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 1

Annex 4: Description of proposed programme areas

1. Kazbegi 1.1 Basic information

Established: November 2007. (The territories designated as a national park were previously designated as a Strict Nature Reserve.) Size: 8,707 ha in its present configuration. The APA has elaborated a proposal for expanding the national park to about 70,000 ha. The feasibility study for the Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve proposed expansion to about 25,000 ha. Region: Mtskheta-Mtianeti District: Stepantsminda

1.2 Map of the programme area

1.3 Conservation values Ecosystems represented in the national park and in the surrounding district are subalpine forests and shrub vegetation, alpine meadows, subnival and nival areas. The main objects of the protection regime in the existing national park are fragments of relict mountain forests – represented by rock oak, lime and birch – and subalpine forests – represented by birch (Betula litvi- nowi and Betula nigra). The main threatened species are Caucasus birch mouse (Sicista cau- casica), Kazgebi birch mouse (Sicista kazbegica), Colchic mole (Caucasus endemic), Lynx (red- listed), Chamois (critically endangered), East Caucasian Tur (Caucasus endemic).

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 2

1.4 Pressures and threats The most visible environmental problems related to the target area are uncontrolled waste disposal and sheet- and channel erosion along the Tergi River. The waste problem is caused by a lack of effective waste collection and treatment chains, especially during the winter season, when the access to the region is limited and by a generally low level of environmental awareness. On the one hand, the waste problem will develop further with increasing tourist visits and overnight stays and the predicted re-opening of the Russian border. On the other hand, it hinders sustainable tourism development, which is closely linked to nature and landscape beauty. The sheet- and channel erosion marking the steep slopes lining the Tergi River watershed and feeder-streams is caused by excessive livestock activity in the past. Due to the reduced herd size after the closing of the Zemo Larsi Border and the subsequent breakaway of former winter ranges (which is the limiting factor for livestock in the region), and the traditionally common use of pastures, livestock currently does not exceed the carrying capacities.

1.5 Protected Area Administration

1.5.1 Positions and staff # Position Name, Surname Education

1 Director Otar Tsamalaidze Rural economy specialty of timber industry 2 Accountant Vacant 3 Head of Administrative Vacant Division 4 Visitor Service Senior Spe- Vacant cialist 5 Head of Protection Division Misha Buchukuri University, Faculty of Law 6 Senior Specialist of Natural Marina Chqareuli Rural Institute; Agromonist resources 7 Chief Ranger Elizbar Goderdzishvili Financial College 8 Chief Ranger (01/2011) Vano Kobaidze Professional Educational Centre, Builder 9 Ranger Berdia Tsiklauri Professional Educational Centre 10 Ranger Gvtiso Marsagishvili Secondary Education 11 Ranger (01/2011) Zaza Kushashashvili Secondary Education 12 Ranger (01/2011) Gia Geladze Technical University , Fac- ulty of Transport 13 Ranger Giorgi Suliauri Secondary Education 14 Ranger Besik Geladze Rostov Auto-transport Technical institute, Auto- engineer

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 3

1.5.2 Management effectiveness • No management plan. Current basis for management is a temporary directive. • Work plan exists for 2010. • The following activities and programmes are all under-resourced o Data collection and monitoring o Protection (in particular means of transport available to the rangers) o Natural resource management programme (there does not appear to be one) o Communication (the PA is virtually invisible apart from the APA logo on the PA’s only vehicle.

1.5.3 Tourism • Services offered by the PA: None. Kazbegi National Park has no tourism infrastructure.

1.5.4 Participation / consultation mechanisms PA Advisory Council: Mr. Lasha Moistsrapishvili Chairman of the Council, APA/ Deputy Chairman Ms. Khatuna Tsiklauri APA, Main Specialist of Natural Resources Mr. Otar Tsamalaidze APA, Kazbegi NP Director Ms. Marina Chqareuli APA, Kazbegi NP, Chief Specialist of Natural Re- sources Mr. Giorgi Gomiashvili Kazbegi Municipality Mr Giorgi Gorgadze NACRES; Mr. Giorgi Nakhutsrishvili LEPL Botany Garden and Botany Institute Mr. Alexsander Gavashelishvili NGO Georgian Centre for Conservation Wildlife Mr. Mindia Arabuli Georgian Border Police Mr. Ramaz Gokhelashvili IUCN Southern Caucasus PO Director Ms. Nunu Mgebrishvili Deputy Governor of Dusheti, Tianeti, Mtskheta and Kazbegi Municipality Ms.Marina Zurabishvili Head of State Supervising Division of Governor Administration of Dusheti, Tianeti, Mtskheta and Kazbegi Municipality

1.5.5 PA Infrastructure and equipment

1.5.5.1 Existing infrastructure and equipment

• Kazbegi NP administration currently has a staff of 12 persons. Besides the Director, who holds university degrees in forestry and economics, there is one accountant, an ecotourism specialist and 9 rangers. • The headquarters and office building in Stepantsminda is in very poor condition in terms of the general condition of the building, of furniture, heating and other basic household facilities, communications and office equipment and technology. There is one telephone, but there is e.g. no computer. The NP’s means of transport are one Lada Niva and three horses.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 4

1.5.5.2 Essential Needs

• A new administration building or complete refurbishment of the existing building, furniture and equipment. • Means of transport (horses) for the rangers. • Rangers need uniforms, outdoor equipment, binoculars, electronic communication means and cameras. • Rangers need professional training in order to be able to fulfil a wider ranger of a typical NP administration’s tasks, such as nature education and interpretation, active nature protection activities, monitoring and assisting scientific tasks, training in English, computer skills and public relations.

1.5.6 Expenditure and income • Kazbegi NP’s budget for 2010 is 20,551 Euro. The NP generated no income in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

1.6 Socio-economic situation

Section 2.3 of the feasibility study for Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve provides a detailed description of the socio-economic situation.

Since competition of the said feasibility study for Kazbegi the situation on the Georgian-Russian border has changed. On 1 March 2010, the border at "Kazbegi" (Georgia) and "Upper Larsi' (Russian Federation) was opened, based on previous agreements with inter-mediation of Ar- menian and Swiss sides. A summary of the conditions for border crossing are summarized below: • The checkpoint is open every day during the period from 1 March to 1 November from 6 am to 10 pm; and from 1 November to 1 March 1 from 7 am to 7 pm. Crossing the state border by foot is prohibited. If a vehicle is denied in crossing the border by one side, the other side should allow it to return without obstacles. • Citizens of the both countries have to travel to their respective capitals to obtain visas at the Swiss representation, which is particularly inconvenient for people who live at border. Subsequent to a recent amendment people from North Caucasus can enter Georgia visa free for 90 days (other Russians need a visa). Citizens of other CIS countries do not need visa2. • Transportation is arranged with Marshrutkas leaving from the Central Bus Station (in Ortachala) or with taxis at the Didube station. They usually charge GEL 100 to Kazbegi. Passengers then continue with cabs of ethnic Ossetians (Russian citizens) who take them to Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia (38 kilometers from the boarder). • On the Georgian side, the customs service officials check people. On the Russian side, checks are done by the customs service and other agencies, such as security services, migration agency, passport agency, and sometimes Militia (GAI). People say that some-

2 A list of counties which have visa-free travel with Georgia can be found on the following link: http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=GEO&sec_id=386

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 5

times they are made to bribe the officials on the Russian side, up to 500 roubles (about USD 16) per person. There are no statistics available on how many people have crossed this border to date. Subse- quently no reliable statements can be made on the effects of the opening of the border on business development or tourism.

1.7 Institutions/ Organizations/ stakeholders to be considered Stakeholders in tourism and connected issues • Entrepreneurs, investors, keepers of tourism facilities and infrastructure in Gudauri resort • Hotel and 6 private guest houses in Stepantsminda • 6 (extra-territorial) tour operators, providing travel arrangements to and tourist activities in Kazbegi district • Kazbegi NP administration, affiliate of APA/ MoEPNR, responsible for conservation of nature values, last but not least as a major source for tourism businesses • Church, the Georgian Patriarchy, providing important cultural sights, last but not least as a major source for tourism businesses • NGOs “Mountain House” and Sustainable Tourism Centre/ Mount Kazbegi Tourism House • Initiatives by private, local people towards providing local products for tourists (agricultural products, traditional handy-crafts and arts products Stakeholders in economy and businesses besides tourism • Entrepreneurs, investors, business companies, etc., e.g. Kasara Ltd. (Carbon acid gas and mineral water enterprise); Khevi Ltd. (rock and diabas quarrying enterprise); Kobi asphalt plant; • (Subsistence) crofters; farmers; sheep and cattle breeders, life stock owners; former green-house vegetable producers; beekeepers; • Private landowners • Expatriate and extra-regional commuters • Faculty of Life Sciences at the Ilia State University, which has a field station, in Kazbegi National Park.

1.8 Tourism potential of the project area

A detailed report on the tourism sector in Kazbegi district is provided in Annex 2.3.1.5 – Report on the Tourism Sector of Kazbegi Region – of the report of the feasibility study for the Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve.

1.9 Existing baseline information and relevant literature Deutsche Forstservice GmbH / AGEG Consultants eG. 2010. Feasibility Study for the Ecore- gional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project. Unpublished report prepared for KfW and the Georgia Agency for Protected Areas. Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Southern Caucasus. 2009. TJS Activity Plan on Bio- sphere Reserves. Report to prepare for the establishment of Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve, Georgia.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 6

BirdLife International. 2009. Important Bird Area factsheet: Kazbegi, Georgia. Chikovani, T. G., N. V. Vronskii, G. N. Gigauri, and B. E. Kurashvili. 1990. The Strict Protected Areas of Kazbegi. In The Strict Protected Areas of the USSR. The Strict Protected Areas of the Caucasus. Moscow: Misl. 183-190. In Russian Gavashelishvili A. 2004. Habitat selection by East Caucasian tur (Capra cylindricornis). In: Bio- logical Conservation 120 (2003) 391-398. Gavashelishvili A. 2005: Vulture movements in the Caucasus. In: Vulture News 53 (2005) 28- 29. Gavashelishvili A., McGready M. J. 2005. Breeding site selection by bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus) and Eurasian griffon (Gypsus fulvus) in the Caucasus. In: Animal Conservation 9 (2006) 159 – 170. The Zoological Society London. Gavashelishvili A., McGrady M. J. 2007. Radio-satellite telemetry of a territorial Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus in the Caucasus. In: Vulture News 56 (2007) 4 – 13. Gokhelashvili, R., L. Gavashelishvili, I. Kazalikalishvili, and Z. Javakhelishvili. 2007. Baseline Studies on Kazbegi Protected Area. Georgian Centre for the Conservation of Wildlife. Unpublished Report. 33 pp. Nakhutsrishvili, G. and O. Abdaladze. 1998. Plant Life in High Mountain. Proceedings of Kaz- begi IV International Symposium. Tbilisi: Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of Georgia. 144 pp. Nakhutsrishvili, G., O. Abdaladze, and M. Akhalkatsi. 2004. Concerning the treeline vegetation of the Kazbegi Region (Central Caucasus). Bull. Georg. Acad. Sci., 169 (N1): 122-125. Nakhutsrishvili, G., O. Abdaladze, and A. Kikodze. 2005. Khevi, Kazbegi Region. Tbilisi: Insti- tute of Botany, Georgian Academy of Sciences. 55 pp. Qiqodze, A., R. Gokhelashvili, I. Tabagari, I. Kazalikashvili, and D. Qiqodze. 2007. Kazbegi Nature Reserve. In Protected Areas of Georgia. Tbilisi: Tsignis Sakhelosno, 210-217.

2. Kintrishi Protected Areas 2.1 Basic information

Established: 1959 Strict Nature Reserve; 2007 Protected Landscape Size: 13,893 ha, including 3.190 ha Protected Landscape Region: Autonomus Republic of Adjara District: Kobuleti District, Chakhati Sakrebulo; Distance from Tbilisi to Kin- trishi: 360 km; from Kobuleti to Kintrishi 28 km, from Chakhati to Kin- trishi 8 km; 350 – 2600 km asl

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 7

2.2 Map of the programme area

2.3 Conservation values

• Relict Colchic forest with a relatively high number of rare, threatened, or endangered species and a relatively high number of endemic species.

2.4 Pressures and threats

• No hunting or logging activities, last case 2 years ago regarding 3 trees, PAs are respected by population; Guria is difficult to control, illegal activities along the border, which is not demarcated, needs to be monitored; in case of encroachment fee has to be paid, if it is higher than 1000 GEL it will be brought to the court. • No problems with adjacent communities, no encroachment, no threats/ pressures to the PA at the moment, population is afraid of punishment; during Soviet times – high use pressure, hunting, “intourists”, deforestation.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 8

2.5 Protected Area Administration

2.5.1 Positions and staff # Position Name, Surname Education

1 Director Amiran Khinikadze Timber industry engineer 2 Accountant Mzia Motskobili Economy and organisation of timber production and forest economy. 3 Visitor Service Senior Spe- Mamuka Gogitidze Lawyer cialist 4 Head of Protection Division Vacant 5 Senior Specialist of Natural Vacant resources 6 Ranger Genadi Gogitidze Technical vocational education 7 Ranger Tengiz Beridze Technical vocational education 8 Ranger Genadi Katamadze Middle education 9 Ranger Bichiko Meskxidze Middle education 10 Ranger Merab Gogitidze Middle education 11 Ranger Gocha Kupatadze Middle education

2.5.2 Management effectiveness - findings from site visit • No management plan. Current basis for management is temporary directive issued in 2009 and valid for 3 years. • Work plan for 2010 said to exist but could not be found during the site visit. • Rangers not knowledgeable of monitoring/ survey methods or detection of plant diseases • Data collection and monitoring: o Registration sheet for tourists indicating the different services – data collected with questionnaire and compiled in table to be send to APA via email o Journal for monitoring of visitors (car numbers, arrival and departure time, name of visitor); o Journal on environmental observations (weather conditions, blossom periods of plants, observation of species…) – information is collected and compiled by NR specialist. o No survey equipment/ lack of knowledge – very general seasonal observations, data on fauna and flora not collected systematically, no IT based data management system (formerly ORIS programme), journal was not with the rangers, was said to be in the administration centre. o Demographic data of communities not available: the PA administrations knows who lives there. • Protection programme: o Patrols: 6 rangers, each has own territory 2,000 – 4,000 ha, every 3 days by horse or by car. • Natural resources management programme:

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 9

o No strategies for forest pests/ diseases in place. o Conservation / protection activities are not adapted in the light of monitoring data. • Environmental Education: o Educational programme at schools rather unstructured, no equipment provided by school. Regional resource centre arranges meeting with schools, sometimes 3 school visits per week, only higher level pupils, schedule defines activities per month in a year plan; staff take pictures to prove activities, provided to APA together with monthly and quarterly reports; • Communication: o Distribution of leaflets at schools and touristic points – same information for all; information board at train station. o Provided leaflets by APA not sufficient, not oriented on target group, same information for all, lack of experience on PA level.

2.5.3 Tourism • Services offered by the PA: Type/ description of service Price per unit (GEL) Spending Night in the visitor’s shelter 10 Guided horse service 30 Guide service 30 Renting out picnic site 10 Tent paralon in addition 7 Sleeping bag 5 rucksack 5 Tent site 5

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 10

• Visitor statistics: 2009 Month Services 2009

(GEL)

tors i reigner Hotel service Hotel Picnic site Guide service Guided horse service Tent site rucksack Tent paralon Sleeping bag Total income Totalnumber ofthe vis Georgian Fo

1 April 3 2 1 2 May 112 109 3 3 June 40 90 30 5 165 415 407 8 4 July 190 70 120 210 5 595 234 184 50 5 August 130 80 60 57 5 20 352 290 244 46 6 September 40 30 30 60 5 165 111 101 10 7 October 20 40 30 90 70 66 11 8 November 80 80 117 111 6 9 December 32 26 8 Total: 560 320 300 300 57 20 20 1577 1391 1250 143 • Visitor statistics: 2010: Month Services year 2010

Hotel service Hotel Picnic site Guide service Guidedhorse service Tent site rucksack Tent paralon Sleeping bag Total income (GEL) Totalnumber of the visitors Georgian Foreigner 1 January 7 5 2 2 February ------3 March ------9 7 2 4 April ------103 101 2 5 May 60 70 130 624 610 14 6 June 160 80 60 60 35 395 480 465 15 7 July 120 80 60 120 21 401 487 450 37 8 August 120 180 30 90 21 28 469 1014 907 107 9 September 30 30 167 155 12 Total: 480 430 150 270 35 21 49 1445 2891 2700 191

• Agreement with “Georgian Palace” Hotel in Kobuleti since RAMSAR Conference, hotel provides transport and catering for tourists (15-20 guests this summer, mostly international guest which spent more money for service offers); visitor centre specialist would like to demarcate road and trails. • Income from tourism: 2009 2010 (01 – 09) Income from services provided by PA 1,577 1,445 (GEL) Total number of visitors 1,391 2,891 - Georgians 1,250 2,700 - International 143 191

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 11

2.5.4 Participation / consultation mechanisms • No formal mechanism for involving adjacent communities in PA management. The number of people in the villages inside the PA is relatively small and the PA administration is able to maintain close contact through informal means; e.g. by stopping and talking to people while conducting day to day business. • PA Advisory Council exists and is supposed to meet once a year. Last meeting for which written record exists was on 13 May 2010. The PA administration could not remember the meeting taking place. Attendees at the meeting on 13 May 2010: Lasha Moistsrapishvili Deputy Head of APA, Chairmen of the Board Lali Tevzadze Head of the Development division (APA) Khatuna Tsiklauri Chief specialist (APA) Amiran Khinikidze Director of the Kintrishi PA Administration Aleksandre Bukhnikashvili Institute of Zoology Merab Jincharadze Representative of Kobuleti Municipality Aleksandre Gavashelishvili The Georgian Centre for the Conservation of Wildlife (GCCW) Natia Kolaliani Ilia State University Marine Tediashvili University of Georgia;

2.5.5 PA Infrastructure and equipment

2.5.5.1 Existing infrastructure and equipment: Type Quantity Year of pur- Brand/ fi- Quality* chase/ con- nanced by struction 1 2 3 4 Vehicle (fuel is limited) 1 1999 NIVA-21213 X Horses 3 2007 6-8 years old X Sim card (network does not cover 3 2007 Geocell X Kintrishi Visitor Centre) Administration Centre in Kobuleti 2 furnished office rooms 2 ranger rooms (destroyed) Computer 1 2002 Pentium-4 X Printer (during conversation they said 1 2007 Canon- X it is from 2009 and working well) LBP2900 Microscope 1 2008 X Guest house (belongs to Kobuleti NR, 2007 Financed by 40 GEL/ night) WB, recurrent costs by APA Visitor Centre in Kintrishi Visitor’s Centre (about 105 000 GEL) 1 2008 Agency X Kitchen with oven, fireplace and re- 1 2009 Agency X frigerator –LG electricity not sufficient – regulator required

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 12

Television, receiver and DVD Solar batteries( Helio system) 1 2010 Agency X Information panels 8 2008 Agency X Picnic sites 4 2008 Agency X Road signs 8 2008 Agency X Water points 3 2008 Agency X Tents 5 2008 Agency X Sleeping bags 5 2008 Agency X Paralon 3 2008 Agency X Rucksack 5 2008 Agency X Hammock 5 2010 Agency X Fire uniforms 3 2009 Agency X

* Quality: 1. Quality not adequate now; 2. Quality adequate but replacement needed within 2 years. 3. Quality adequate but replacement needed within 2-4 years. 4 Quality adequate and not essential to replace within 4 years.

2.5.5.2 Needs (according to PA administration)

• Infrastructure: Boundary demarcation required for about 10km. • Equipment: Computers, Vehicles, Cameras, Binoculars, GPS, photo-traps, walkie-talkies, photocopier, scanner. • For tourism services: increasing demand for horses, bikes, cottages/ accommodation, demarcation required for about 8 km

2.5.6 Expenditure and income • State budget funding for 2010 is 20,038 GEL. Income from tourism about 1,500 GEL in 2009 and projected to be about the same or slightly higher in 2010.

2.6 Socio-economic situation

2.6.1 Demographic data • 3 villages: Tseraboseli; Didvake, Khino; in summer 12 families (120 people), in winter 3 families (30 inhabitants). • Chakhati (village 8 km from the PA), about 300 inhabitants. The socio-economic analysis, which will be carried out in the early stages of the Programme, should identify the pros and cons of including Chakhati in the socio-economic development sub-programme.

2.6.1.1 Economic activities

• Products: Honey and Honey vodka are sold in Turkey, dairy products, Kaimaghi Cheese, chestnuts are sold on the market, no permission for fishing required (non-commercial use); firewood is provided to communities by APA (3-5 cubic meter/ according to needs; • Main income: about 100 cows in total, pastures in Kobuleti region (June-September) in winter kept in stable/ dairy products (cheese, butter); haymaking in July-September, agri-

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 13

culture (potatoes, corn, beans, fruits, pumpkins, corn flour, weed, fruits; bees/ 1000 kg honey per year but have not been able to sell it on the Georgian market. • Agriculture – small fields but good quality, cattle, bee keeping; in summer lack of agricultural products –up to 300 people work on the markets (at the entrance of Kobuleti); opportunities: fishing, high water quality of rivers; mineral water bottling; no concessions so far, in Guria: “Bachmann Waters”.

2.6.1.2 Resource Use

The PA administration supplies the local population with fire wood from the forests inside the PA.

2.6.2 Relevant themes • Main problems: 1. accessibility/ transport, poor condition of road, lack of adequate vehicle, 2. health care; 3. marketing of products, bad market access (oil, sugar needs to be brought from Kobuleti); 4. Problems with bridge; 5. Quantity of drinking water not sufficient, only one tap for Didvake – problem if tourists come; 6. Solar energy could substitute for fire wood; 7. No electricity, no mobile network; 8. Waste management: close landfills; 9. Sew- age.

2.6.3 Relevant projects in the region There have not been any donor funded projects in the PA. The following projects have been implemented in the region: • OXFAM: small grants • KfW Municipal Infrastructure – Drinking Water and Sanitation in Batumi • Coastal Protection (small scale projects) in Batumi • Eurasia Partnership Foundation: solar systems • Improvement of tourism infrastructure 100 km east of Batumi to attract winter tourists • Road improvement Adjara Bypass ASDB 7 Mio; road improvement of 2nd rank – probably not Kintrishi which is 3rd rank • CIM: community based NRM in upper Adjara

2.7 Institutions/ Organizations/ stakeholders to be considered

• CUNA Georgica and FairWild certification • Association for Environment Protection and Sustainable Development MTA-BARI • Black Sea Eco Academy • Tourism Department Adjara: high interest in developing PA tourism as product, interest in financing improvement of trails, internal roads, demarcation. • Department of Rural Development of the Adjara government – limited human capacity for tourism development, only 5 persons

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 14

2.8 Tourism potential of the project area

• The PA administration’s vision is: connect paths / tourist trails with Mtirala National Park; improve trails to the lake (constructed during Soviet period for rangers); rafting in Kintrishi river, biking; restore traditions in the communities. • In 2008 APA invested in tourism infrastructure, such as joint visitors and rangers accommodation building in the PA and further facilities, such as camp sites, toilets, trail signs, information desks, horses for rent and camping equipment. It already provides a good basis for hospitality service development, however with limited capacity for overnight stays. • Infrastructure along the tour routs is inadequate. Proper tourism information facilities are required, as information about Kintrishi is haphazardly distributed; signage systems / bill- boards / information to travellers’ to the regional centre of Kobuleti do not exist. Rural houses in the villages are very poor and cannot be used for accommodation; Catering facilities do not exist. Locals have no experience in offering catering services or providing picnic lunch boxes to the visitors. They have no funds for installation of simple sanitation facilities. • The Road condition from Tbilisi to Adjara region is very good; however, the road from Kob- uleti to Kintrishi (28 kilometers) needs to be repaired. This is the main obstacle for local tour operators to include Kintrishi in their tour products/packages. Travel to the destination sites from district centres (from Kobuleti 28 km, from Poti 40 km, from Batumi 70 km) is quite short but tiring due to the condition of the roads. Mobile telephones are out of range. • Tourism interest in Kintrishi already exists. It is a good recreational destination for long weekends, family holidays, special tours (botanic, bird watching, ethnography) and events (folklore, cuisine, healthy environment etc), summer camps and vacations for schools. Cur- rent occupation rate is low. Kintrishi PA received 2890 visitors in 2010 (first nine months), among them 190 –international visitors. The figures for 2009 were 1391 total numbers of visitors including 143 international. The total income generated by Kintrishi PA was 1,445 Gel. • Current visitors are mainly individual domestic travellers, however the percentage of in- coming Armenian and Azerbaijan (as well as other CIS countries) tourists towards the region has increased. The highest number of travellers visiting Kintrishi PA are one day visitors and small group travellers. They use picnic places, camp sites, guide service. The highest travel period is July and September. For development of inbound travel business a very important segment is family trips for weekends and public holidays and study tours. Currently nature is the only attraction for this type of travellers. • Kintrishi could be a good partner for local tourism enterprises. Hotels in Kobuleti could benefit from eco/rural tourism development by offering their guests day trips and week-end programmes as additional attractions. The promotion of traditional products produced in PA villages / supported zone can increase visitors’ interests in the region and enhance entrepreneurship. • Training and marketing activities should be accompanied and enhanced by competitive small grants. Local beneficiaries (B&B and farm houses) can be supported to establish minimum standards in a short period of time. • The development and marketing of local unique products is a challenging task throughout Georgia, particularly in Kintrishi. The most interesting products from this region are smoked trout, walnuts, beans, honey, medicinal herbs, wild mushrooms, and berries, but at present

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 15

marketing is very limited. “Market place” development in the PA entrance (as in Mtirala PA) will increase income from tourism for local residents. 2.9 Existing baseline information and relevant literature

2.9.1 Relevant data/ surveys Name Publishing date Source Forest Stand Map 1:25 000 1993 Chief Department of 1997 Reserves and Hunt- ing management of the rep. of Georgia Zoning map, based on forest stand map 2002 Nature chronicle 1998 Khatuna Tsiklauri Journal of phyto-pathological observation on natu- ??? ral resources Protocols of spring and autumn audit ??? APA

2.9.2 Publications • Research on high mountain mires: Mathias Crebs, Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald, Izolda Machutadze, Chair of NGO; Mindia Khamakidze (Natural Re- sources Expert of Kintrishi PAs) (APA website).

3. Pshav-Khevsureti 3.1 Basic information

Size: Size of planned protected areas 117,446 ha Region: Mtskheta-Mtianeti District: Dusheti Status of plans to estab- APA conducted 2 missions with in 2007 and in 09/2009. Subse- lish the PAs quently they established a working group which prepared the concept paper. During their missions, they held meetings with local community representatives to introduce their ideas and to prepare a preliminary zoning proposal which takes into account the currently used areas.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 16

3.2 Map of the programme area

3.3 Conservation values

• Part of the Khevi–Tusheti Priority Conservation Area of the ECPC. A high number of rare and endangered species and a high number of endemic species. Large tracts of relatively undisturbed ecosystems.

3.4 Pressures and threats

• Unsustainable and illegal logging and poaching are significant pressures and will continue to pose a serious threat if the area is not brought under some form of protection.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 17

3.5 Socio-economic situation

3.5.1 Demographic data Statistical data of 2000 (Gamgebeli, updated by rtsmunebuli in 2010): District Nr of villages Families inhabitants Magaroskari 17 361 900 Ukana Pshavi 13 75 189 Barisakho 37 210 624 Shatili 9 67 259 TOTAL 76 713 1972

• In interviews during the field visit local people gave much smaller numbers than those in the above table. • The population had been declining but there is now inward migration of people with ties to the area. There is a high level of seasonal migration.

3.5.2 Socio-economic situation

3.5.2.1 General living conditions

• Difficult living conditions due to poor access: accessible only from end of May to the end of September, then the road is accessible only until Ardoty (17 km from Shatili, which sometimes takes 1 h drive). Landslides near Shatili, 5-6 risk zones. Distance from Shatili to Kazbegi is 150 km, takes 5 h by car. The nearest markets are Dusheti and Tbilisi. There is a minibus in summer twice per week, in winter only once per week; the journey takes 7 h to Tbilisi and costs 15 GEL one way. The service is free of charge once per week in summer, but at the weekend because of demand from tourists.

3.5.2.2 Main sources of income

• Magaroshavi: Cattle, agriculture, some pigs, less sheep, potato, vegetable, fruits, peach. Future opportunities in increased sheep breeding for Arabian market and development of family tourism. Currently 1 Hotel with sports facilities and 45 beds for 5-7 GEL per night, catering, 4-5 employers, June - August fully occupied; 50 families have private guesthouses (4-5 beds each) mostly serving families from Tbilisi. During Soviet times: sheep breeding for wool production and cattle breeding for leather for processing in Barisako but the factory closed. • Ukana Pshavi: Agriculture, cattle, sheep, production of butter, cheese, meet, honey from medical plants, rent of pastures, potential for mineral water. • Khevsureti: Cattle breeding, milk and meat for market; main market is Dusheti; small number of sheep, bee keeping, potato and vegetable (corn, cucumber, tomato, bean) for self consumption); they exchange products with neighbours/other villages, even with people form Tbilisi (flour, macaroni, sugar, salt, ) simple but clean guest houses in Barisakho, Gorsha and Gudani.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 18

3.5.2.3 Resource Use

• Forests: for fuel wood (the local people’s only concern about the planned PA was reported to be the impact on wood use for fuel. • Pastures for cattle and sheep. • Meadows for hay and collection of herbs and medicinal plants. • Wild animals. The local people maintain traditional hunting practices; e.g. they kill only tur which disturb the population; they never hunt during the reproduction period; the never kill mothers that have offspring. It was reported that there are no conflicts with wolves.

3.5.2.4 Zoning/ land registration

• Land has not been registered: the local people consider it to be community land. People refuse to register separately because they fear that some owners could sell their castle to foreigners: as community property it remains within the traditional families, if somebody wants to sell/ dies, it remains within the community.

3.5.3 Relevant themes • The most relevant themes are tourism, infrastructure and energy • Priorities of Gamgeoba village development are: infrastructure, water supply, energy. Some solar systems (budget of 25 000 GEL) have been provided to local communities. • The historical towers are deteriorating and there is a lack of funds for preservation. The Ministry of Culture and Sports applied for World Heritage status. Local people are worried that the Government could sell the castles. Churches in the region are in need restoration. • Waste is burned after lying for some time or thrown into a canyon; there is no communal landfill; littering is a problem - international tourists take care but Georgian tourists lack environmental awareness. • Sewage. There is a lack of toilets, sewage flows into river, or is brought to the fields. • Communication. There is no mobile phone connection, just one computer with internet at Shatili school for public use. • Traditional values. Internal rules of communities are not respected by foreigners: tourists: bath naked and do not respect holy places (where according to local custom people should not make a noise and should not light fires. Some local people are concerned that spiritual- ity disappearing: people now think more about business whereas ancestors were depend- ing on nature; it was in their blood to respect nature, they gave toast to the animals, they held the balance in their hunting activities. • Microcredits. Local people reported high interest rates of loans. • Decline of species / poaching. Local people reported a decline in animal numbers, fish, and wood due to poaching and overuse of wood during the civil war/ post soviet collapse. They also reported that the situation today is improving and it is necessary to preserve what is left. Licence holders are not controlled: one licence holder was reported to have killed 7 bears in one day; there is overfishing with electroshock equipment and poaching of red deer. • Deforestation. Local people reported overuse of wood/ use for commercial purposes (F). The rtsmunebuli of Magaroskari has written twice to the MoEPNR requesting the extension of the planned Protected Areas territory because of Taxus bacata population.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 19

3.6 Relevant projects/ support

• The internet connection in Shatili was provided by the Georgian construction company “Olympia Star”. The municipality covers the operating costs of the internet connection. • School was financed by private investor from Germany, the church by a TBC Bank board member. • The World Bank financed the restoration of the castle in 2002. • Solar System in Shatili financed by “Sun House” in Andaki in 2009 (about 2,000 GEL). • Sustainable Energy Centre (private company) financed purchase of batteries for Ukana Pshavi: 2024 GEL for Matura and 2073 for Khoshara. • a trout farm has been established by a private investor, who is also assessing the market for mineral water bottling and sulphur spa • NGO “Caucasian House” supported school (computer, books) and conducted waste campaign • a private investor has plans to construct a hotel and the same or a different investor plans to construct a micro-power plant and provide free energy to one of the villages.

3.7 Tourism Development potential of the project area

• Pshav-Khevsureti region is well known tourist destination for both domestic and international travellers. Attractions in the region are: ethnographical traditions, cultural and nature sites, interesting flora and fauna, in particular for birdwatchers. However, local capacity of tourists’ services needs to be increased at specific destination spots by providing local products and traveller’s services such as small recreation stops with good sanitation and toilets, café-restaurants, souvenirs shops, products marketplaces, etc. • Tourist routes in this region already exist, but are not marked (there is only one street pointer in the village of Gudani indicating services - house, horse rental). Tourism operators already sell this region as a tourist product, the main trails are: • Tbilisi – Shatili – Mutso – Ardoti – Tbilisi (2-3 days) • Tbilisi – Shatili- Mutso- Atsunda Pass – Tusheti area (6-7 days) • Tbilisi – Kazbegi – Juta- Roshka – Shatili- Mutso- Tbilisi (up 10 days). • Trails in Magaro and Ukana Pshavi could be linked to Khevsureti routes. For example there is 17 km from Maturi (Ukana Pshavi) to Khevsureti region (7 km is car road and rest 10 km walking path). • Tourism statistics for the region do not exist. One family in Shatili (among ten other families – guesthouse owners) received around 400 guests (15 groups with 20 participants were from Israel, others from Holland, Germany). They have direct contact with an Israeli tour leaders for the last four years. • 60-70% of tourists in the region are foreigners (Jewish, German, Baltic, Ukrainian, Polish) who pay for their accommodation. Georgian visitors mostly use camps. “Organized tourists” (tourists from tour operators –“Caucasus travel”, Georgica Travel”, “Visit Georgia”) mostly have combine trekking tours with Tusheti and Kazbegi regions. • Existing guest houses in Khevsureti (one in village Gudani, one in Korsha, 10 in Shatili, one in Roshka and few in Barisakho villages) are already a good base for hospitality service development in the region. There are 5-8 rooms in houses where up to 15 guests can be accommodate. Rooms are very simple with minimal conditions. Every house has toilets

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 20

and bath indoor, warm water. The current occupation rate in the tourist season is quite high. There is one hotel with 45 places in Magaroskari for sport schools in summer season. • In Khevsureti the average price per person in guesthouses is 50-55 GEL including break- fast and dinner and 30Gel without meal, however families have no pricing model. They did not attend any training courses in hospitality management. Guesthouses with many tourists hire 1-2 assistants from other villages for housekeeping and food preparing. Informa- tion about guesthouses in Gudani and Shatili is available at www.concordtrevel.com • In Magaroshavi the price per person is around 35 Gel including three daily meals. Accord- ing to the head of municipality there are 50 houses in the village where rooms are available in summer for 5-7 Gel per bed/ night. Statistics and guesthouse lists does not exist. • Additional tourist services like horse rental, guiding and etc are rarely available on local level. Families in Shatili and in Gudani have horses and camps for renting. They also expressed their interest in guiding tourists in the region (birdwatching, fauna, flora, cultural sites). However, the limited language skills are still a problem. • There is high demand for a “market place” close to guesthouses in Shatili (this might be temporary buildings also) or along the tourists’ highlights. Appropriate locations for locations for market places are Shatili village and Magaroskari (a favourite spot for school ex- cursions to Chargali – Vazha Pshavela’s home museum).

4. Algeti 4.1 Basic information

Established: Strict Nature Reserve in 1965, National Park in 2007; extension planned Size: 6,822 ha Region: Tetriskaro District: Manglisi; 60 km from Tbilisi (1 hour) 1100 – 1950 m above sea level, highest point Kldekari (2000 m)

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 21

4.2 Map of the programme area

4.3 Conservation values

Contains a relatively high number of rare, threatened, or endangered species. Performs a critical landscape function.

4.4 Pressures The only significant pressures and threats are fire and unmanaged tourism. The PA administration reported some problems with illegal cutting of wood and poaching three years ago and some grazing pressure in the Tsaliki region where animals cross into the traditional use zone.

4.5 Protected Area Administration

4.5.1 Positions and staff # Held post name, surname education

1 Director Vacant 2 Head of Administration Division Vacant 3 Accountant Valeri Chochua Organisation and economy of railway transport 4 Executive Assistant Vacant

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 22

5 Visitor Service Senior Specialist Vacant 6 Support Staff Vacant 7 Head of Protection Division Gocha Aptsiauri Forestry 8 Senior Specialist of Natural Vacant Resources 9 Ranger Giorgi Bekauri Tractor driver and mechanic 10 Ranger Khvicha Dolidze Economics and law 11 Ranger Robizon Bekauri Middle education 12 Ranger Alaz Mustapaevi Incomplete middle education 13 Ranger Tariel Kavtaradze Incomplete middle education 14 Ranger Shota Kavelidze Incomplete middle education 15 Ranger Iaradangul Musaevi Incomplete middle education 16 Ranger Duniadar Japarovi Middle education 17 Ranger Tamaz Kavtaradze Technical education. Motor transport ex- ploitation specialist

4.5.2 Management effectiveness • No management plan. Current basis for management is temporary directive issued in 2009 and valid for 3 years. • A current work plan was not available at the time of the field visit. • Boundary of the strict nature reserve is based on the intuitive argument that this territory is more preserved because of its isolated location: there is no relation to the occurrence of key species/ corridors etc. Data collection/ Monitoring • The monitoring journal was not available during the field visit. Data are incomplete and rely on intuitive collection of seasonal observations and measures, mostly referring to the previous journal, stating that status has not changed since then. • Visitors are not registered, as they do not come to the administration centre. Protection programme • Each ranger has own territory; daily patrols by rangers, weekly by director. Natural resource management programme • Cutting trees to supply the local population with firewood appears to be the only natural resources management programme. The PA administration identify how many trees can be cut. They are allowed to cut trees in the following cases: diseased trees, trees within 20 m of the visitor zones in order to maintain the accessibility, but not in the strict nature reserve; trees in the traditional use zone according to the needs for fire wood.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 23

Environmental Education • Infrequent activities with local schools. Planting of 100 trees with 70-80 children from Tbilisi in 04/2010 as part of the eco-educational programme. Communication • No information

4.5.3 Tourism • Services offered by the PA administration: • 3 hiking and 4 horseback trails • picnic place: (20 GEL per table and bench for use) • camping area and toilet • In 2009 a GTA /Eurasia Eco Award project constructed tourism information desks, 5 trails (2 – horse riding and 3 walking. max length of trail is 25 km – one way). Picnic place, information desk, camping site, horse seats. • Tourists come with their own guide / tour operator; they don’t ask for services from the park administration. • Trails are hard to find. Maps were not reprinted due to copyright restrictions (1:50 000 maps were purchased from GEOland with single use only)

4.5.4 Participation / consultation mechanisms • According to the PA administration the scientific advisory committee has not met from some years. According to the APA central apparatus the committee met in the summer o 2009.

4.5.5 PA Infrastructure and equipment

4.5.5.1 Existing infrastructure and equipment:

• Administration building from 1965, not restored, poor condition • 1 Lada Niva (purchased in 11/2007); two further old cars which are not functional • 3 horses (7-8 years old), 1 pony, but no stable • 1 computer, but kept in the house of the late Director – staff did not use it, lack of computer skills – training required; no internet access because of high cost (45 GEL per month); however, they say that it would facilitate their work a lot as they now have to go to Tbilisi once a week to deliver their journals and the visitor lists

4.5.5.2 Essential needs

• Demarcation required for about 15 km; border not demarcated since 1997, should be done every 10 years (probably hold because of expansion plans). • Functional administration building, furniture and equipment. • Transport means for rangers. • Language skills, computer skills • Training in identification and treatment of forest pests, other conservation measures

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 24

4.5.6 Expenditure and income • State budget funding for 2010 is 15,963 GEL. • 2.364,40 GEL generated from sales of fire wood but the money is paid to the state budget account. No income from tourism in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

4.6 Socio-economic situation

4.6.1 Demographic data • Conflicting information about the number of village and inhabitants. On person reported that 12 villages, about 90 families/ 450 persons (multi-ethnic) live in the PA. According to the household survey which is carried out every three years there are 3,000 people living in villages in and around the PA: 360 Georgians, the rest of mixed ethnics. Both statements contradict the number of villages on the map (6 villages plus 7 abandoned villages). Migration: some houses are kept by owners who live abroad and just spent summer months in Algeti. No inter-ethnic conflicts were reported.

4.6.2 General conditions • The main market is Manglisi (during tourist season) and Tbilisi. Women rent a car/minibus (they name it as a “milk car”) and sell milk product (cheese, matsoni, crème) in Tbilisi door to door three times per week. Sometimes they also sell berries (makvali, malina) on local market. • Problems ranked by local families are: waste, wolves – eating their cows and pigs, pig disease, condition of side roads.

4.6.3 Economic activities • A resort area during the soviet time, sanatorium for tuberculosis – today no sanatoriums but famous for weekends and holidays; former pioneer camps are used as hotels; Georgi- ans, Armenians, Azeri and Turkish mostly spent May till summer; in July many young people come for camping on the lake; international tourists spent few days for exploring cultural sites; in total 15.000 to 20.000 tourists per year; winter sports not yet developed. • Main sources of income: tourism/ private guest houses; livestock keeping, selling of home made products (no associations in place), most relevant products: dairy products, honey, meet, vegetables. Some people rent out horses for guided tours. Private guesthouse im- provements are initiated by owners - no support or training programmes. • Employers: small canning factory, milk and cheese factory, one new hotel, 2 schools, 1 musical school, 1 police, 1 ambulance, 1 health centre. • Small credits to families are provided by the Credo bank of Georgia, conditions (18%) are worse than those of Tbilisi Bank (16%).

4.6.4 Relevant themes • Waste management is a problem in the PA, especially in summer near the lake. There is only one litter disposal place in the PA.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 25

• Unemployment. People expressed hope that the improvement of infrastructure and the new road project will bring employment through small businesses. Potential is seen in eco- products. • Infrastructure. Development of Manglisi as a resort, improvement of lights, roads, improvement of large houses, sanatorium, pioneer camp, improvement of tourism infrastructure. Individual counter for gas consumption.

4.6.5 Relevant projects • Millennium Challenge Georgia (MCG) campaign: 300 kilometers of highway to the borders with Turkey and Armenia; construction to be finished in October 2010. • Municipal Development Fund: Improvement of water supply/ water pipe (delivery act) 632, 000 GEL (currently only 2/3 of population has 24 hour water supply – in 2011 100% shall have access to filtered water). Further investments in road improvement to the NP will be completed in the next few months. • Gramiar Iradze (private investor) has plans to finance a centre for treating diabetes in 2011. • Dr. Georgi Abuladze (Department of Geography of Tbilisi State University) has plans to finance an education centre on satellite image interpretation.

4.7 Institutions/ Organizations/ stakeholders to be considered Strong support to tourism development in the area from representative in parliament (David Beschvaschvili), the new Governor, Gamgebeli and sakrebulo.

4.8 Tourism development potential

• Attractions include well preserved nature with unique flora and fauna including endemic Red List species. • Distance from Tbilisi 55 km along the newly constructed road to Akhalkalaki– one hour driving - and located next door to Manglisi resort which is one of the main destination of summer holiday makers (15 000 -20 000 visitors – mainly from Tbilisi, rented houses in Manglisi in 2010. Host families generally do not pay any taxes, their business is not registered and there is no any income in local budget from tourism. • Unique Selling Points (USP) of the region are honey, dry fruit, herbal tea (cackhvi), berries. • Tourists hire horses from local population; e.g. one person living nearby the Algeti NP entrance who owns 3 horses another 15 horses can be rent from neighbours. Renting price is 30 Gel per horse per day. Guide service 35 Gel per day. This year from April until Au- gust he hosted 50 foreign tourists (mostly individual travellers/small groups from Europe – UK, Poland, Ukraine, Zech Republic) and 5 local visitors (all Georgians). Generally tourists spend half day in NP, one group from Czech Republic on 2-day trip used camps in NP. • Tourists take meal themselves, sometimes they are provided with lunch by their guide at home. Price per lunch 7-10 Gel per person, • Facilities at local guesthouses are poor. Sanitation is basic. Local people do not have hospitality skills.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 4, page 26

4.9 Existing baseline information and relevant literature

4.9.1 Relevant data/ surveys Name Publishing date Source Forest Stand Map 1:25 000 1993 Chief Department of Reserves and Hunting (elevation, land use, forest types) – staff says it is still 1997 management of the adequate !? rep. of Georgia Zoning map (based on the above mentioned) Natural Almanach 1998 APA biologist Basemap 1:50 000 GEOland (no copy right) 2009

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 5, page 1

Annex 5: Assessment of the Management Effectiveness of the Selected Areas Using Selected RAPPAM criteria

Algeti Tbilisi Kolkheti Mtirala Kintrishi Tusheti Kazbegi Lagodekhi Vashlovani 1 LEGAL SECURITY c) Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet the PA objectives. d) Staff and financial resources are adequate to conduct critical law enforcement activities. 2 SITE DESIGN AND PLANNING b) The layout and configuration of the PA optimizes the conservation of biodiversity. 3 STAFFING a) The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area. b) Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical management activities. c) Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the staff. d) Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically reviewed. e) Staff employment conditions are sufficient 4 COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION a) There are adequate means of communication between field and office staff. b) Existing ecological and socio-economic data are adequate for management planning. c) There are adequate means of collecting new data. d) There are adequate systems for processing and analysing data. e) There is effective communication with local communities. 5 INFRASTRUCTURE b) Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management activities. c) Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management activities. e) Visitor facilities are appropriate to the level of visitor use. 6 MANAGEMENT PLANNING a) There is a comprehensive, relatively recent written management plan. b) There is a comprehensive inventory of natural and cultural resources. c) There is an analysis of, and strategy for addressing, PA threats and pressures. d) A detailed work plan identifies specific targets for achieving management objectives. e) The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into planning. 7 DECISION MAKING c) PA staff regularly collaborate with partners, local communities, and other organizations. d) Local communities participate in decisions that affect them. 8 RESEARCH, EVALUATION, AND MONITORING a) The impact of legal and illegal uses of the PA are accurately monitored and recorded. b) Research on key ecological issues is consistent with the needs of the PA. c) Research on key social issues is consistent with the needs of the PA. d) PA staff members have regular access to recent scientific research and advice. e) Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and prioritized.

Legend high justification for selection moderate justification for selection low justification for selection

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 5, page 2

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page1

Annex 6: Log frame matrix

Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Thematic Programme Phase 1 - Logical Framework Matrix

Classification of Risk Level: L = low risk; M = medium risk; H = high risk; VH = very high risk. Classification of Mitigation Potential: L = low potential to mitigate the risk; M = medium potential to mitigate the risk; H = high potential to mitigate the risk Detailed specification Programme Concept The programme aims at The thematic focus defines the intervention areas where achieving structural impacts the programme aims to achieve structural impacts by in the selected thematic ar- investments at the system level and in the selected PAs. eas through investments in Investments in the selected PAs will serve to demon- selected PAs and at system strate enhancements to management of the PA network level. and help embed the enhancements in the system. The selected thematic areas are: planning and management; PA and community enhancement through tourism development

Overall Goal Biodiversity in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia is maintained, without negatively affecting the income situation/ the livelihoods of the rural population on a long term. Indicators Means of verification for the Overall goal 1 Violations of land use requirements decline by 2016 2 Living conditions are not negatively affected by PAs according to self-evaluation by population. Assump- Risk Impact if assumption does not Miti- tions for Level hold gation achieving Po- the Overall tential goal OG1 Environmental policy is not M Protection status of PAs weakened M weakened by crises and as a result of greater emphasis on sudden changes in political economic development. direction. OG2 The Georgian Government M Reduced project financing to the PA M and the donor community sector make it difficult for the does not lose interest in con- MoEPNR/APA to maintain and build servation issues. on the impacts of the programme. Economic interests take precedence over environmental (e.g. development pressure from mining, tourism)

Objective To improve natural resources and protected areas management in Georgia at system level and in selected areas while at the same time improving the socio-economic situation of the adjacent communities.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page2

Indicators Means of verification for the Ob- jective 1 By the end of the programme Quality of management plans prepared in the framework management of the selected of the programme. PAs is based on manage- Ex-post assessment of conformity of management ac- ment plans that meet interna- tions to management plans. tional standards. 2 With completion of the contri- Ex-ante and ex-post assessments using the Manage- bution the management ef- ment Effectiveness Tracking Tool or similar methodology. fectiveness of the selected PAs has been improved. 3 The staffing of the selected Ex-post assessment of staffing compared with require- PAs corresponds to the re- ments identified by the programme quirements of the management plans. 4 Beneficiaries of the socio- PMU project appraisal and selection reports. economic development pro- Project completion reports. gramme contribute, in cash or in kind, at least 10% of the total cost of investments that are made in support of income generation. 5 By the end of the programme Ex-ante and ex-post assessments of the socio-economic the socio-economic situation situation of the communities adjacent to the selected PAs of the adjacent communities of the selected PAs has been improved. Assump- Risk Impact if assumption does not Miti- tions for Level hold gation achieving Po- the Objec- tential tive O1 Bureaucratic structures, un- M The management plans and pro- M clear division of competences grammes to support the socio- and weak local participation economic development of communi- structures do not prevent ties adjacent to the selected PAs sufficient participation of the will not take sufficient account of the population needs and wishes of the local population O2 Acceptance of protected M Creation of new PAs will be delayed H areas is not undermined by and at worst may be cancelled. The fundamental, historically PA administrations' efforts to protect conditioned mistrust of the the PAs from illegal and unsustain- adjacent communities able use will be undermined. O3 The capacity of the selected M The impacts of the programme on L PAs to implement the im- planning and management will be proved planning and man- below expectations. agement systems and procedures is not undermined by frequent staff changes

Result Area 1 Planning The selected PAs have available all necessary planning documents for their development and the promotion of the adjacent communities. Indicators Means of verification for Result Area 1 1 By (date to be specified) new Maps and documented agreement on delineation of the / extended external bounda- boundaries. ries of the selected PAs

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page3

(Kazbegi, Kintrishi, Algeti, Pshav-Khevsureti) have been elaborated with the participation of the adjacent communities and mapped. 2 By (date to be specified) Ex-post evaluation of the process of preparing and management plans (including adopting plans for the selected PAs and the quality of the associated programmes such plans. as tourism development, training and capacity building) for the selected PAs have been elaborated according to international standards and have been approved by the Minister of Environment Pro- tection and Natural Re- sources. 3 By (date to be specified) Existence of multi-annual business plans and up-to date multi-annual business plans annual operational plans have been prepared for the selected PAs and form the basis for the annual operational plans. 4 The burden of land- or re- Ex-post evaluation of the process of preparing manage- source use restrictions (fore- ment plans for the selected PAs. gone costs) is assessed and Survey report, documented agreements agreements have been made regarding the compensation of affected parties. 5 By (date to be specified) Participation of relevant actors of the environmental and tools, strategies and plans to tourism sector in coordination workshops. promote the socio-economic Socio-economic development strategy including selection development of the adjacent criteria and procedures communities are defined and coordinated with all relevant stakeholders, and selection procedures are agreed. Activities for Result Area 1 1.1 Procure or create geo- Base maps for the selected PAs. referenced base maps for the selected PAs. 1.2 Carry out baseline surveys Documented survey reports for the selected PAs. (Key Biodiversity Area, land use, socio-economic). 1.3 Delineate the external Maps delineating the boundaries and official documents boundaries of new / extended confirming the boundaries. PAs. 1.4 Prepare management plans Management plans and operational plans for the se- (including associated pro- lected PAs. grammes) and multi-annual operational business plans for the selected PAs. in coordination with relevant stakeholders and projects. 1.5 Design socio-economic de- Documented socio-economic programmes. velopment programmes for the adjacent communities of selected PAs and coordinate tools, strategies and plans with relevant stakeholders and projects. Result Area 2 PA Establishment

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page4

The selected PAs are recognized and have a functional protected area management. Indicators Means of verification for Result Area 2 1 By (date to be specified) the Laws establishing new and extended PAs. external boundaries and the Ex-post inspection of boundary demarcation zoning of the selected PAs is Ex-ante and ex-post surveys of the opinion of local com- legally adopted . Ownership munities towards the PAs. and traditional land use rights Ex-post evaluation of conflict management mechanisms. are regulated, external boundaries are demarcated where necessary and conflict management mechanisms are in place. 2 Investments in infrastructure, Programme procurement plan and the documented ap- equipment PA administration praisals supporting the procurement plan. / staff are made according to requirements (as specified in the Management Plan). 3 The running costs resulting APA Budget from the programme activities are included in APA’s yearly budget. 4 By (date to be specified) Ex-ante and ex-post surveys of the opinion of local com- measures for public aware- munities towards the PAs ness and education are implemented and target groups are aware of the PAs and the conservation objectives. 5 By (date to be specified) the Ex-ante and ex-post surveys, METT selected PA administrations are staffed according to the Reports of training activities. requirements of a modern PA management. Job descriptions have been specified and PA staff dispose of required equipment and knowledge to fulfil their tasks. 6 Conservation and monitoring Records of the PA administration including management activities as proposed in the monitoring reports MP of the selected PAs are implemented by the PA staff and results are documented. Activities for Result Area 2 2.1 Arrange for new PAs and Laws establishing new and extended PAs extensions to PAs to be legally adopted. 2.2 Physically demarcate those Ex-post inspection of boundary demarcation. parts of the boundaries of the selected PAs which are most subject to encroachment. 2.3 Staff the PAs according to the Staff complement lists and training records. need identified during planning. 2.4 Conduct training programme Reports of training events including assessments by for selected PA administra- participants tions in management planning and financial and business planning. 2.5 Conduct study visits to Participants' and hosts' reports on the visits "model" PAs in other countries for staff of selected PAs.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page5

2.6 Procure / build administration Ex-post inspection of infrastructure and equipment. and protection infrastructure and equipment (administration building, stables, en- trances, ranger shelters, vehicles, horses, office furniture and equipment, field equipment for rangers, communication equipment, firefighting equipment). 2.7 Make provision in the national National Budget budget for PA to pay for the running costs of infrastructure and equipment procured by the programme. 2.8 Implement public outreach Programme progress reports measures. 2.9 Implement tourism develop- Programme progress reports ment strategies Result Area 3 Socio-economic development of adjacent communities The communities adjacent to the selected PAs benefit from investments in their socio- economic development. Indicators Means of verification for Result Area 3 1 Relevant stakeholders are Ex-post assessment of the process of preparing the represented in a steering socio-economic investment programmes for the commu- committee or other suitable nities adjacent to the selected PAs including interviews mechanism which decides on with community members. the selection criteria and procedures; inhabitants of adjacent communities are informed about the conservation objectives of the PA and the interrelation of the socio- economic development with the conservation measures. 2 Investments in the socio- economic development of the Ex-post evaluation of the quality of the investments. adjacent communities are executed in accordance with the defined selection criteria and procedures (fast start measures/ community development/ income generation) 3 At least x% (percentage to be Ex-post assessment of the socio-economic development specified during the design of programme. the socio-economic development programmes) of the population of the communities adjacent to the selected PAs have been involved as individuals or members of community groups in preparing project proposals. 4 Beneficiaries have made Ex-ante and ex-post assessment of the capacity of the provision / defined responsi- communities adjacent to the selected PAs to operate the bilities for the maintenance of investments sustainably. infrastructure/ equipment. Activity for Result Area

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page6

3 3.1 Design and implement socio- Programme progress reports. economic development pro- Ex-post evaluation of investments. grammes for communities adjacent to the selected PAs Result Area 4 Sector modernisation The APA’s and the selected PAs’ systems are strengthened in particular topics of their reform processes according to international standards. Indicators Means of verification for Result Area 4 1 By (date to be specified) Documented tourism development strategies tourism development strategies for the selected PAs have been developed with input from the National Tour- ism Agency. 2 By (date to be specified) the Documented procedures that clarify the APA’s role in PA APA has clarified its role in management and business planning.. PA management and business planning and monitoring and developed / specified procedures. 3 By (date to be defined) the Functionality and capacity assessment of the APA’s APA central apparatus has central apparatus the necessary equipment and human capacity to operate effectively in the role defined by result 2. 4 By (date to be defined) ex- Ex-post evaluation of the application of lessons learned periences derived from the from the programme. supported PAs are presented and discussed on national level and fed into an information system. Activities for Result Area 4 4.1 Elaborate a strategy for the Programme progress reports APA to be able to cope with Documented strategy management planning and monitoring. 4.2 Prepare and conduct a train- Programme progress reports ing programme for central Reports of training events including assessments by apparatus in management participants planning and financial and business planning. 4.3 Make investments designed Programme progress reports to increase the APA's GIS Ex-post evaluation of investments capacity. 4.4 Design and install a knowl- Programme progress reports edge management system Ex-post evaluation of the system and its use by APA staff Result Area 5 Financial sustainability The sustainable financing of the PA network is supported. Indicators Means of verification for Result Area 5 1 By (date to be specified) the Documented strategy and documentation of APA’s APA has discussed and agreement to the strategy agreed on a strategy for the

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page7

upgrading of APA’s financial and business planning system 2 By (date to be specified) Operational plans for the selected PAs. operational plans of the selected PAs contain activities regarding the diversification of income and the improvement of efficiency in order to contribute to self-financing of the PAs systems Lessons learned from the Programme implementation plan and procurement plan. selected PAs (e.g. on self- 3 determined utilization of funds) are discussed within APA central apparatus and integrated into ongoing management activities (adaptive management). 4 By (date to be specified) x% Programme implementation plan and procurement plan. (proportion to be specified) of the financial contributions that have been allocated to the selected PAs will be retained for self-determined utilization 5 By (dates to be specified) the Documented applications. APA has applied to the CNF for 50% funding of the running costs of the selected PAs. Activities for Result Area 5 5.1 Carry out a design study for Programme progress reports the upgrading of APA's finan- Documented design study. cial and business planning systems 5.2 Carry out an assessment of Programme progress reports opportunities to diversify Documented assessment. income and to improve efficiency system wide 5.3 Conduct an assessment of Programme progress reports lessons learned on the self- Documented assessment determined utilization of funds (Tusheti) and prepare recommendations for programme activities 5.4 Prepare and submit funding Programme progress reports applications to the CNF for Submitted applications the selected PAs Assumptions for achieving activities under Risk Impact if assumption does not Miti- all Results Areas Level hold gation Note: If a Results Area is not shown it means Po- that no assumptions have been made tential RA 1.2 Adjacent communities willing to par- L Surveys and management plans M ticipate in land use and socio-economic sur- (which will use the information veys. from the surveys) will not reflect local people's needs and wishes RA 1.3 Adjacent communities and other inter- Kaz - H Creation of new PAs and exten- Kaz - ested parties are willing to negotiate and PK - H sions to existing PAs will be de- M compromise over boundaries. Alg - L layed and at worst may be can- PK - M celled due to lack of agreement on Alg - boundaries. M RA 2.1 Government and Parliament will agree Kaz - H Creation of new PAs and exten- Kaz - to the proposed boundaries of new PAs and PK - H sions to existing PAs will be de- M extensions to existing PAs. Alg - L layed, the APAs proposals may PK - M

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 6, page8

have to modified, and at worst the Alg - proposals will fail completely M RA 2.3 APA able to fill positions in PAs sup- Kaz - H The impacts of the programme on Kaz - ported by the programme with qualified staff. Kin - M management effectiveness will be M PK - H reduced and impacts will not be Kin - Alg - M sustained M PK - M Alg - M RA 2.4 Appropriate staff are nominated for M The impacts of the programme on H training activities. management effectiveness will be reduced and impacts will not be sustained. RA 3.1 Adjacent communities participate Kaz - L The programmes will not take full Kaz - constructively in the design of socio-economic Kin - L account of the needs and wishes L development programmes PK - L of the target group. As a result the Kin - L Alg - L programme may include inappro- PK - L priate and ineffective measures Alg - L and fail to invest in the measures which will have the most impact. RA 3.1 Local self-governing bodies engage Kaz - M The programmes will not take full Kaz - constructively with the process of designing of Kin - L account of the interests of the H socio-economic development programmes. PK - L local self-governing bodies or may Kin - H Alg - L exclude cost-effective measures PK - H to improve the socio-economic Alg - H situation of the adjacent communities RA 4.1 Local self-governing bodies, Tourism Kaz - H The strategies will not take full and Kaz - Development Agency and Georgian Tourism Kin - L proper account of the strengths H Association collaborate constructively with the PK - H and weaknesses and opportuni- Kin - L APA and the PMU in the elaboration of the Alg - L ties and threats in the target ar- PK - H strategies. eas. Opportunities for cost- Alg - L effective investments and for partnership funding may be missed. RA 4.3 The most appropriate staff are nomi- L The impacts of the programme on H nated for the training activities. management effectiveness will be reduced and impacts will not be sustained. RA 4.4 The most appropriate staff are nomi- L The impacts of the programme on H nated for the study visits. management effectiveness will be reduced and impacts will not be sustained.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 7, page1

Annex 7: Cost and financing plan

Contents 1. Phase 1 cost and financing plan by results area 2. Phase 1 cost and financing plan by investment category 3. Phase 2 cost and financing plan by results area 4. Phase 2 cost and financing plan by investment category

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 7, page 2

1. Phase 1 cost and financing plan by results area

Phase 1 (years 1-4) All costs in thousands of Euro Cost Financing Result area Kazbegi Kintrishi System PMU Total % of KfW % of APA % of B'ficiaries % of base share share share 1 t 1 Planning 61 57 0 0 118 3% 91 77% 27 23% 0 0% 2 2 PA establishment 1,187 516 20 0 1,723 39% 1,520 88% 203 12% 0 0% 3 3 Support zone development 712 357 0 0 1,069 24% 973 91% 0 0% 96 9% 4 4 Sector modernisation 4 4 55 0 63 1% 63 100% 0 0% 0 0% 5 5 Financial sustainablility 0 0 23 0 23 1% 21 91% 2 9% 0 0% 6 Programme implementation 0 0 0 993 993 23% 933 94% 60 6% 0 0% 7 Contingency 0 0 399 0 399 9% 399 100% 0 0% 0 0% Total 1,964 934 497 993 4,388 100% 4,000 91% 292 7% 96 2%

Source of funds: KfW 1,742 830 495 933 4,000 91% APA 158 72 2 60 292 7% Beneficiaries 64 32 0 0 96 2% 1,964 934 497 993 4,388 100%

Notes 1 Comprises the preparation of planning documents on PA level and support zones (baseline studies, management plans, tourism strategies, socio-economic development strategy), including related experts input. 2 Includes: adoption of new/ extension of existing PAs, physical demarcation; staffing and training, study visits; administration and protection infrastructure and equipment and provision of related running costs; implementation of public outreach and tourism development strategies. 3 Includes design and implementation of socio-economic development programme 4 Includes the elaboration of tourism development and marketing strategy for the selected PAs; a strategy for management planning and monitoring; the implementation of a training programme in management planning and financial and business planning; investments to increase the APA's GIS capacity and the improvement of the knowledge management 5 Includes a study for the upgrading of APA's financial and business planning systems; an assessment of opportunities to diversify income and to improve efficiency; an assessment of lessons learned; the preparation and submission of funding applications to the CNF. Share appears low because CTA is fully costed under Programme implementation. 6 Includes the establishment and operation of the PMU and the costs for the yearly audits (excluding running costs for PA administrations - these are listed under result area 2). 7 Contingencies appear in the system collumn only for technical reasons and account for all locations.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 7, page 3

2. Phase 1 cost and financing plan by investment category

Phase 1 (years 1-4) All costs in thousands of Euro Cost Financing Investment category Kazbegi Kintrishi System PMU Total % of KfW % of APA % of B'ficiaries % of Base share share share Costs 1 1. Preparation / improvement of planning documents 72 66 0 0 138 3% 111 80% 27 20% 0 0% 2 2a. Installation / improvement of administration and protection infrastructure 398 217 0 0 615 14% 615 100% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2b. Installation / improvement of PA visitor services infrastructure 454 104 0 0 558 13% 558 100% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3. Equipment of park administration and other relevant actors 165 113 10 0 288 7% 288 100% 0 0% 0 0% 5 4. Investments in the socio-economic development of the support zones 704 352 0 0 1,056 24% 960 91% 0 0% 96 9% 6 5. Public relations and similar work 23 23 0 0 46 1% 45 98% 1 2% 0 0% 7 6. Capacity building for APA staff/ improvement of planning systems and procedures 4 0 89 0 93 2% 91 98% 2 2% 0 0% 8 7. Programme management including running costs 143 59 0 993 1,195 27% 933 78% 262 22% 0 0% 9 Contingency 0 0 399 0 399 9% 399 100% 0 0% 0 0% Total 1,963 934 498 993 4,388 100% 4,000 91% 292 7% 96 2% including: FC Consultant 34 29 84 908 1,055 24% source of funds: KfW 1,741 830 496 933 4,000 91% APA 158 72 2 60 292 7% Beneficiaries 64 32 0 0 96 2% 1,963 934 498 993 4,388 100%

Notes 1. Comprises the preparation of planning documents on PA level and support zones (baseline studies, management plans, tourism strategies, socio-economic development strategy), including related experts input. The CTA is only costed under category 7. 2. Comprises boundary demarcation, construction of ranger shelters,construction/refurbishment of administration building and stables for horses. 3. Includes investments in PA visitor infrastructure and services inside and outside the PA to be specified by the tourism development strategy. The calculation takes into account the size of the territories, therefore costs for Kazbegi are higher. 4. Comprises furniture and equipment for PA administration buildings, communication, working and firefighting equipment, horses and vehicles for rangers, and equipment for APA central aparatus planning unit. 5. Assume an allocation of 24% of the total KfW funds of 4 million in each phase, plus 10% beneficiary contributions. Includes only investments made to benefit the communities excluding planning costs (to be specified during a participative planning process). 6. Comprising programme/ PA communication and visibility measures and event to launch the PA and/or the tourism strategy. 7. On PA level: needs assessment and training of PA administrations, study visits for selected PA staff. For APA central aparatus: stategy to cope with management planning and monitoring, assessment of opportunities to diversify income and to improve efficiency system wide, improvement of APA's business planning system, training programme in management planning and financial/ business planning, and improvement of knowledge management system. 8. Programme management costs comprise the salaries of new PA staff, the operating costs of infrastructure and equipment financed by the programme, the installation and opertation of the PMU and costs for yearly audit. Running costs will be financed by the APA. 9. Contingencies appear in the system collumn only for technical reasons and account for all locations.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 7, page 4

3. Phase 2 cost and financing plan by results area

Phase 2 (years 5-7) All costs in thousands of Euro Cost Financing Result area Pshav- Algeti System PMU Total % of KfW % of APA % of B'ficiaries % of Khevsuret base share share share 1 i t 1 Planning 81 64 0 0 145 3% 118 81% 27 19% 0 0% 2 2 PA establishment 1,611 744 20 0 2,375 50% 1,801 76% 574 24% 0 0% 3 3 Support zone development 712 357 0 0 1,069 23% 973 91% 0 0% 96 9% 4 4 Sector modernisation 3 3 22 0 28 1% 28 100% 0 0% 0 0% 5 5 Financial sustainablility 0 0 2 0 2 0% 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 6 Programme implementation 0 0 0 664 664 14% 619 93% 45 7% 0 0% 7 Contingency 0 0 461 0 461 10% 461 100% 0 0% 0 0% Total 2,407 1,168 505 664 4,744 100% 4,000 84% 648 14% 96 2%

Source of funds: KfW 1,887 992 502 619 4,000 84% APA 456 144 3 45 648 14% Beneficiaries 64 32 0 0 96 2% 2,407 1,168 505 664 4,744 100%

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 7, page 5

4. Phase 2 cost and financing plan by investment category

Phase 2 (years 5-7) All costs in thousands of Euro Cost Financing Investment category Pshav- Algeti System PMU Total % of KfW % of APA % of B'ficiaries % of Khevsuret Base share share share i Costs 1 1. Preparation / improvement of planning documents 92 71 0 0 163 3% 136 83% 27 17% 0 0% 2 2a. Installation / improvement of administration and protection infrastructure 397 320 0 0 717 15% 717 100% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2b. Installation / improvement of PA visitor services infrastructure 484 103 0 0 587 12% 587 100% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3. Equipment of park administration and other relevant actors 262 170 0 0 432 9% 432 100% 0 0% 0 0% 5 4. Investments in the socio-economic development of the support zones 704 352 0 0 1,056 22% 960 91% 0 0% 96 9% 6 5. Public relations and similar work 23 21 0 0 44 1% 43 98% 1 2% 0 0% 7 6. Capacity building for APA staff/ improvement of planning systems and procedures 3 0 44 0 47 1% 45 96% 2 4% 0 0% 8 7. Programme management including running costs 441 131 0 665 1,237 26% 619 50% 618 50% 0 0% 9 Contingency 0 0 461 0 461 10% 461 100% 0 0% 0 0% Total 2,406 1,168 505 665 4,744 100% 4,000 84% 648 14% 96 2% including: FC Consultant 36 29 22 544 631 13% source of funds: KfW 1,886 992 502 619 4,000 84% APA 456 144 2 46 648 14% Beneficiaries 64 32 0 0 96 2% 2,406 1,168 504 665 4,744 100%

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 8, page1

Annex 8: Implementation schedule

Phase 1 (year 1-4): All costs in Euro to GEL exchange rate = 2.48 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Investment Category Euro GEL % of Euro GEL % of Euro GEL % of Euro GEL % of Euro GEL % of total total total total total 1. Preparation / improvement of planning documents 138 343 100% 46 115 34% 53 132 38% 39 96 28% 0 0 0% 2a. Installation / improvement of administration and protection infrastructure 615 1,525 100% 0 0 0% 145 360 24% 348 862 57% 122 304 20% 2b. Installation / improvement of PA visitor services infrastructure 558 1,384 100% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 229 568 41% 329 816 59% 3. Equipment of park administration and other relevant actors 288 714 100% 10 25 3% 141 348 49% 123 304 43% 15 37 5% 4. Investments in the socio-economic development of the support zones 1,056 2,619 100% 264 655 25% 264 655 25% 264 655 25% 264 655 25% 5. Public relations and similar work 46 115 100% 0 0 0% 1 2 2% 23 57 49% 22 55 48% 6. Capacity building for APA staff/ improvement of planning systems and procedures 93 229 100% 39 97 42% 53 132 58% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 7. Programme management including running costs 1,195 2,964 100% 310 768 26% 261 647 22% 306 759 26% 319 791 27% Contingency 399 989 100% 100 247 25% 100 247 25% 100 247 25% 100 247 25% Grand Total 4,388 10,881 100% 769 1,907 18% 1,018 2,523 23% 1,430 3,546 33% 1,172 2,906 27%

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 9, page1

Annex 9: Organisation diagram of PEA and PIA

1. PEA – Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources

2. PIA – Agency of Protected Areas

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 9, page2

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 10, page 1

Annex 10: List of functions and tasks of the proposed PMU

Definition and composition of the PMU The PMU would be established by the implementation consultant to implement the Programme on behalf of the APA. The PMU would be staffed by five permanent national personnel: PMU Coordinator (full time), Administrator/ Translator (full time), Socio-Economic Programme Man- ager (75%), Procurement Manager (50%) and Book Keeper / Accountant (50%). In addition, 12 person months have been included in the cost estimation for unallocated expert needs that might occur in the course of the programme. The PMU would be advised by a permanent but part time international Chief Technical Advisor (included in the cost and financing plan with 18 person months on the basis of 30 active working days per calendar month. Note: With reference to the Javakheti project the APA appraised a higher demand of the work input of the accountant and procurement specialist and therefore suggests decreasing the CTA time to 15 months. A final agreement shall be achieved in the bilateral negotiations between the MoEPNR/APA and KfW and specified in the Separate Agreement.

Functions The proposed PMU would have the following functions: 1. Manages programme implementation on behalf of the Agency for Protected Areas under the direction and supervision of the consulting company which establishes it. 2. Organises and leads the process of selecting measures to be financed by the programme including the elaboration of selection criteria and appraisal of possible measures. 3. Arranges the procurement of goods, works and services financed from the disposition fund. 4. Supervises the implementation of measures, ensuring that goods, works and services which it procures are delivered in accordance with contract specifications.

Tasks The proposed PMU would have the following tasks:

Programme management cycle The programme cycle governing the identification, appraisal, selection, implementation, acceptance and handover of investments is described in Annex 12. The specific tasks of the PMU would be: 1. Elaborate the Programme Operational Manual, which specifies rules and procedures governing all aspects of programme implementation. 2. Elaborate procedures including criteria for selecting measures to be financed from the disposition fund and agree the procedures with the APA and KfW. 3. Prepare a first project implementation plan (PIP) that specifies all of the measures in which the programme will invest, with the exception of tourism development measures and measures in the socio-economic development sub-programmes (which will be

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 10, page 2

specified later following completion of the tourism development strategies and socio- economic surveys for the selected PAs and the elaboration of the socio-economic sub- programmes). Agree the PIP with the APA and KfW. 4. Upon the APA’s and KfW’s agreement to the PIP, prepare a procurement plan that specifies the packages of goods, work and services to be procured and the procurement procedure to be used for each measure. 5. Following completion of the tourism development strategies and socio-economic surveys in the selected PAs, arrange for the elaboration of socio-economic sub- programmes including the amounts to be allocated to each “support zone”, subdivision of the amounts according to purpose (e.g. improvement of tourism services, improvement of community conditions) and mechanism (e.g. competitive grant scheme, identification by the PMU in collaboration with the communities). 6. Following completion of the tourism development strategies, specify the investments to made to improve the selected PA’s tourism infrastructure and services in and around the PAs, using the procedures and criteria elaborated in task 1 above. 7. Following the APA’s and KfW’s agreement to the proposed investments to improve the selected PA’s tourism infrastructure and services in and around the PAs, incorporate the investments into the PIP and procurement plan. 8. At six monthly intervals, review the PIP and procurement plan and provide a report to the APA and KfW with recommendations for any changes which the PMU considers to be necessary. The report will form part of the monthly report which the PMU will submit to the APA and KfW six months after agreement to the first PIP and of every sixth monthly report thereafter. The PMU should review the PIP and procurement plan at more frequent intervals if changes in the programme’s operating environment requires it. 9. Prepare a plan to monitor impacts at the Results Area and Objective level of the programme logframe. The plan should provide for monitoring by the PMU and APA against those indicators in the logical framework which can be assessed during programme implementation and for monitoring by the APA against those indicators which can be assessed only ex-post. The results of monitoring carried out during programme implementation should be included in the report documenting the results of the 6-monthly reviews and proposals to revise the project implementation plan and procurement plan.

Procurement 1. Prepare purchase and tender documents in accordance with the procurement rules of the programme and agree them with the APA and KfW as required by the procurement rules. 2. Arrange for the announcement of tenders, issue tender documentation, and receive pre- qualification proposals and proposals. 3. Evaluate bids and award contracts in accordance with the procurement rules of the programme, obtaining the APA’s agreement and KfW’s no objection as required by the procurement rules.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 10, page 3

Financial Management 1. Administer the disposition fund on behalf of the MoEPNR.

Supervision over the implementation of measures 1. Supervise the implementation of works and services and ensure that they are delivered in accordance with contract specifications.

Acceptance and handover of completed measures 1. Upon completion of measures and after inspection of the good, works or services, prepare and sign an acceptance act and submit it to the Programme Director for signature by the corresponding representative of the APA.

Programme reporting 1. Prepare and submit monthly activity reports and bi-annual technical and financial progress reports to the APA and KfW.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 10, page 4

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 11, page1

Annex 11: Diagram of the implementation structure of the programme

Notes: 1. CNF = Caucasus Nature Fund; TJS = Transboundary Joint Secretariat 2. Relationships between organisations and responsibilities for programme investment decisions and management of programme funds are shown using grey, straight lines. Flows of money from KfW to the FC Consultant, the Programme Disposition Fund and the TJS are shown using green lines. Flows of money from the Programme Disposition Fund, TJS and CNF are shown using red lines. For the purposes of the diagram it is assumed that the CNF will contribute to the running costs of the selected PAs in due course. 3. A1 = Financing Agreement and Separate Agreement, signed by the MoEPNR under dele- gated authority from the Government of Georgia on behalf of Georgia. A2 = Framework Agree- ment between the MoEPNR and CNF. A3 = consulting contract between KfW and the TJS implementation consultant. A4 = consulting contract between the Programme implementation consultant the MoEPNR/APA, signed on behalf of the MoEPNR/APA by KfW under an agency contract.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 11, page2

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 12, page1

Annex 12: Project cycles for investment measures to be financed by the programme

Programme management cycle for measures inside the PAs

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 12, page2

Programme management cycle for socio-economic development measures

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 13, page 1

Annex 13: Tabular presentation of the programme

Key prob- Georgia’s PA sector lacks core capacity in management and business planning lem (systems, number and knowledge and skills of staff assigned to planning and monitoring). Many PAs lack the infrastructure and equipment which they need to function effectively. Underlying these problems is a lack of financing. Tourism offers opportunities to generate income to the PA network and adjacent communities but the supply of services is less than demand in terms of quality and quantity. The APA and adjacent communities do not have access to affordable financing to improve the services.

Thematic The thematic focus has two aspects: focus • Planning / Management, in particular: management planning policies and procedures (especially regarding support zone in policy and practice); participation of surrounding communities in PA planning and management. Fi- nancial planning is included (policies and procedures for developing sustainable financing plans for the system and individual PAs). • PA and community enhancement through tourism development. In- dicative measures include investments in tourism strategies, infrastructure and marketing that will benefit the PA system, the selected PAs, and the population in the surroundings of the PAs. Investments should include im- provements to social infrastructure and the environment of communities that will give visitors a better experience and benefit the communities. Overall goal Biodiversity in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia is maintained, without negatively affecting the income situation/ the livelihoods of the rural population on a long term.

Objective To improve natural resources and protected areas management in Georgia at system level and in selected areas, while at the same time improving the socio- economic situation of the adjacent communities.

Expected 1. Planning - the selected PAs have available all necessary planning docu- results ments for their development and the promotion of the adjacent communities. 2. PA establishment - the selected PAs are recognized and have a functional protected area management. 3. Socio-economic development of adjacent communities - the communities adjacent to the selected PAs benefit from investment in their socio- economic development 4. Sector modernisation - the APA’s and the selected PAs’ systems are strengthened in particular topics of their reform processes according to international standards. 5. Financial sustainability - the sustainable financing of the PA network is supported.

Programme Kazbegi National Park and surrounding territories; Kintrishi PAs and surrounding area territories; Algeti National Park and surrounding territories; Pshav-Khevsureti

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 13, page 2

planned protected areas and surrounding territories; system level measures that will benefit the entire network of PAs.

Investment 1. Preparation / improvement of planning documents. categories 2a. Installation / improvement of administration and protection infrastructure. 2b. Installation / improvement of PA visitor services infrastructure. 3. Equipment of park administration and other relevant actors. 4. Investments in the socio-economic development of the support zones. 5. Public relations and similar work. 6. Capacity building for APA staff/ improvement of planning systems and procedures 7. Programme management including running costs.

Total costs Phase 1 (years 1 – 4): Total cost 4,388,000 Euro financed by: KfW 4,000,000; and financ- APA 292,000; Beneficiaries 96,000. ing invest- Phase 2 (years 5 – 7): Total cost 4,744,000 Euro financed by: KfW 4,000,000; ments APA 648,000; Beneficiaries 96,000.

Executing Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia agency (MoEPNR)

Implement- Agency for Protected Areas (APA) ing agency

Risks and Assumption Risk Impact Mitigation strategies risk mitiga- Environmental policy L Protection status of The programme is tion meas- is not weakened by PAs weakened as a designed to support ures crises and sudden result of greater em- the APA in its efforts changes in political phasis on economic to generate more direction. development. income and invest more funds in improvement of all programmes / activities including protection programme.

The donor commu- M Reduced project The CNF exists to nity does not lose financing to the PA co-finance the run- interest in conserva- sector make it im- ning costs of PAs. tion issues. possible for the MEPNR/APA to maintain and build on the impacts of the programme.

Results areas to project objective:

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 13, page 3

Assumption Risk Impact Mitigation strategies

Bureaucratic struc- M The management The programme will tures, unclear divi- plans and pro- work directly with the sion of competences grammes to support communities and and weak local par- the socio-economic households and at ticipation structures development of the same time in- do not prevent suffi- communities adja- volve the municipali- cient participation of cent to the selected ties as implementa- the population PAs will not take tion partners for cer- sufficient account of tain of the pro- the needs and gramme measures. wishes of the local population

Acceptance of PAs M Creation and mod- The programmes will is not undermined by ernization of new work closely with the fundamental, histori- PAs will be delayed communities during cally conditioned and at worst may be planning and estab- mistrust of the adja- cancelled. The PA lishment of the PAs. cent communities administrations efforts to protected the PAs from illegal and unsustainable use will be undermined

The capacity of the M The impacts of the None available to the selected PAs to im- programme on plan- programme. plement the im- ning and manage- proved planning and ment will be below management sys- expectations. tems and procedures is not undermined by frequent staff changes

Activities:

Assumption Risk Impact Mitigation strategies

Adjacent communi- L Surveys and man- The programme ties willing to partici- agement plans design provides for pate in land use and (which will use the independent facilita- socio-economic sur- information from the tion of surveys. veys surveys) will not reflect local people’s needs and wishes.

Adjacent communi- Ka - H Creation of new The programme ties and other inter- PK - H PAs and extensions design includes local ested parties are to existing PAs will consultation work-

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 13, page 4

willing to negotiate Al - L be delayed and at shops and inde- and compromise worst may be can- pendent facilitation. over new / revised celled due to lack of PA boundaries agreement on boundaries

Government and Ka - H Creation of new The MoEPNR and Parliament will agree PK - H PAs and extensions APA will use their to the proposed Al - L to existing PAs will influence to win sup- boundaries of new be delayed, the port for the new PAs PAs and extensions APAs proposals and boundary exten- to existing PAs may have to modi- sions. Also, the pro- fied, and at worst gramme has the the proposals will flexibility to change fail completely the target areas.

APA able to fill posi- Ka - H The impacts of the Training provided by tions in PAs sup- Ki - M programme on the programme be ported by the pro- PK - H management effec- designed to give gramme with quali- Al - M tiveness will be unqualified staff the fied staff reduced and im- knowledge and skills pacts will not be they need. sustained

Appropriate staff are M The impacts of the Staff will be nomi- nominated for train- programme on nated on the basis of ing activities management effec- criteria prepared for tiveness will be each training meas- reduced and im- ure. pacts will not be sustained

Local self-governing Ka - H The programmes The PMU will coop- bodies provide an Ki - L will not be able to erate closely with operating environ- PK - L select and imple- local self-governing ment favourable for Al - L ment the most ap- bodies during the effective implemen- propriate and cost- design and imple- tation of the socio- effective measures mentation of the economic develop- socio-economic de- ment programmes velopment programmes.

Local self-governing Ka - H The strategies will The tourism strategy bodies, Tourism Ki - L not take full and development meas- Development PK - H proper account of ure includes work- Agency and Geor- Al - L the strengths and shops in each se- gian Tourism Asso- weaknesses and lected PA which will ciation collaborate opportunities and be facilitate by an constructively with threats in the target independent, Geor- the APA and the areas. Opportuni- gian tourism expert. PMU in the elabora- ties for cost- tion of the strategies effective invest-

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 13, page 5

ments and for partnership funding may be missed

The most appropri- L The impacts of the Staff will be nomi- ate staff are nomi- programme on nated on the basis of nated for the study management effec- criteria agreed be- visits tiveness will be tween the PMU and reduced and im- APA.. pacts will not be sustained

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 13, page 6

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 14, page1

Annex 14: List of persons and institutions contacted

Surname First name Organisation Position Form of contact Abuladze Zeinap Manglisi Munici- Gamgebeli Meeting pality Aptsiauri Gocha Algeti PA Admini- Head of Protec- Meeting stration tion Department and Acting Di- rector Arabuli Georgi Dusheti Munici- Rtsmunebuli of Meeting pality Barisakho Asatashvili Vakhtang GNTA Deputy Chair- Meeting and man phone call Aspindzelashvili Keti Caucasus Travel Product Devel- meeting and opment man- phone call ager/tour operator Barbakadze Tea APA Head of Plan- Meetings and ning Division email corre- spondence Chincharauli Nino Dusheti Munici- Rtsmunebuli of Meeting pality Shatili Diasamidze Teimuraz Head of Tourism Department Flasche Frank GTZ Sustainable Director Meeting Management of Biodiversity – South Caucasus Programme Gogitidze Mamuka Kintrishi PA Ad- Head of the Meeting ministration visitor service Gokhelashvili Ramaz IUCN South Cau- Director Meeting casus Programme Office Goradze Irakli Gov. of Aut. Rep. Director of In- Meeting of Adjara ternational Af- fairs Department Gusharashvili Nugzar Dusheti Munici- Rtsmunebuli of Meeting pality Pshavi Haase Günther KfW Technical Advi- Meetings sor Janashvili Lasha Dusheti Munici- Gamgebeli Meeting pality

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 14, page2

Jeradze ? Kobuleti Munici- Gamgebeli Meeting pality Kasrashvili Katy ATA /Agency of Deputy Chair- Meeting Tourism in Adjara man Kavelidze Shota Algeti PA Admini- Ranger Meeting stration Khinikidze Amiran Kintrishi PA Ad- Director Meeting ministration Khopmeriki David Mtirala PA Ad- Head of Admini- Meeting ministration stration Kilian Carsten KfW, South Cau- Director Meeting casus Office Kvachantiradze Nata GTA President email corre- spondence and phone call Ligokeli Shorena Imeda’s Guest- Owner Meeting house in Shatili Malakmadze Inga Calipso Travel Tour Operator Meeting Malazonia Nika WWF Caucasus Coordinator, Email and tele- Javakheti Na- phone tional Park Pro- ject Manage- ment Unit Manvelidze Zurab WWF Adjara Meeting Mekvevrishvili Soso GTA Project Coordi- phone call nator Moistsrapashvili Lasha APA Deputy Chair- Meetings man Morrison David Caucasus Nature Chief Executive Phone call Fund Director Mrevlishvili Mariam APA Deputy Chair- Meetings and man email corre- spondence Pakhuridze Kristina ATA /Agency of Meeting Tourism in Adjara Sanadiradze Giorgi WWF Caucasus Director Email corre- spondence Shonvadze Giorgi APA Chairman Meeting Shotadze Mariam UNDP Georgia Environment Meeting Office Programme Manger Shubatidze Ana UNDP/GEF Cata- Project Manager Meeting lyzing Financial Sustainability of

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 14, page3

Georgia’s Pro- tected Areas Pro- ject Tevzadze Lali APA Head of Devel- Meetings opment Division and former Country Coordi- nator of the TJS Tsiklauri Mzia Local guesthouse Host /owner Meeting in Shatili Tsitskishvili Levan KfW, South Cau- Meetings casus Office Udzilaur Tariel Dusheti Munici- rtsmunebuli of Meeting pality Magaroskari Weitzel Andreas KfW Meetings, phone and email corre- spondence Zazanashvili Nugzar WWF Caucasus Conservation Email corre- Director spondence

In addition to above persons, meetings were held with members of the following communities during the site visits: • Didvake village, Kintrishi PAs • Shatili, Pshav-Khevsureti planned PAs • Zemo Shatili, Pshav-Khevsureti planned PAs • Gudani, Pshav-Khevsureti planned PAs • Ardoty, Pshav-Khevsureti planned PAs

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 14, page4

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 15, page1

Annex 15: List of literature and documents with comments

Agency of Protected Areas of Georgia. 2009. National Protected Areas System Development Strategy and Action Plan for Georgia. IUCN. Tbilisi. Sets out objectives and actions for the expansion and improved management of Geor- gia’s PA network. Has replaced the sections of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan related to PAs for all practical purposes, though it has not been formally approved. America – Georgia Business Council and SW Associates. 2008. National Tourism Development and Investment Strategy for the Republic of Georgia. Sets out a strategy for tourism development based around the concept of “The Geor- gian Way”: a network of destination “hubs” and “spokes” connected to the main road running from Batumi in the west to Sighnakhi in the east. BMZ (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2005. The Cau- casus Initiative: Encouraging understanding. BMZ. Bonn. Describes the goals of German Development Cooperation’s Caucasus Initiative and its six themes, one of which - conserving biodiversity – is the policy basis for KfW’s Ecore- gional Nature Protection Programme. Deutsche Forstservice GmbH / AGEG Consultants eG. 2010. Feasibility Study for the Ecore- gional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project. Unpublished report prepared for KfW and the Georgia Agency for Protected Areas. Presents the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study for the proposed Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve. Ervin, J. 2003. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF. Gland, Switzerland.

Sets out the methodology which was used in the management effectiveness assessment of Georgia’s protected areas network in 2008 (Kakabadze and Hayman, 2009). European Commission. 2006. EU-Georgia European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Action Plan. 2006. The EU-Georgia Action Plan is a political document laying out the strategic objectives of the cooperation between Georgia and the EU. It covers a timeframe of five years. It is designed to fulfil the provisions of EU-Georgia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, build ties in new areas of cooperation and encourage and support Georgia's objective of further integration into European economic and social structures. European Commission. 2007. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, Georgia, Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 Provides for EC assistance for the first four years of the strategy focused on four priority areas: - Priority Area 1: Support for democratic development, the rule of law and governance - Priority Area 2: Support for economic development and ENP AP implementation - Priority Area 3: Support for poverty reduction and social reforms - Priority Area 4: Support for peaceful settlement of Georgia's internal conflicts.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 15, page2

European Commission. 2010. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument: Georgia National Indicative Programme 2011-2013. Provides for EC assistance for the final three years of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, Georgia country strategy. Programmes assistance using the same priority areas as in the programme for 2007-2010 (European Commission, 2007). Government of Georgia. 2005. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – Georgia. The document sets out the Government of Georgia’s strategy and action plan for conserving biodiversity. Includes objectives and actions for Georgia’s protected areas network. Due to be replaced by a new national biodiversity strategy and action plan which was in preparation at the time of writing the study report. The objectives and actions for the PA network have been superseded by the National Protected Areas System Devel- opment Strategy and Action Plan for Georgia, though it has not been formally adopted. Government of Georgia. 2005. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Sets out the government’s strategy for conserving Georgia’s biodiversity together with actions for the period 2005 – 2010. Government of Georgia. 2010. State Strategy for Regional Development of Georgia for 2010- 2017. Sets out the government’s regional development strategy. Includes statements about the relationship between protected areas and regional development. Hayman, Alicia. 2008. Protected Areas System Capacity Development Action Plan for Georgia. Unpublished report prepared for WWF Caucasus in the framework of the “Protected Ar- eas for a Living Planet – Caucasus Ecoregion” project financed by the MAVA Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature. A capacity development plan elaborated on the basis of a capacity needs assessment carried out in the framework of the same project (Kobakhidze Hayman. 2009) in a work- shop conducted with staff of the Agency of Protected Areas. IUCN. 2009. Improved and Coherent Implementation of Conventions Relevant to Protected Areas in Georgia. Guidelines for the effective and coherent implementation of MEAs through national legislation, policy and programmes. IUCN Programme Office for the Southern Caucasus. Tbilisi. Sets out guidelines for implementing policies and actions arising from international agreements relevant to PAs and to which Georgia is party. Kakabadze, Ekaterine and Alicia Hayman. 2009. Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Georgia. Unpublished report prepared for WWF Caucasus in the framework of the “Protected Areas for a Living Planet – Caucasus Ecoregion” project financed by the MAVA Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature. Presents the results of the assessment of management effectiveness which are sum- marised in the main part of the study report. Kobakhidze, Natia and Alicia Hayman. 2009. Capacity Needs Assessment for Protected Areas System in Georgia. Unpublished report prepared for WWF Caucasus in the framework of the “Protected Areas for a Living Planet – Caucasus Ecoregion” project financed by the MAVA Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature.

GEO - EP III Extension Study Final Report Annex 15, page3

The report presents an assessment of the legal framework for PA management and of the strengths and weaknesses of the institutional framework. The assessment is very general. It provides a useful overview of the framework and some of its shortcomings but does not go into detail on the APA’s capacity. Kuchua, Nina and George Winter. 2010. System of Protected Areas in Georgia: Analysis and Recommendations. GTZ Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus Programme. Tbilisi. Presents the findings of an analysis of legislation governing the establishment and management of protected area in Georgia in comparison with EU legislation and the legislation of a number of states. Mayer, Michael and Michael Edwards. 2007. Protected Areas Legislation Assessment: Recom- mendations for legal amendments. Unpublished report prepared for the US Department of the Interior’s International Technical Assistance Programme – Georgia project. An analysis of legislation governing the establishment and management of protected areas in Georgia from a North American perspective. Parliament of Georgia. 2006. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia On “Main Directions of State Policy in the Power Sector of Georgia”. Parliament of Georgia. Tbilisi

Sets out the Parliament’s vision for energy generation, which emphasises hydro-power generation. UNDP. 2009a. Catalyzing Financial Sustainability of Georgia’s Protected Areas. Project Docu- ment. UNDP. New York.

Describes the objectives, planned results and activities of a GEF-funded project which is complementary to KfW’s Ecoregional Programme in many respects. UNDP. 2009b. Ensuring Sufficiency and Predictability of Revenues for Georgia’s Protected Areas System. Project Document. UNDP. New York.

Describes the objectives, planned results and activities of a GEF-funded project which will put around 900,000 USD into a sinking fund that will contribute to financing the running costs of a number of Georgia’s PAs. The sinking fund will be administered by the Caucasus Nature Fund. Williams, L., Zazanashvili, N., Sanadiradze, G., and Kandaurov, A. (Editors). 2006. An Ecore- gional Conservation Plan for the Caucasus (2nd edition). WWF Caucasus Programme Office. Tbilisi. An action plan for conserving the biodiversity of the Caucasus Ecoregion. Structured around the main biomes – mountains, forests, fresh water and marine – the ECPC identifies priority conservation areas and corridors, areas in which protected areas need to be developed, species conservation priorities, and cross cutting actions including institutional development.