DOCSLIB.ORG

Capacity Assessment Report with Recommendation For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capacity Assessment Report with Recommendation For List of abbreviations B&H Bosnia and Herzegovina CA Capacity Assessment CB Capacity Building CD Capacity Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LGU Local Governmental Unit MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MSDT Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism MTMA Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs MNE Montenegro MU Management unit NEPA Nature and Environmental Protection Agency NGO Non Governmental Organization NPD National Park “Durmitor” NPS National Park “Sutjeska” PAs Protected Areas PENP Public Enterprise “National parks of Montenegro” ANNEXES ANNEX I QUESTIONNAIRE 2 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.OBJECTIVE AND PLANNED RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 4. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Overview of institutions ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1. Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H)................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.1.1. Federation of B&H ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 4.2. Montenegro ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 4.2.2. Local self-governments ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.2. NGOs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3. The private sector in the management of protected areas (B&H and MNE ) .......................................................................... 18 5.THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL _ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED ANSWERS ........................................................................................... 18 5.1. PE NATIONAL PARKS OF MONTENEGRO .................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.1. NP DURMITOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.2. NATURE PARK PIVA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3. NP „SUTJESKA“ .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.4. NP „BLIDINJE“ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 6. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 32 6.1. Bosnia and Herzegovina ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 6.1.1. Posušje..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 6.1.2. Kalinovik................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 6.1.3. Mostar ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 6.1.4. Jablanica.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.5. Tomislavgrad ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 6.2. Montenegro ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 6.2.1.6.2.3. PlužineMojkovac................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 6.2.2.6.2.4. Žabljak Pljevlja ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 7. ANALYSIS OF CAPACITIES FOR PAS MANAGEMENT _INDIVIDUAL LEVEL .................................................................................... 36 7.1. Existing capacity ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 7.2. Future capacity .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 8. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PA INSTITUTIONS ......................................................................................................... 39 9. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 40 9.1. CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40 9.2. IDENTIFYING CAPACITY GAPS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 9.3. Gender Composition ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 10. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 11. MECHANISM FOR STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................... 52 12. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING TECHNICAL AND HUMAN CAPACITIES FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 13. Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 14. ANNEX I ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nature Protection in the Legislative Framework in Montenegro
    13th COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEETING OF THE WORKSHOPS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE CONVENTION “Territories of the future, landscape identification and assessment: an exercise in democracy” Nature Protection in the legislative framework in Montenegro Marina Spahic, Directorate of Nature Protection General Directorate for Environmental Protection and Climate Change Legislation • The activity of nature protection in Montenegro is based on the : Law on Nature Protection ("Official Gazette of Montenegro", 51/08) Law on National Parks ("Official Gazette of Montenegro", 56/09). Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Nature Protection was adopted by the Government on session held on 28 June 2012, which is now in the parliamentary procedure. • Draft Law on National Parks • Institutional framework • Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism • Environmental Protection Agency • Public Enterprise National Parks of Montenegro Clasification of protected areas • Special nature reserves • National Parks • Regional Parks⁄Parks of nature • Monuments of nature • Protected habitat • Landscapes of special natural characteristics (article 43) Declaration • Study of protection for the area • Parliament of Montenegro • Goverment of Montenegro • Local goverments • Register of Protected Areas Protected areas National parks – 7,77 % -Skadar lake-40.000 ha -Lovcen-6.400 ha -Durmitor-33.895 ha -Biogradska Gora- 5.400 ha -Prokletije-16.038 ha Monuments of Nature-0.987% Nature reserves- 0.047% Landscapes of special natural characteristic0.025% Territories
    [Show full text]
  • National Reviews 1998 Bosnia and Herzegovina Executive
    DANUBE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME NATIONAL REVIEWS 1998 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry in cooperation with the Programme Coordination Unit UNDP/GEF Assistance DANUBE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME NATIONAL REVIEWS 1998 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry in cooperation with the Programme Coordination Unit UNDP/GEF Assistance Preface The National Reviews were designed to produce basic data and information for the elaboration of the Pollution Reduction Programme (PRP), the Transboundary Analysis and the revision of the Strategic Action Plan of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Particular attention was also given to collect data and information for specific purposes concerning the development of the Danube Water Quality Model, the identification and evaluation of hot spots, the analysis of social and economic factors, the preparation of an investment portfolio and the development of financing mechanisms for the implementation of the ICPDR Action Plan. For the elaboration of the National Reviews, a team of national experts was recruited in each of the participating countries for a period of one to four months covering the following positions: Socio-economist with knowledge in population studies, Financial expert (preferably from the Ministry of Finance), Water Quality Data expert/information specialist, Water Engineering expert with knowledge in project development. Each of the experts had to organize his or her work under the supervision of the respective Country Programme Coordinator and with the guidance of a team of International Consultants. The tasks were laid out in specific Terms of Reference. At a Regional Workshop in Budapest from 27 to 29 January 1998, the national teams and the group of international consultants discussed in detail the methodological approach and the content of the National Reviews to assure coherence of results.
    [Show full text]
  • Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the International
    Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia EF.DEL/10/07/Corr.1 to the International Organizations in Vienna 23 January 2007 ENGLISH only Statement made by Mr. Zdravko KRMEK, State Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (Session IV of the 15th OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum, Vienna, 23 January 2007) Mr. Chairman, in the framework of our today's discussion I would like to stress the importance of a consultation between neighbouring states and at the regional level when combating soil degradation in the aim to avoid social problems linked to sustainable development. The Republic of Croatia, as probably a number of other states who have been part of former federations or composite states, has interesting experience in the field: rivers or river basins of internal nature are now of international character. This requires a number of interstate agreements on integral water management. One of the best examples for good cooperation on the regional level is without any doubt the Framework Agreement in Sava River Basin signed in 2003 by four countries of the Former Yugoslav Federation: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia with the participation of international partners including the Stability Pact and the OSCE. This initiative is today better known as Sava River Initiative and the first experience shows that this is a very good basis for further cooperation between these four countries. With the Republic of Slovenia there is also the Agreement of Integral Water Management, signed in 1997, as well as with Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996. With the Republic of Montenegro a preparation of such an agreement is in final phase, as well as with the Republic of Serbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Drina River Basin Nexus Assessment - Phase II National Consultation Meeting KTH – Royal Institute of Technology: Emir Fejzić Youssef Almulla Dr
    Drina River Basin nexus assessment - Phase II National Consultation meeting KTH – Royal Institute of Technology: Emir Fejzić Youssef Almulla Dr. Vignesh Sridharan Dr. Francesco Gardumi 28/12/2020 National Consultation meeting 1 Agenda Key questions Scenarios Approach The river basin Preliminary results Hydro power plant cascade 28/12/2020 National Consultation meeting 2 Key questions to be addressed in Phase II • What role can renewables (hydro and non-hydro) in the Drina basin play in achieving the UNFCCC Nationally Determined Contributions? • What benefits does an increased share of non-hydro RES bring in terms of GHG emissions reduction and reduced stress on hydro power especially considering the need for flood containment measures. o To what extent may hydro power plants provide environmental services (e.g. environmental flows and flood control), and what impact does that have on their potential generation? • What are the effects of climate induced variability on hydropower generation? • What role could non-hydro RES play if the proposed plans for HPP development in the DRB are executed? • What effects can the Emission Trading Scheme, as part of the EU integration pathway, have on hydro and non-hydro RES development in the riparian countries? • In which way can hydro and non-hydro RES be impacted by the implementation of energy efficiency measures (demand- and supply-side)? 28/12/2020 National Consultation meeting 3 Scenarios proposed in Phase II • Reference scenario o Current policies, including INDC • Carbon pricing scenario o Effects
    [Show full text]
  • IN BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA June 2008
    RESULTS FROM THE EU BIODIVERSITY STANDARDS SCIENTIFIC COORDINATION GROUP (HD WG) IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA June 2008 RESULTS FROM THE EU BIODIVERSITY STANDARDS SCIENTIFIC COORDINATION GROUP (HD WG) IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 30th June 2008 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON BIH.................................................................. 5 3 IDENTIFIED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ............................................................. 8 3-a Relevant institutions.......................................................................................................................................8 3-b Experts.............................................................................................................................................................9 3-c Relevant scientific publications ...................................................................................................................10 3-c-i) Birds...........................................................................................................................................................10 3-c-ii) Fish ........................................................................................................................................................12 3-c-iii) Mammals ...............................................................................................................................................12 3-c-iv)
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    Ministry of Tourism and Environment SUSTAINABLE TOURISM INDICATORS AND DESTINATION MANAGEMENT Regional Workshop Kolašin, Montenegro, 25-27 April 2007 FINAL REPORT CONTENTS Foreword by Mr. Predrag Nenezic, Minister of Tourism and Environment of Montenegro 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 3 2 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM IN MONTENEGRO AND THE BJELASICA AND KOMOVI REGION ........................................................................................... 5 3 WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS AND VISITS...................................................... 11 4 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ........................................................................ 17 5 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM IN BJELASICA AND KOMOVI.............................................................. 21 6 MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT PROCESSES ........................................... 41 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKSHOP............ 43 8 BASELINE INDICATORS FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHERN MOUNTAIN REGION OF MONTENEGRO ...................................... 45 ANNEX A: FORMS............................................................................................................ 49 Form 1 - Field visit evaluation sheet ............................................................................. 49 Form 2 - Situation analysis worksheet .......................................................................... 51 Form 3 - Sustainability
    [Show full text]
  • Local Memory Practices of the Memorial Complex at Mrakovica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Manuela BRENNER The Construction, De- and Reconstruction of History and Memory: Local Memory Practices of the Memorial Complex at Mrakovica, Bosnia and Herzegovina THE CONSTRUCTION, DE- AND RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORY AND MEMORY: LOCAL MEMORY PRACTICES OF THE MEMORIAL COMPLEX AT MRAKOVICA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Manuela BRENNER University of Regensburg UDK: 069(497.6 Mrakovica):94(4)“1941/1945“ 069(497.6 Mrakovica:355(497.6)“1992/1995“ Prethodno priopćenje Primljeno: 07.10.2013. Prihvaćeno: 05.01.2014. This paper examines the memory practices of the memorial complex at Mrakovica at the Kozara National Park in the Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The original concept of the memorial site, founded in 1972, was to keep the Kozara-epos alive. The erected monument, the memorial wall and the museum were built to remember one of the biggest battles during the Second World War on Yugoslav soil during which more than ten thousand Partisan fighters and civilians lost their lives. During the communist era the memorial site fit into the official memory frame: the high number of casualties, especially civilians, was put into the foreground and the Partisans in their struggle for liberation were glorified. The key component of the official narrative was the slogan brotherhood and unity. After the armed conflict in the 1990s, the site underwent several transformations. New memorial frames were set by nationalists; thus history and memory were thereby de- and reconstructed. The new narrative included not only victims of the Second World War but exclusively those victims belonging to the ethnic group of Serbs of the First World War and the conflict in 1992-95.
    [Show full text]
  • The Association of Cheese Producers in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    2013. Catalogue The Association of cheese producers in Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia in producers cheese of The Association 2013 Catalogue The Association of cheese producers in Bosnia and Herzegovina The preparation of this publication was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) through the Fostering Agricultural Markets Activity (FARMA) project. CONTENT Introduction About BiH cheese About BiH Cheese Producer Association About USAID/Sida FARMA Project Presentation of the Association Members 1. Agro Milk, Fojnica 2. ZZ Capra, Travnik 3. ZZ Livač, Laktaši 4. ZZ Eko Vlašić, Travnik 5. Milkos, Sarajevo 6. Puđa-Perković, Livno 7. Rama-Milch, Prozor/Rama 8. The Association of Producers of Sack Cheese, Nevesinje / Mostar 9. The Association „Gruda“, Ravno 10. Farm Zaruđe, Vareš 11. Svjetlana Miletić, Fojnica (independent producer) Summary Table Cheese from Bosnia and Herzegovina... Thanks to the unique climate and its specific environment, Bosnia and Herzegovina may be proud of something which much larger countries do not have – beautiful types of cheese. Clean rivers and streams, pearl–like mountain lakes and huge areas for pasture have always been appropriate for cattle breeding development and the cheese production has been present here since the old times. An important characteristic of the cheese is a climate: one must feel regional vegetation in cheese, herbs from certain region, and a domestic tradition of producing has to be respected. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it is a rare case anywhere, there are extraordinary conditions for top-quality cheeses. Apart from a big diversity of cheese on offer, most people from Bosnia and Herzegovina will agree with regard to the most famous ones: these are the Vlašić (Travnik) cheese, the Livno cheese, the Herzegovinian sack cheese and Trappist from the Banja Luka area.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District Is Based on Information Received from the ICPDR Contracting Parties by 10 November 2015
    / / / / / / / / / / / / / н ϊ ρ κ Y Flood Risk / / / / a v o Management Plan d l uj //// Crna o pб Gor M // C a //// / // Ro // a mân я / in ia //// ρu for the Danube River Basin District Бълѕѕ v o g e c r e H i a n nd //// Ös s schla terreic o ut h //// B e Č / D esk // // á r / / ep a // ub / lik k / a / s / /// t / a / Sl v / ov r / en / sk H / o / / / /// / M // agyar ija н ors n ϊ zág //// Slove ρ κ Y / / / / a v o d l o M / / / / я u ρ ѕ л ъ Б / / / / a i n â m o R / / / / a r o G a n agyarorsz r /// M ág //// C / S ko lov / s en / n ija / e //// / ov H Sl rva j // tska u // //// б ka Bosn Cp bli a i H //// pu ercegovina re ská / Če h /// rreic / Öste land /// ////// eutsch D Disclaimer This Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District is based on information received from the ICPDR Contracting Parties by 10 November 2015. Sources other than the competent authorities have been clearly identified in the Plan. A more detailed level of information is presented in the national Flood Risk Management Plans. Hence, the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District should be read and interpreted in conjunction with the national Flood Risk Management Plans. The data in this report has been dealt with, and is presented, to the best of our knowledge. Nevertheless inconsistencies cannot be ruled out.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping and Assessment Ecosystems and Their Services of Grassland and Forest in Montenegro (Project Title)
    ANNEX 5 TERMS OF REFERENCE Transfer of Czech Knowledge: Mapping and Assessment Ecosystems and their Services of Grassland and Forest in Montenegro (Project Title) Project Objectives: Czech Republic invested significant effort in quantifying what is the contribution of protected areas to national economy. During these processes undertaken by different institutions and organizations, several projects focused on mapping and assessing services provided by grassland and forests where implemented. These initiatives are contributing not only to disseminating the knowledge and understanding of value and importance of services provided by ecosystems but is directly contributing to global processes such as Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, The economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity etc). Taking in consideration that Montenegro is making first steps toward understanding and indorsing these initiatives and practice, through this project we would link these institutions with partner institutions from Montenegro, and establish linkages and partnerships that would be mutually beneficial. The main strength of the project would be focusing on learning by doing approach. Two pilot sites would be used as pilots for joint work of Czech and Montenegro experts in order to obtain detailed assessment of ecosystem services provided by forests and grasslands in these areas. Czech experience will be amended to fit Montenegro legal and development framework, and set of recommendations will be developed, based on experiences gained in PES schemes design in two pilot sites. Sites are predefined as area of Komovi and Piva Mountain massif. In these two areas UNDP CO Montenegro is working on establishment of two new protected areas (level of regional parks, category III as per IUCN categorization).
    [Show full text]
  • Javni Poziv Fmroi 2019 – Konačna Rang Lista Potencijalnih Korisnika Za Rekonstrukciju Stambenih Objekata - Općina Konjic
    JAVNI POZIV FMROI 2019 – KONAČNA RANG LISTA POTENCIJALNIH KORISNIKA ZA REKONSTRUKCIJU STAMBENIH OBJEKATA - OPĆINA KONJIC Adresa sanacije R. br. Prezime i ime Ukupno bodova Sadašnja adresa Ribari Glavatičevo Konjic 1. Faladžić (Bajro) Mujo 150 Ribari Glavatičevo Konjic Kašići Konjic 2. Kašić (Fazla) Vahidin 150 Kašići Konjic Ribari Glavatičevo Konjic 3. Ćišo (Ibro) Halil 140 Ribari Glavatičevo Konjic Kose Glavatičevo Konjic 4. Jazvin (Selim) Salko 140 Kose Glavatičevo Konjic Ribari Konjic 5. Ćišo (Salko) Salko 135 Branilaca Konjica Konjic Orahovica Konjic 6. Bubalo (Mehmed) Edin 130 Orahovica Konjic Vrbići Konjic 7. Azinović (Šćepo) Stoja 130 Vrbići Konjic Zabrđe Konjic 8. Čuljak (Luka) Vido 130 Zabrđe konjic Bijela Konjic 9. Andrić (Slavko) Mladenko 120 Ilićka 10/37 Brčko Distrikt Radešine 52b Konjic 10. Mijić (franjo) Luka 120 Radešine 52b Konjic Ljubuča 5 Konjic 11. Pačariz (Osman) Murat 120 Donje Selo Konjic Kašići Konjic 12. Kašić (Omer) Halil 110 Kašići Konjic Maršala Tita 5 konjic 13. Popović (Anđelko) Ruza 110 Maršala Tita 5 Konjic Orahovica Konjic 14. Petrović (Boško) Pero 100 Orahovica Konjic Kanjina Konjic 15. Azinović (Anka) Petar 100 Kanjina Konjic Boračko Jezero konjic 16. Mićević (Mitar) Milosava 100 Boračko jezero Konjic Napomena: Ukoliko se utvrdi da potencijalni korisnik sa Konačne rang liste ima minimum stambenih uslova, isti će biti isključen iz dalje procedure za dobijanje pomoći. KOMISIJA ZA ODABIR KORISNIKA Sarajevo, 10.06.2020.godine JAVNI POZIV FMROI 2019 – KONAČNA RANG LISTA POTENCIJALNIH KORISNIKA ZA REKONSTRUKCIJU STAMBENIH OBJEKATA OPĆINA ČAPLJINA Adresa sanacije R. br. Prezime i ime Ukupno bodova Sadašnja adresa Domanovići Čapljina 1. Šejtanić (Mujo) Suvad 230 Domanovići Čapljina Opličići Čapljina 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Reunifying Mostar: Opportunities for Progress
    REUNIFYING MOSTAR: OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRESS 19 April 2000 ICG Balkans Report N° 90 Sarajevo/Washington/Brussels, 19 April 2000 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................i I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 A. HDZ Obstruction...................................................................................................2 B. International Community Disarray..........................................................................3 II. BROKEN PROMISES: 1994-1999 .........................................................................4 A. The 1994 Geneva MOU .........................................................................................4 B. Towards Ethnic Apartheid......................................................................................4 C. EU Aid Reinforces Ethnic Apartheid ........................................................................6 D. Madrid and Dayton: defining the local administration of Mostar ................................7 E. Koschnick’s Decree and the Rome Agreement: EU Caves in to the HDZ.....................9 F. Mostar’s First Elections and the Myth of the Interim Statute ...................................12 G. The Liska Street Incident and Unified Police..........................................................18 H. No Progress, New Elections .................................................................................24 I. No progress,
    [Show full text]