FINAL 30 May 2008
UNDP EEG and GEF
Annual Performance Report (APR)
Project Implementation Review (PIR)
2008 OP 12
Reporting Period = 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008
1. Basic Project Data
Official Project Title: "Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of
Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece"
Project Summary (as in PIMS and Project Document)
This project's objective is to catalyse the adoption and implementation of ecosystem management
interventions in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR-Macedonia, and Greece that integrate
ecological, economic, and social goals with the aim of conserving globally significant biodiversity
and conserving and reducing pollution of the trans-boundary lakes and their contributing waters.
The health of the Prespa Basin ecosystem can only be conserved and maintained by changing
productive sector practices within the Prespa Basin. Although the Prime Ministers of Albania,
Greece, and FYR-Macedonia recently declared the Prespa Basin a symbolic trans-boundary
"Park," it is in fact very much of a productive landscape, where people live and work and impact
the ecosystem around them.
The project's strategy is to mainstream ecosystem management objectives and priorities into
productive sector practices and policies. The project is designed to strengthen capacity for
restoring ecosystem health and conserving biodiversity first at the national level in Albania and
FYR-Macedonian Prespa by piloting ecosystem-oriented approaches to spatial planning, water use
management, agriculture, forest and fishery management, and conservation and protected area
management.
Building on this strengthened national-level foundation in the Prespa Basin, the project is designed to
strengthen ongoing trans-boundary cooperation in resource management and conservation by empowering
the existing trans-boundary institution and piloting trans-boundary management and conservation activities.
Finally, the project will produce and secure funding for a Strategic Action Programme endorsed at the
highest levels of Government within the three littoral states.
Country/ies:
PIMS Number
1996
Atlas Project Number 00050102 (IEM)
Albania, FYR Macedonia, Greece
00051409 (NEX MK)
00053277 (NEX AL)
Project Type
FSP
x
MSP
EA
GEF Focal Area
Integrated Ecosystem Management
GEF Focal Area Strategic objective and
Catalyzing widespread adoption of comprehensive
Strategic Priority
ecosystem management interventions that integrate
Page 1 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
ecological, economic, and social goals to achieve
multiple and cross-cutting local, national, and global benefits
Biodiversity Priority #2 (BD-2): "Mainstreaming Biodiversity
in Productive Sectors"
International Waters Priority #2 (IW-2): "Expand global
coverage of foundational capacity building addressing the
two key program gaps and support for targeted learning."
GEF Operational Programme
Operational Program #12 (OP-12): Integrated Ecosystem
Management
Project timeframe:
Date of Entry into Work
05 March 2002
Planned Project Duration
60 months
Programme1
Approved: 30 January 2006
(CEO Endorsement)
Project Document
FYR Macedonia: 17 April 2006
Original Planned Closing
December
Signature Date
Albania: 25 September 2006
Date
2011
Date of First Disbursement 16 November 2006 (DEX)
Revised Planned2 Closing
15 June 2006 (MKD NEX)
Date
22 November 2006 (AL DEX)
Is this the Terminal
YES
NO
x
Date Operationally Closed
N/A
APR/PIR?
(if applicable)
Project Supervision:
Dates of Tripartite Project Review (TPR) Meetings during reporting
25 January 2008 (Albania)
period (if applicable)
Date of Project Steering Committee meetings during reporting period.
16 June 2007 (TB)
07 March 2008 (TB)
30 July 2007 (MKD)
26 December 2007 (MKD)
25 January 2008 (Albania)
Project Evaluation:
Date Final Evaluation1
Planned date of Final
carried out
N/A
Evaluation
TBD
(if applicable)
Date Mid Term Evaluation
Planned date of Mid
carried out
N/A
Term Evaluation
March 2009 (tentative)
(if applicable)
If the project had a MTE or FE please ensure they are posted in PIMS and the UNDP Evaluation Resource
Centre3 before final submission or provide justification.
1 All dates should be in the following format: day/month/year
2 Please explain any entry here in section 8
3 The UNDP Evaluation Resource Center can be found a http://erc.undp.org/index.aspx?module=Intra
Page 2 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Overall Rating of the project in the evaluation
N/A
If the project had a MTE or FE, please attach the relevant tracking tool. The tracking tool should correspond
to the GEF Funding cycle:
For projects approved in GEF 2 and 3: use the tracking tools for GEF 3
For projects approved in GEF 4: use the tracking tools for GEF 4
Project documentation and information:
List documents/ reports/ brochures /
Draft Report on UNDP's role in managing environment and
articles that have been prepared about the
energy for sustainable development, FYR Macedonia Country
project.
Case Study
Press releases, TV and media coverage of the project activities
List other monitoring and/or reporting
N/A
requirements for this project.
List the Website address (URL) of project.
www.prespapark.com (under construction, expected to be
launched by end of July 2008)
Project contacts:
Title Name E-mail
Date
Signature
International Trans-
Mr. Alvin Lopez
alvin.lopez@undp.org
boundary Adviser
National Project
Mr. Dimitrija Sekovski
dimitar.sekovski@undp.org
Manager/Coordinator
(FYR Macedonia)
National Project
Ms. Violeta Zuna
violeta.zuna@undp.org
Manager/Coordinator
(Albania)
Government GEF OFP4
Ms. Gordana
g.kozuharova@moepp.gov.mk
(optional)
Kozuharova
Executing Agency
4 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)
and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1
country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary indicating the country name for each signature.
Page 3 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
2. UNDP Country Officer ONLY
Please estimate the inputs delivered to this project in this reporting period as part of project
implementation oversight5.
Name of
Position and
Work done
Estimated Estimated
Other
Comments
UNDP Staff
level
for the Project
days
travel
oversight
member
(P3, G5 etc...)
worked
costs
costs
on
project
Maria Luisa
Resident
Meeting with the
Silva Mejias
Representative Minister of
8 days6
84$
-
D1
Environment and the
Mayor of Resen,
Site visits
accompanying high
level guests (Kori
Udovicki, Swiss
Ambassador, Ministers)
Ann Marie Ali Deputy
Meetings with the
2 days
-
-
Resident
project staff, PO
Representative
5 Note that in addition to the UNDP country office environment team staff, other staff might include the Resident
Representative, DRRs, ARRs, Finance Division Staff, drivers etc...
6 The reasons for the high input from the CO MK are the following:
1) UNDP Macedonia is managing the trans-boundary and MK national component.
2) Given that the project document in MK was signed on 17th April 2006, we counted our input for longer
than one year;
3) MK national component was eight months (October 2007 May 2008) without a Project Manager and our
CO was managing the activities.
4) CO MK operates under the Agreement for Provision of Support Services with the Ministry of Environment
and Physical Planning and all Procurements, Recruitments, Payments are done by the CO;
5) Until recently, NEX project staff did not have access to ATLAS and all ATLAS related operations were
done by programme and operations staff (creation of requisitions, approval of PO and vouchers, payments,
etc).
6) The number of days spent on Golema reka project which activities are fully complementary with the Prespa
project and the contribution from the Swiss Development Agency for this project is shown as a co-
financing 2,4 million by June 2008, (and additional 1 million expected by the end of September) are also
counted in the total number of days.
Page 4 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
P5
Anita
Programme
Reviewing and
150 days
767,6$
Kodzoman
Officer, NOB
approving TORs,
Charring Procurement
Evaluation Committees,
Facilitating
procurement/recruitment
processes, Site visits,
Meeting with national
counterparts and donors,
reviewing reports,
Troubleshooting
Samir
Programme
Providing support for
120 days
-
-
-
Memedov
Associate,
the ATLAS related
ALD 2
issues
Aleksandar
NOC -
Procurement,
- -
Mihajlov,
Operations
recruitment, travel, and
100
Operations
payment
Manager,
For other
Zoran
Operations
Samardziev,
staff the range
HR Associate
is from G2
Tanja
(driver) to G7
Trpevska
Administrative
Associate
(Procurement),
Slavco
Dodevski,
Programme/
Finance
Associate.
Zoran Petrov,
Finance
Associate,
Gordana
Pozstruzin,
Registry
Assistant
(Travel)
Adriana Micu Programme
Attending meetings, site
50
Officer A3
visits, revising and
approving ToRs,
revising and approving
documents, participating
in evaluation processes
List the dates of site visits to project during this reporting period.
25 June 2008
Page 5 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
16.June 2008
06 08 March 2008
15 February 2008
14-15 June 2007
11 May 2007
02 -06 April 200712 September 2006
General Comments:
During the site visits meeting with the Mayors of and other key stakeholders were organized in order to get
feedback on the project progress and to do a reality check on the foreseen project activities.
Some of the site visits in MK Prespa were used to promote the activities of the project to the high level
officials, and to provide a bigger picture how this project fits into a broader development context of the
country. As an example of such activities we would like to highlight the visit of Ms. Kori Udovicki, RBEC
Regional Director, visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Physical
Planning at the occasion of the promotional event of the Global Human Development Report that was
organized in Resen, visits of the Swiss Ambassadors which resulted in additional resource mobilization for
the complementary activities, etc.
UNDP Country Officers must sign this APR/PIR. This indicates that you have checked it and to your
understanding it is as complete and accurate as possible.
Name: Anita Kodzoman
Signature:
Date: 03 July 2008
Page 6 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
3. UNDP Regional Technical Advisor ONLY
If not included in the above table, please estimate the inputs delivered to this project by the regional
coordination unit/ practice team / service centre in this reporting period as part of project implementation
oversight7.
Name of
Position
Work done
Estimated
Estimated
Other
Comments
UNDP Staff
and level for the Project
days worked
travel costs
oversight
member
(P3, G5
on project
costs
etc...)
Vladimir
RTA, L5 Oversight
15 $1,144
Mamaev
implementation,
advise to the
project manager
and UNDP CO
Please insert the core performance information from the APR/PIR here before sending to the Principal
Technical Adviser.
Key indicator
PIMS number
1996
Pipeline Entry Date8
05 March 2002
CEO Endorsement Date
30 January 2006
Project Start Date
01 May 2006 (MK)
01 November 2006 (Al)
Closing Date
31 December 2011
PDF Funding9, if any
376,000 $
GEF Grant
4,135,000 $
Total GEF Funding
4,511,000 $
Co-financing
9,403,460 $
Total Project Cost
13, 914,460 $
Total GEF disbursement as of June 30, 2008
886,000 $
Proposed co-financing (only if MTE or FE was conducted in reporting period)
N/A
Actual co-financing (only if MTE or FE was conducted in reporting period)
N/A
Delay in project completion (in months)
N/A
Number of critical risks
1
Overall Rating10 of project progress toward meeting objectives
S
7 Note that in addition to the UNDP country office environment team, staff might include the Resident
Representative, DRRs, ARRs, Finance Division Staff, drivers etc...
8 All dates should be in the following format: day/month/year
9 Figures should be in US$ million
Page 7 of 54
 (2)_FINAL-8_1.jpg)
FINAL 30 May 2008
Overall Rating of project implementation.
MS
Has the project strategy been adjusted?
Yes
x
No
Comments
UNDP RTAs must sign this PIR. This indicates that you have checked it and to your understanding it
is as complete and accurate as possible.
Name: Vladimir Mamaev_________________
Signature:
Date: _06 September 2008________________________
10 Overall rating can be determined as follows. For each rating assign the following figures to the rating: HS = 1, S
= 2, MS = 3, MU = 4, U = 5, HU = 6. The total of these figures should be divided by the number of ratings given
(maximum 5). Enter the final rating not figure (1 = HS, 2 = S, 3 = MS, 4 = MU, 5 = U, 6 = HU)
Page 8 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
4. Progress towards achieving project objectives
Project Objective and
Description of
Baseline
Target Level
Level at 30 June
Outcomes
Indicator11
Level12
2008
Objective:
Financial resources
Not available US$2 million
41,293 USD spent
To catalyse the adoption of for IEM approach
from public
for IEM by end
on site through
integrated ecosystem
made available
funds
of project
small grants to
management (IEM) in the
local NGOs (AL)
trans-boundary Prespa
Lakes Basin of FYR
11 This should describe the quantitative indicator
12 This should be a quantitative numerical value
Page 9 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Macedonia, Albania, and
Human resources for
Not trained
Key local
14 representatives
Greece to conserve
IEM approach
stakeholders
of Park
globally significant
trained
Administration
biodiversity, mitigate
and forestry
pollution of the trans-
service
boundary lakes, and
3 representatives
provide a sustainable basis
of Local
for the Basin's further
Authorities
social and economic
24 representatives
development
of NGOs incl.
OFM (Al)
4 participants from
Prespa attended
training in Vilm,
Germany on
Integrated Water
Resources
Management (TB)
4 participants from
MK and AL
Prespa trained on
stakeholder
participation in
Integrated Water
Resources
Management (TB)
Trilateral Prespa
Park Coordination
Committee
(PPCC) members
trained on key
issues pertaining to
functioning of a
basin commission.
(TB)
Preparations
completed for a
joint training
workshop (Jul 08)
with GEF-IW
LEARN where
stakeholders will
be trained on
Preparation of
Lake Basin
Management
Plans, EU Water
Framework
Directive and the
Page 10 of 54
Ecosystem
Approach (TB)
FINAL 30 May 2008
Management tools for Not defined
Incentives,
Prespa newspaper
IEM approach
information,
TV and media
communication
coverage
provided
Reports and
studies available in
the UNDP website
Copybook for
pupils
Thematic mapping
Books and MDGs
leaflets (Al)
Information
material on
linkages of
ecosystem services
to human well
being prepared and
made available.
Test version of
Prespa website
launched.
Demonstration of
None
At least 5
6 SGP pilot
IEM approach
visible
actions + several
demonstrations
site management
in AL, MK and
and ecosystem
GR* in key
oriented studies
sectors related
(Al)
directly to
conservation of
significant
biodiversity and
trans-boundary
waters
Page 11 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Outcome 1:
Spatial plan (MK,
No LEAP in
Spatial plans
Draft spatial plan
GR)/LEAP (AL)
place;
completed in
for the Prespa-
Stakeholders strengthen
incorporate
Spatial plan
MK ad GR by
Ohrid region
legal and regulatory
ecosystem
in MK ad GR EoY 2 and
completed with
enabling environment and
management
under way
approved by
financial
establish land and water
objectives in detail
EoY3
contribution from
use management basis for
the Ministry of
maintaining and restoring
Environment and
ecosystem health in the
Physical Planning,
Prespa lakes
and submitted for
approval to the
Parliament.
Development of
new ecosystem
oriented
methodology for
spatial planning
and development
of a new local
(more detailed)
plan only for the
Municipality of
Resen (which
includes the whole
MK Prespa
Watershed)
initiated (MK)
LEAPs for Liqenas
and Proger
communes are
finalized and
approved by the
respective
authorities. Follow
up with the main
findings is actually
running in close
link and
cooperation with
local planning
authority and
Ministry of
Environment,
Forestry, Water
and Agriculture
(MoEFWA).
Cooperation (AL)
Page 12 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Water management in No
Establishment
Establishment of
the Prespa basin is
assessment of of the trilateral
WGWM underway
aligned between the 3 current water Working Group (TOR to be
littoral countries,
uses; good
on Water
prepared by the
considers ecosystem
ecological
Management
trans-boundary
health needs and
status not
(WGWM) by
component)
follows the principles considered;
EoY 2.
of integrated basin
no basin
Water
water management
specific
Approved and
management plans
water
aligned water
to be developed
management
management
immediately upon
plans; no
plans with
endorsement of the
trilateral
targets
new Law on
coordination
regarding water Waters (MK)
mechanism
quality,
integrated water
uses, and
ecological
status.
Regulations for
local water use
management
adopted by EoY
4
Page 13 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Main sectoral laws
Water, Ag,
In-stream flows Action plan for
incorporate
Forest,
for fish become
ecosystem oriented
ecosystem health
Fishery Law
priority use of
forest management
objectives/priorities
do not
water;
prepared and will
; strengthened
prioritize
be incorporated in
regulations for
ecosystem
Ag/pesticide
the forest
water, spatial
health
certification
management plan
planning and
criteria
for one forest unit
environmental
strengthened for in MK Prespa
management at
aquatic
(MK)
local level.
ecosystem
health;
Forest law
Regulations to
incorporates
follow the
maximizing
endorsement of the
ecosystem
new Law on
services as
Waters and the
priority
new spatial plan
objective;
for Prespa (MK)
Regulations for
4 sectorial reports
local water use
are produced
management,
incorporating
spatial plan
ecosystem health
enforcement
priorities into
and
Water,
environmental
Agriculture,
management
Forest, and Fishery
adopted by EoY Laws (AL)
3.
Page 14 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Three priority
Currently,
Environmental
N/A for the
streams (Ag.
lower parts of flow
reporting period
Germanos, Brajcino
these rivers
requirements
& Krani) and 1
may run dry
established by
Increased number
tributary of Golema
in summer
EoY 3.
of farmers follow
River (Leva stream)
months and
the principles of
maintain
water quality
Environmental
integrated crop
environmental in-
is reduced by
flows
management as a
stream flow and
agricultural
maintained by
result of trainings
water quality as
run-off and
end EoY5.
provided by the
appropriate for
waste water
project, as well as
endemic trout (MK-
Water quality
equipment
GR*).
improved
purchased by
through
projects that are
reduced of
complementary to
agrochemicals
the Prespa project
use by EoY3
(MK)
Application of
Technical
small-scale
documentation for
waste water
construction of
treatment by
small-scale waste
EoY4
water treatment in
the village
Species action
Nakolec finalized.
plan endorsed
Tender procedure
and
for selection of
implemented by contractor
EoY 2
underway (MK)
Page 15 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Strengthened local
No
Approved
Development of
management of
conservatio
protected area
the management
important riparian
n or
managements
plan for the
habitat of both lakes
managemen
plans in the 3
"Ezerani"
in AL, MK and
t of
countries and
protected area
GR*.
shoreline
definition of
along with
habitat in
institutions for
institutional and
AL and
their
organizational set
MK;
implementatio
up for future
n by EoY 3;
management is
Active
underway
conservatio
Other
n
important
managemen
riparian
t of wetland
habitat to be
habitats in
defined by
Lake Micro
EoY2 and
Prespa,
50% of these
GR*.
areas managed
well by EoY 4
(MK+AL).
100 ha of wet
meadows in
GR* by EoY
4.
Page 16 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Replication:
No manual;
Manual
N/A for the
Watershed planning
replication
integrated into
reporting period
manual adopted as
not
watershed
official manual by
facilitated.
planning
In MKD the new
MoEPP and
nationwide by
Law on Waters is
MoEFWM for rest of
EoY 4.
expected to be
country
adopted by the end
of 2008 which will
create an enabling
environment for
implementation of
this activity.
A best practice
manual on Lake
Ecosystem
management
referring to best
community living
methods is under
development as a
mean to follow up
with
environmental
planning and
strengthening of
regulatory
enabling
environment.
Page 17 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Outcome 2:
Reduction in
Baseline of
Establishment
Number of farmers
frequency and
10-15
of a protocol
following the
Stakeholders modify
quantity of pesticides
applications
and system for
principles of
productive sector resource
and fertilizers applied
/ season of
the recording-
integrated crop
management practices to
each season in the 3
pesticides
monitoring of
management
reduce pesticide inputs,
countries
in apple
quantities of
continuously
increase habitat
cultivation
agrochemicals
increasing (more
heterogeneity, and
in MK;
(including a
farmers tend to
improve the status of target
system of soil
conduct soil
species and communities
Baseline of
and water
analyses and to
in the Prespa Basin.
quantities
analyses)
monitor pests and
of
applied in the
diseases in relation
pesticides /
three countries
to the pesticide use
season and
by EoY 2;
as reported by the
fertilizers in
agriculture
MK tbd by
Registration of laboratory
EoY1;
# per country
purchased within
(with # tbd by
on of the
Baseline of
EoY1) in a
complementary
quantities
cultivation
projects) (MK)
and number
model
of
implementing
Not yet registered
applications
Integrated
due to the absence
/ season of
Production
of a national
pesticides
Management.
registration
and
system. However,
fertilizers in
50% reduction
independent
AL and
in quantities of review may show
GR* tbd
pesticides and
that the ICP
by EoY1;
fertilizers by
principles are duly
EoY 2 in the
incorporated in
three countries
increasing number
for the
of farms. (MK)
registered
farmers;
Model protocol
developed by GR
Increase by
partners. Its
50% of
applicability to be
number of
determined for eth
registered
circumstances of
farmers by
MK and AL
EoY4.
Prespa.
A tri-lateral
Estimated 8 family
protocol for
farms perform
recognition of
better agriculture
PP products in
practices. Due to
place by EoY
establishment and
5.
operation of agro-
meteorological
station in Proger
extension of this
service with 2
Page 18 of 54
other station is
foreseen. (AL)
FINAL 30 May 2008
Reduction in the
KfW figures; Only 5 of the
Strategy for
number of harmful
10 of the 15
pesticides in use supporting
pesticides utilized in
in use are
are harmful by
national
MK-Prespa, AL and
toxic to
EoY 2; the
institutions for
GR*
aquatic orgs
remaining
introduction of
(for these 10, phased out by
ecosystem oriented
apart from
EoY 3;
pesticide
toxicity, their
certification
degree of
A system for
system under
dispersal in
proper disposal
development and
the
of containers in
consultation with
environment
place and
stakeholders.
and residual
implemented
(MK)
lifespan
effectively by
should be
EoY3.
Tender procedure
determined
for procuring
by EoY1);
consultancy
Problem
services for
intensified by
preparation of
improper
appropriate study
disposal of
for management of
pesticide
pesticide
containers
packaging
finalized; the start
up foreseen in the
second half of
July. (MK)
# of farmers
Number of
20 farms by
20 farmers
applying integrated
farmers in
EoY 2 (5 in
participate in
pest management
MK
AL and 15 in
comprehensive
practices in MK and
currently
MK);
training
AL.
applying
programme on
Integrated
50 by EoY 4
integrated crop
Pest
(10 in AL and
management
Manageme
40 in MK)
(ICM) and are
nt? (To be
implementing the
determined
ICP principles
by EOY1)
(MK)
90 out of a
total of 200
farmers in
GR*
currently
applying
Integrated
Pest
Manageme
nt
Page 19 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Reduced costs for
Costs tbd in
Reduced in
The baseline
water, pesticide and
first six
monitored farms assessment for this
fertilizer inputs for
months
by significant
indicator reveals
local farmers in MK,
percentage
720 kilograms
AL and GR*
(more than 35-
annual application
40%) by EoY 3
of pesticides (cost
around 600,000
ALL
Cost savings to
Costs and
Reduced in
Crop production
specific farmers from technique to
participating
costs to be
use of fertilizer made produce
farms by
determined based
from waste apples in
fertilizer
significant
on the monitoring
MK.
made from
percentage by
results from the 20
waste apples
EoY 3.
farms currently
tbd in first
involved in the
six months.
programme
(available in late
autumn 2008)
(MK)
Trans-boundary
Environment
Establish and
Trans-boundary
cooperation and
ally friendly
support
meetings between
transfer of best
agricultural
Network of
relevant parties
practices in
techniques
Regional
from the three
agriculture (between
are applied at Farmer's
neighboring
farmer's associations) pilot levels in Associations in
countries have
in AL, MK and GR*
all three
the framework
been held as a step
countries
of PPCC
towards the
meetings by
establishment of a
EoY 3.
network
% of wood
CF
CF provides
CF - 30% of Park
community forests
provides
50% of 2 target
Forest area provide
(CF) contribute to
none of the
villages' (AL)
the actual needs
two communities'
fuel wood
needs by EoY 4. for fodder and fuel
needs for fodder and
and fodder
wood in Macro
fuel wood in AL.
needs.
Prespa. (AL)
# hectares of forest
No ha of
2,000 ha in
Ecosystem forest
under improved
forest under
MK by EoY 3. management plans
biodiversity-
this kind of
3,000 ha in
in final stages of
oriented
management
AL by EoY 3;
preparation. Their
management in
and 1,000 ha
enforcement to
MK, GR*, AL
in GR* by
commence upon
Prespa.
EoY 3.
their approval by
the authorities
(MK)
Page 20 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Eutrophying inputs
One
Two pilots
Technical
(N, organic material)
wastewater
reduce inputs by documentation for
to Macro Prespa
treatment
1000 m3 by
one WWTP in
reduced m3 through
plant in MK EoY 3.
Nakolec
small-scale
and none in
(Constructed
wastewater treatment
AL.
wetland)
pilots.
Relevant
completed and
project
tender procedure
underway
for selection of
in GR*
construction
Prespa
company
(Current
underway (MK)
input to be
determined
Constructed
by EoY1)
wetland facility
expected to be
established in
Gorica/ Liqenas, in
cooperation with
ArtGold (Al)
Replication of those
No pilots to
Replication in at N/A for the
pilots reduces
replicate
least 2 other
reporting period
eutrophying input in currently.
places by EoY
two other places
4.
w/in Prespa.
Improved overall
Community
Significant
An economic
quality of life in
survey
increase in
analysis of the
villages with small-
measures
quality of life
values of the most
scale wastewater
quality of life measurement
prominent services
treatment.
baseline first
from survey of
of ecosystem in
6 months
participating
Prespa is ongoing
local
revealing the
communities.
most relevant
services that
sustain the IEM
(AL)
Decline in sales of
Baseline
Decline of 50%
The Law on
detergents containing TBD in first
by EoY 3; 75%
Environment
phosphorous in Resen six months.
by EoY 4.
forbids use of
municipality.
phosphorus
detergents and its
strict enforcement
already
significantly
reduced the use of
such detergents.
(MK)
Page 21 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Allowable fish catch
There is no
Improved
Concept on
linked to population
limit on fish collection of
trilateral fisheries
size estimates in both
caught
fishery data in
management along
lakes in MK, AL and
during
all three
with future steps
GR*.
regular
countries by
toward its
season;
EoY2;
achievement has
Fishery
been defined (TB)
authorities
Sharing of data
from the 3
by all three
countries are
countries by
usually
EoY2;
deciding
jointly a
Allowable fish
yearly spring catch is linked
"closed
to population
period" for
size estimates
fishing since
and other
2004.
indices (# of
fishing boats,
territory of
fishing area in
each country)
for five species
by EoY 4;
Regular
contacts
between
fisheries
authorities of
the three
countries to
reach common
decisions on
allowable
fishing tools,
closed seasons
and other
sustainable
management
measures;
Harmonized by-
laws on
fisheries
amongst the 3
littoral states.
Page 22 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Change in awareness
Baseline to
20%
among local people
be
improvement by Local media (radio
regarding the Prespa
established
end of EoY
and TV) has run
ecosystem;
by EoY1.
(EoY) 2; 50%
programmes on
by EoY 4. (To
Prespa area.
be assessed
Improved access to
based on
the information
specific
centers in
methodologies
Zagradec and
developed)
Gorica.
Targeted
educational
programme
developed and
carried out on
Prespa ecosystem
(Al)
Page 23 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Outcome 3:
Trans-boundary
No
Establishment
Trans-boundary
Stakeholders conserve
monitoring of
monitoring
of monitoring
MCWG
priority biological
important biotic and system in
and
established in
diversity across the Prespa
abiotic factors
place in AL
conservation
October 2007 and
Basin and make key
functioning/not
and MK; In
working group
functioning. It has
protected areas in Prespa
functioning.
GR*, the
(MCWG) in
convened a total of
Basin fully operational
Society for
first six
3 times to make
Protection of
months;
technical decisions
Prespa (SPP)
MCWG
on the
has
operational by
development of the
experience in
EoY1;
TB Monitoring
monitoring
system. (TB)
several biotic
Participatory
and abiotic
field survey
Protocols for
parameters
protocols
development of
standardized
TB monitoring
by EoY1;
system completed
(TB)
Assessment of
terrestrial &
Protocols for
aquatic
determination of
habitats for
priority species
priority bird
completed. (TB)
and mammal
species by
EoY 2;
Capacity
building and
training
programs
underway by
EoY1;
Monitoring
system in place
and generating
useful data by
end of EoY 2
(including GIS).
Pilot application of
Evaluation of Revised
N/A for the
the trans-boundary
applied
monitoring
reporting period
monitoring system
original
system in place
and assessment of
monitoring
and generating
methods, training and system (see
useful data by
capacity needs and
above
end of EoY 4
analysis/interpretatio
n of data
Page 24 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Presence/absence of
Information
Updated data by Protocols for
up-to-date
spotty, dated, EoY 2;
determination of
information on
and focused
priority trans-
extent/condition of
on single
Establishment
boundary species
priority species and
species
of reference
completed. Next
habitat distribution,
conditions for
step would be
abundance, and
selected species determination of
condition.
by EoY 3.
spp itself
planned for the
second half of
2008 (TB)
108 species of
dendroflora are
identified and
cataloged, and
endorsed to the
Prespa Park
Administration
(AL)
Number of species
Few species
Species action
Protocols for
action plans
action plans;
plans
identification of
developed and
Information
developed and
priority species
approved
very good for
agreed in the
completed and
some species,
Prespa basin
action planning
spotty or
by EoY 4.
process being
lacking for
initiated. (TB)
others
Action plans
development under
discussion with the
relevant
stakeholders
(Ministries,
Municipality)
(MK)
Protected Area
X (TBD at
X + 20% by
METT scoring for
Management
project
mid term; X +
PNP 31 (based on
Effectiveness
inception)
40% by
assessment carried
Tracking Tool
project end.
out at August
(METT) score for
2007) (Al)
PNP, GNP, and ENR,
PPA-Greece*.
METT for Ezerani
Nature Reserve
(ENR) prepared
within national
protected areas
project (MK)
Page 25 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
ENR and PPA-GR*
Not
ENR and PPA-
Preparations for
are/are not gazetted
gazetted;
GR *are
gazetting of ENR
and boundaries
Not clearly
gazetted and
and marking of the
are/are not clearly
marked
boundaries are
boundaries
marked on maps or
clearly marked
underway (MK)
on the ground
on the ground
by EoY4.
The management
Staff
The respective
Initiated within the
authorities of ENR,
numbers are
management
study for the ENR
PNP-AL, GNP and
inadequate
authorities have (the study will
PPA-Greece* are
for critical
adequate
make clear
fully equipped and
management
scientific and
recommendation
operational to carry
activities;
administrational on the kind of
out basic
relevant
personnel for
support required
management
funding
critical
for establishment
activities
lacking
management
of efficient
activities by
management
EoY 5.
system for ENR)
(MK)
# hectares of priority
No
Target number
Initial analysis is
habitat for birds, fish,
managemen
of hectares
underway within
rare plants, and
t plans; no
under improved the ongoing
mammals under
active
management to
studies (ENR,
improved
managemen
be determined
forestry etc.).
conservation
t; no
and
More information
management
specific #
implemented
will be provided in
of hectares
based on
the other planned
under
recommendatio
documents
special
ns of the species (fisheries
managemen
action plans.
management plan,
t;
spatial plan etc.)
Approved
(MK)
management
plan (2001)
Suggest to modify
for wet
target to include
meadows of
habitats as well
Micro Prespa
(TB)
in GR*
which is
being revised
through SPP
LIFE-Nature
project GR*.
Page 26 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Golema Reka River
Degraded
Analysis of
Comprehensive
(MK) restored
Golema
situation by
analysis of the
River in need EoY 1;
environmental
of solid waste Approval of
status of Golema
removal,
final plans by
Reka along with
stream
EoY 2;
actions for its
habitat and
improvement
substrate
Pilot
completed.
protection
demonstration
Implementation of
and reduction restoration by
some priority
of pollution
EoY3;
measures
(including
underway with
pollution
financial support
from fish
of the Swiss
farms near
Development
Krusje
Agency for
springs)
Cooperation in the
amount of app. 1,6
million $US;
additional 1
million $US
expected in
autumn (MK)
Within the key
No adequate
Warden and
Problems analyzed
protected areas
control
control
within the studies
human activities (e.g. mechanisms
mechanisms
currently being
including forestry,
for
(effective EIA
under preparation
fishing, building)
unsustainable process; law
(ENR, pesticide
may/may not be
human
enforcement
packaging
practiced in an
activities in
etc.) for
management etc.
uncontrolled and/or
the protected controlling
(MK)
unsustainable way
areas
unsustainable
(MK, AL, GR*)
human activities
in protected
areas exist and
are effectively
implemented;
Expansion of
scheme outside
key protected
areas (i.e. Trout
streams)
Page 27 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Outcome 4:
PPCC is/is not a legal PPCC is an
PPCC is legal
First assessment
Stakeholders build upon
entity under
informal
entity as agreed
on institutional
ongoing trans-boundary
International Law
institution
to under
maturation of the
cooperation in the Prespa
with no legal trilateral
PPCC completed
Basin by strengthening the
basis.
agreement.
in 2007 and
trans-boundary
national
coordination mechanism
consultations
and piloting trans-
underway. Path
boundary conservation and
towards
water management
formalizing tri-
lateral cooperation
outlined. (TB)
Declaration for the
No
Agreed
Consultants for
Prespa Park is/is not
trilaterally
Strategic Action undertaking
followed by specific
agreed plan
Program/Plan
implementation of
tri-lateral agreement
exists for the
for Prespa basin the TDA-SAP
Prespa Basin with long-term
identified and
operational
work will
objectives,
commence in Aug
commitments
2008 (TB)
and ways to
strengthen
trans-boundary
management
(output 4.7)
Governments
No such
Commitment by Still no funding
commit/ do not
position or
EoY. 3.
commitment (TB)
commit to funding
funding
Funding by
full time executive
exists.
EoY. 4.
secretary position for
Prespa Park
Coordination
Committee.
Status of agreement
No common
Establishment
Tri-lateral water
of trans-boundary
agreed
of the trilateral
management
water management to targets of
WGWM by
specialist
achieve good
water
EoY 1;
identified and will
ecological water
management
monitoring;
commence work in
status in the water
agreement of
Aug 2008. (TB)
bodies of the Prespa
targets for TB
Park. Coordination
water
mechanism
management by
established through
EoY4
regular operation of
Working Group on
Water Management
(WGWM).
Page 28 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Three states agree/
Management Three states
Priority habitat
disagree on trans-
regime is not agree on trans-
identification
boundary habitat
aligned
boundary
process (in
conservation
regarding
habitat
addition to those
priorities that reflect
basin-wide
conservation
identified in the
ecological
important
priorities that
project document
management
species and
reflect
only now being
objectives for
habitats
ecological
initiated) (TB)
sustainable use and
management
conservation of
objectives. Two
species and
habitat-related
ecosystem health and
pilot projects
agree upon specific
agreed by EoY
programmes
1; relevant
management
activities
implemented by
EoY 3.
Inhabitants and
Environme
Increased
Company
stakeholders in the 3
ntal
awareness of
currently
countries aware/
education/n
stakeholders
undertaking
unaware of Prespa
ature
on values of
development of
values and informed
interpretatio
Prespa and
Communication,
on project activities
n programs
project
Education and
executed by
activities
Public Awareness
SPP in
20% by EoY 2
Strategy for the
GR*-Prespa
and 50% by
Prespa Lakes
during
EoY 4.
Basin. Baseline
recent past;
will be determined
SPP
and improvement
Information
in conditions will
Center on
be reported based
Trans-
on the monitoring
boundary
over the next year.
Prespa Park
(TB)
operating in
Aghios
Germanos;
Info Center
in
Zagradec,
Micro
Prespa
(AL).
Page 29 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Three states agree on Management Three states
Trans-boundary
trans-boundary fish
regime does
cooperate on
fisheries
conservation
not reflect
enforcement;
management
priorities that reflect
ecosystem
monitoring; and specialist due to be
ecological
objectives,
research by
engaged in fall of
management
though three
EoY 3.
2008 to facilitate
objectives for
countries ban
this process (TB)
sustainable use and
fishing
conservation of
during
native species and
spawning
aquatic ecosystem
season.
health and agree upon
specific program of
measures for
cooperative fish
management.
Robust shared
No shared
MCWG or
MCWG has
database on priority
database
relevant Sub-
reached agreement
ecosystem and
w/ updated
working Group
on the need for
species health
information;
defines
production of a
parameters.
x-boundary
parameters and
shared database.
discussions
rules for access
This is under
occur w/no
to database;
development (TB)
support data.
Shared database
populated with
GIS experts is
reliable data
contracted by the
supports x-
TB unit and is
boundary
working in
discussions.
establishing the
most appropriate
data and
information
formats in a trans-
boundary
perspective (TB)
Page 30 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
NP and forest
No consensus Identification
Development of
managers formulate
among
and
Mgt Plan for
trans-boundary
managers
prioritization of Galicica National
management actions
regarding
habitats by
Park initiated
for priority trans-
cooperative
EoY1 according through parallel
boundary forest
trans-
to the
financing from
biotopes [mountain
boundary
NATURA 2000 KfW but
meadows and
management
methodology or administrative
rangelands of
of forest
any other
challenges remain
Galicica/Mali I
biotopes
compatible one; on the Albanian
Thate, juniper forest
Establishment
side due to
on Kalammas
of protection
administrative
peninsula, Varnous
corridors (where reasons. The trans-
Mountain PPA
feasible) in case boundary MCWG
(GR*) /Pelister PNP
of non-adjacent
contributes to this
(MK)].
PAs by EoY 1; process. Targets
will need to be
Development of revisited. (TB)
management
plans by EoY 2;
Common
monitoring of
actions agreed
and
implemented by
EoY 2;
Pilot
application of
management
actions by EoY
3.
Rare water-bird
Reedbed and Sub-Working
This overlaps with
conservation through wet
Group on
other indicators on
trans-boundary
meadows
Birdlife
trans-boundary
protection of
under some
formulates
species and habitat
breeding and nesting
management
trans-boundary
conservation
habitats in MK, AL
in GR*, but
conservation
priorities. Suggest
and GR*.
not in MK
actions for
combining. (TB)
and AL;
water birds in
No sufficient both lakes by
wardening
EoY1;
applied in
MK, AL and
Pilot
GR*.
conservation
actions applied
by EoY2;
Monitoring of
pilot actions.
Page 31 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Imperial eagle
Ecological
Sub-Working
This will
nesting habitat
needs of
Group on
addressed as part
enhanced/protected,
eagle not
Birdlife
of the priority
along with other
understood
formulates
species action
important raptor and
by protected
trans-
planning process
vulture nesting
areas, forest
boundary
underway. (TB)
habitats
managers or
conservation
enhanced/protected
MoEPP.
actions for
simultaneously (e.g.
forest raptor
Golden Eagle, or rare
species
nocturnal species) in
following by
MK, AL and GR*.
EoY1;
Pilot
conservation
actions
applied by
EoY2;
At least two
different
potential eagle-
nesting areas
under special
management by
year 3.
Bat colonies
Bat colonies
Priority bat
Under protection,
protected and
known to a
colonies
4000-5000
monitored in MK, AL good extent,
protected and
individuals, 90%
and GR*.
but not
monitored by
of which are
protected or
year 3.
Minioptrus
monitored.
schreidersi (Al)
Page 32 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Ecological
Species
In-stream flows No action initiated
requirements for
Action Plan
and water
yet
endemic trout
(through
quality
understood and
research
maintained in
protected.
carried out in Brajcino, Krani,
GR* and
Leva and
MK) to be
Aghios
produced by
Germanos
summer
Rivers by end of
2007.
year 3;
Pilot action
taken according
to Species
Action Plan by
EoY 2;
Habitat
protection status
ensured in both
countries (i.e.
establishment of
closed seasons,
fishing bans,
establishment of
protection zone,
maintenance of
riparian forests-
avoiding
erosion, etc.) by
EoY 2;
Efficient
wardening for
illegal angling
in both
countries by
EoY 2;
Pollution
problems
ameliorated by
EoY 4
Page 33 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Reduction in level of
Not
Priority threats
Priority threats
threat to endemic fish understood or to endemic fish
from exotics not
posed by exotics in
even
from exotics,
assessed yet but
all 3 countries.
recognized as habitat change,
anticipated to be
Conservation of
a problem in
and overfishing
part of the TB
genetic diversity of
MK, AL and
and re-
Fisheries mgt
endemic fish species
GR*. SPP
introductions
consultancy being
in all 3 countries.
holds long
understood by
initiated (TB)
term data on
EoY1;
native,
endemic and
Absolute
introduced
prevention of
fish species.
introductions of
predatory fish
species of
potential
commercial
value interest;
Management
action agreed by
EoY 2;
Pilot measures
underway to
reduce them by
EoY 4.
Wetland vegetation in Wet
Wet meadows
Suggest combining
GR *and AL and MK meadows are in GR* are
this indicator with
are managed and
under some
restored and
TB habitat and
their habitat values
management
properly
species.
enhanced.
in GR *(with managed in
100 ha of wet GR*-Prespa
meadows in
(targeting at
Micro
the
Prespa) but
maintenance of
not in AL
minimum 100
ha);
Pilot projects
are starting in
AL-Prespa.
Page 34 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Tri-national
No regional
New tourism
Process for
ecotourism
tourism
management
selection of a
management plan
management
and
consultant to
is/is not endorsed and planning
investment
facilitate the
promotion underway. SPP Info
plan in place
development of a
Network of
Centre
by year 5.
tri-lateral eco-
operational
operational in
tourism plan is
Information Centers
GR*;
Ensure the
underway and
in all 3 States.
operation of
capacity and
work to be
more Info
viability of Info initiated by Aug
Centres by
Centers in all 3
2008. (TB)
Protected
sides; Network
area
these Info
authority-
Centers
GR*
imminent;
Info Centre
in Gorica;
Continuing financial
No long-term Continuing
Increasing
and institutional
formal
financial and
challenges with
commitment from
commitments institutional
securing financial
three littoral states
commitments
commitment from
(local and/or national
made to
Greece during
commitments).
adequately staff project
and continue
implementation
operations of
could potentially
key project-
jeopardize the tri-
inspired
lateral outcomes.
processes and
(TB)
use of tools
An agreement is
signed between 3
local authorities of
the countries (Al)
Outcome 5:
Effective delivery
Block B
As good or
Delivery has been
Lessons learned and
rate
delivery
better than
slower than
adaptive management of
Block B
anticipated but
project
delivery rate
steadily picking up
pace as there are
number of ongoing
recruitments/procu
rements
Positive evaluations
First
Improvement
N/A for the
evaluation
with each
reporting period
successive
evaluation.
Page 35 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Rating of Project Progress towards Meeting Objective13
Please see background note for further guidance.
2006
Rating
2007 Rating
2008
Comments14
(from 06 PIR
(from 07 PIR)
Rating
if available)
International Trans-
MS
Though initially slow, the pace of
boundary Adviser
this transboundary project is
picking up. Strategies to deal with
challenges both at the national and
transboundary levels are being put
in place and increasing
partnerships are being established
as the project facilitates the steady
pace towards the common vision.
There is also evidence of a greater
sense of ownership amongst
stakeholders and increased
motivation to look at creative
solutions in addressing the range of
issues the project has to deal with.
National Project
N/A
N/A
S
Despite the relatively low delivery
Manager/Coordinator
of the project during the past
period, significant progress was
made toward reaching an
agreement with the key
stakeholders on the incremental
input the project can provide to the
ongoing processes in the field of
environment, with particular
emphasis to the productive sectors
and the protected areas
management. The work done in
this respect is of a paramount
importance for the future project
implementation.
Government GEF
N/A N/A
OFP15 (optional)
Executing Agency
N/A N/A
(optional)
13 Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory;
MS Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory.
14 Comment on the rating for 2008 and also on any observable trends from 2006 2008.
15 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)
and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1
country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name for each signature.
Page 36 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
UNDP Country Office N/A
N/A
S
Progress has been made in
achieving the targets for the first
and in most cases for the second
year of the project implementation,
and a number of other activities
has been initiated that will
capitalize in the second half of
2008 and onwards.
The project was also successful in
scaling up/replication some of the
activities, especially the one
related to agriculture.
Links and synergies with the GEF
Small Grants Programme were
established.
Coordination with other donors
present in the region was initiated
in order to prevent overlapping and
to ensue best utilization of
available funds for the region.
The project also managed to
mobilize significant amount of co-
financing.
UNDP Regional
N/A
N/A
S
Despite a slow start up process, the
Technical Advisor
project is now on track and ready
to deliver according to the project
document, some substantive
achievements have been already
made and the project is delivering
its objectives.
Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a rating of MU, U or HU is noted above describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
Page 37 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
5. Progress in Project implementation
List the 4 key outputs delivered so far for each project Outcome:
Project
Key Outputs
Outcomes
Outcome 1:
1. Draft Spatial Plan for Prespa - Ohrid region submitted for adoption to the Parliament
2. LEAPs (Local Environmental Action Plan) for Liqenas and Proger communes
adopted bt the local councils
3. Sectorial reports produced incorporating ecosystem health priorities into Water,
Agriculture, Forest, and Fishery Laws in Al Prespa
4. Action plan for ecosystem oriented forest management prepared and will be
incorporated in the forest management plan for one forest unit in MK Prespa
Outcome 2:
1. 30 % solid waste reduction (weight) due to improved solid waste management
system, recycling and composting practices in Liqenas and Proger villages (Al)
2. Manual on "Good Agriculture Practices" (MK)
3. Comprehensive trainings on Integrated Crop Management for pilot group of 20
farmers in MK Prespa
4. Pilot demonstration projects addressing forest management implemented in Al Prespa
Outcome 3:
1. Trans-boundary Monitoring and Conservation Working Group established and
operational
2. Three substantial technical reports of Preparatory Phases A, B and C of the
development of the TB Monitoring System
3. Pilot demonstration projects addressing ecosystem management implemented in Al
Prespa
4. Comprehensive analysis of the environmental status of Golema Reka along with
actions for its improvement completed and priority activities under implementation
Outcome 4:
1. Technical Assessment Report Prespa Park Coordination Committee in Trans-
boundary Ecosystem Management
2. Website for the Prespa Park Coordination Committee Beta Version already
available online
3. Draft report on GIS Needs assessment in the Prespa Lakes Basin, and a series of draft
color maps depicting a range of features within the Prespa lakes Basin produced in
electronic format
4. Protocols and process for identification of Priority trans-boundary Species in the
Prespa Lakes Basin
Outcome 5:
1. Project Inception Reports and Implementation Plan
2. Progress reports and APRs for the three project components
3. Project Oversight Committee Meeting Reports
4. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Project
Page 38 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Rating of Project Implementation16
Please see background note for further guidance.
2006
Rating
2007
2008
Comments17
(from 06 PIR if
Rating
Rating
available)
(from 07
PIR)
International Trans-
MS
Despite the late start of the trans-
boundary Adviser
boundary component, the project is
attempting to address some of the
key factors to ensure that the
`enabling environment' to deliver
the trans-boundary outcomes is in
place. This has resulted in a lower
delivery rate than anticipated at the
beginning but steadily picking up
pace.
National Project
MS
The rating indicated considers the
Manager/Coordinator
overall performance of the project
subject to country conditions,
specifics and constraints faced
during project progress.
During 2007 and part 2008 MK
national project was facing staffing
problems. Namely, after the project
manager resigned, the position was
re-announced three times, since no
person with adequate qualifications
could have been identified.
The new project manager was
appointed in May 2008, while the
previous manager resigned in
October 2007.
Government GEF
OFP18 (optional)
Executing Agency
(optional)
UNDP Country Office
MS
The delivery rate has been very low.
Therefore, closer monitoring of the
16 Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory; MS
Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory.
17 Comment on the rating for 2008 and any observable trends from 2006 - 2008
18 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)
and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1
country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name for each signature.
Page 39 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
planning process, delivery
projection and project staff
performance is needed.
UNDP Regional
MS/S
The project is still very slow in
Technical Advisor
implementation, especially in the
transboundary component. In the
same time the project was able to
deliver some tangible outputs during
the reporting period.
Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a rating of MU, U or HU is noted above describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
The CO has introduced quarterly delivery projections and
UNDP CO
Immediately
preparation of procurement plans that will serve as one of the
monitoring tools
Regular update of the project information/progress in ATLAS
Project Staff
Continuously
Page 40 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
6. Risks19
Please ensure that those risks listed as critical are real risks (not potential) and have a high probability of
occurring which would result in the project not meetings its objectives. The number of critical risks is
used to determine whether the overall project is at risk.
1. Please annex to this report a print out of the corresponding Atlas Risk Tab (please use landscape
format and only print the frame).
Please see Annex 1.
2. For any risks identified as "critical" please copy the following information from Atlas:
Risk Type
Date
Risk Description
Risk Management Response
Identified
Political
Mar 08
The pending foreign
The project has really no response to this apart from
policy issues between
attempting other creative approaches and options for
Greece and the FYR of
tri-lateral cooperation as influencing the formal
Macedonia prohibit
foreign affairs issue is really beyond the mandate of
formal adoption of new
the project.
international agreements
between the two
countries
7. Adjustments to Project Strategy
Please report any adjustments made to the project strategy, as reflected in the logical framework matrix,
since the Project Document signature:
The log-frame was revised in August 2007 and
Year reported:
approved by the UNDP-GEF Regional technical
2008
Advisor in Bratislava in November 2007
Change Made to:
Yes/No
Reason for Change
Project Objective
Project Outcomes
Project Outputs/Activities/Inputs
Indicators were revisited for the purposes of clarifying
some ambiguity and also to incorporate Greece into
the logframe i.e. to reflect the tri-lateral nature of
19 Note that having a "high risk" project is not a problem, it is how the risks are managed that are important and a
well managed "high risk" project is better than a poorly managed "low risk" one.
Page 41 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
this initiative. It was noted that Greece is not a
beneficiary of the GEF funds and the project will not
be held responsible for failure in meeting any specific
targets on the Greece has set for themselves.
8. Adjustments to Project Time Frame
If the duration of the project, the project work schedule, or the timing of any key events such as project
start up, evaluations or closing date, have been adjusted since project approval please explain the changes
and the reasons for these changes.
Change
Reason for Change
Scope of delay
(in months)
9. Financial Information: cumulative since project started to 30 June 2008.
Please present all financial values in US$ millions to 2 decimal places only (e.g. $3,502,000 should be
written as $3.50m)
Note that this section must be fully completed and must match the project document.
Name of
Nature of
Amount
Amount
Additional
Estimated
Expected
Partner or
Contributor20
used in
committed
amounts
Total
Total
Contributor
Project
in Project
committed
Disbursement Disbursement
(including
Preparation Document21 after Project
to
by end of
the Private
(PDF A, B)
Document
30 June 2008
project
Sector)
finalization11
GEF
GEF 0,376
4,135
0,886
Contribution
Cash Co-
Gov. of
0,01
0,12
financing
Albania
UNDP
Managed
UNDP
UN Agency
0,02
0,15
0,01
(TRAC)
Swiss
Bilateral
App. 2,40
Development Donor
Agency
MoEPP GR
Government
0,03
0,53
Cash Co-
Government 0,01
0,13
0,159
financing
20 Specify if: UN Agency, other Multilateral, Bilateral Donor, Regional Development Bank (RDB), National
Government, Local Government, NGO, Private Sector, Other.
21 Committed amounts are those shown in the approved Project Document. These may be zero in the case of new
leveraged project partners.
Page 42 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Partner
Managed
(MoEPP
MK)
Munic. of
Government
0,78
Resen
KfW Bilateral
0,32 5,00
Donor
NATO
Other
0,25
In-Kind Co-
1,23
financing
(add rows as
necessary)
Total Co-
0,39
8,19
2,56
financing
Total for
0,77
12,33
2,56
0,887
Project
Comments
Please explain any other significant changes in project financing since Project Document signature, or
differences between the anticipated and actual rates of disbursement/co-financing:
Page 43 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
10. Procurement Data. DO NOT complete this section for projects or project components executed by
UNOPs.
The following information has been requested by the donor countries to the GEF. Please report the US$
value (in thousands, e.g. 70,000 = 70 / 2,000 = 2) of UNDP/GEF project funds in the amount of US$2,000
or more used to procure personnel, sub-contract, equipment and training from GEF Donor Countries only.
Please enter project expenditures accumulated from project start up to the date of this report.
Personnel
Sub-contracts
Equipment
Training22
contracted that
that are with
purchased outside of
with groups or
come from these
groups based in
the project country
individuals
countries
these countries
from these countries
from these
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
countries
Total
(US$
thousands)
Australia
Austria 4,902
13,973
3,900
22,775
Belgium
Canada
China
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
India
Ireland
Italy
13,674
13,764
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New
Zealand
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Portugual
Slovenia
South
Africa
22 Those not included under personnel and sub-contracts.
Agro-meteorological station purchased through the Organization of Fishery management
Training on data interpretation of agro-meteorological station
Fishery equipment purchased through the Organization of Fishery management
Page 44 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United
Kingdom
United
States
Page 45 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
11. Additional Financial Instruments used in the Project
This section only needs to be completed if the project provides funds to any Financial Instruments such
as: Trust Funds, Sinking Funds, Revolving Funds, Partial Credit Risk Guarantees, Microfinance services,
Leasing or Insurance mechanisms. If this project does not use any Additional Financial Instruments you
do not need to complete this section.
Financial
Financial
Basis for Selection of Financial Institution
Instrument
Institution
Responsible for
Management
For Each Financial Instrument please complete the following two tables:
Name of Financial Instrument:
Source of Funds
Funds
Amount
Issues or Comments
(add rows for each
Committed
Disbursed
source)
in Project
to Date
Document
GEF
Page 46 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Rating of Performance of Financial Instrument23
2006
Rating
2007
2008
Comments
(from 06 PIR if
Rating
Rating
available)
(from 07
PIR)
National Project
Manager/Coordinator
Government GEF OFP
(optional)
Executing Agency
(optional)
UNDP Country Office
UNDP Regional
Technical Advisor
Overall Rating24
Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a rating of MU, U or HU is noted above describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
End of Project Situation
What is to happen to any funds remaining in the Financial Instrument at the end of the project?
23 For ratings, use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory; MS Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally
Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory.
24 Overall rating can be determined as follows. For each rating assign the following figures to the rating: HS = 1, S
= 2, MS = 3, MU = 4, U = 5, HU = 6. The total of these figures should be divided by the number of ratings given
(maximum 5). Enter the final rating not figure (1 = HS, 2 = S, 3 = MS, 4 = MU, 5 = U, 6 = HU)
Page 47 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
12. Good Practice in this reporting period.
Were any problems encountered? If so, how were they addressed?
Problem
Solution
Insufficient coordination among the three project
Introduction of quarterly coordination meetings of
components.
the project teams as fora for regular exchange of
information and creation of synergies.
General Comments:
Is there anything noteworthy/special/critical that was learned this year that is important to share with
other projects so they can avoid this mistake/make use of this opportunity?
Although prior to the approval of the project the Greek Government provided a Letter of Commitment in
which they committed to allocate 428,000Euro for funding of the Prespa Management Body, including
coordination of GEF project activities on the Greek side, during the project implementation problems
occurred with covering of costs for participation of the Greek members at various trans-boundary events.
The ITA in collaboration with the RTA in Bratislava is now actively pursuing addressing this issue and to
ensure that Greece has funds to actively participate in all trans-boundary activities.
What would you do differently if you were to begin the project again?
During the preparatory phase of the projects it has to be ensured that the non recipient State participating
in a GEF project has the mechanisms and funds in place to actively participate in the trans-boundary
activities.
To what extent have UNDP GEF projects been relevant to national / local efforts to reduce poverty and/or
enhance democratic governance and/or strengthen crisis prevention and recovery capacity and/or promote
gender equality and empowerment of women. Please explain.
The project activities are very relevant to the national and local efforts to reduce poverty and enhance
democratic governance especially given that the project will pilot new approaches in productive sectors
that will contribute to the improvement of the environment and at the same time create opportunities for
income generation. Prespa also serves as a model for piloting the decentralization of environmental
responsibilities which is very important process ongoing country wide that is expected to improve the
provision of better services to the citizens and provide for better living conditions.
At the recent stage of the development in Albania, there are very complex situations that are driven from
economical social and political reasons. In this respect the project, by addressing, encouraging and
implementing integrated ecosystem management philosophy and actions, does influence in alleviation of
these root causes by introducing the targeted communities and systems to a sustained relationship
Page 48 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
between nature resources they `own' and the improved community living standards.
Has this project been able to generate global environmental benefits while also contributing to the
achievement of national environmental management and sustainable development priorities? If yes,
please elaborate.
This project is clearly a case study for achieving global environmental benefit for a range of reasons.
Firstly, it builds on an ongoing challenging trans-boundary process and explores innovative measures for
tri-lateral cooperation in integrated ecosystem management. The lessons learnt from this process will no
doubt be one of the best case studies in the region and globally for sustainable development and planning
in an ecologically and politically sensitive region. As both FYR Macedonia and Albania strive towards
EU accession, the project is also very timely and `piggy- backs' on the processes being undertaken at the
national level that includes reviews of policies and legislation in relation to ecosystems and water
management.
Page 49 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
13. Project Contribution to GEF Strategic Targets in OP 12
Please respond to these additional questions specifically related to OP 12 projects.
1. Has the implementation of the project shown that there are trade offs between the benefits
expected from the different focal areas? (e.g. achieving benefits in one Focal Area will result in a
cost or loss in another Focal Area). If yes, explain what activities or mechanisms the project has
(will) put in place to manage these trade offs. Explain how effective these measures have been
this past year.
Because most of the impacts on ecosystem health in the Prespa Basin, especially on the quality
of the main water bodies, originate from productive sector activities and productive landscapes,
the project has initiated activities aimed at changing unsustainable practices in agriculture and
forestry,. The preliminary results of the support provided to the local farmers and forestry
sector show decrease of the level of pollution of the water courses and consequently the lake
itself. This approach will be expanded into the area of fishery, industry, waste management
which will further mitigate the negative impact of the human activities in the watershed.
2. Give examples (as many as possible) that show how the project has, in the past year, maximized
synergies between :
a. different Focal Area global environmental benefits
Protocols for identification of priority species and habitats that is initiated as part of a comprehensive
trans-boundary monitoring system will clearly maximize the synergies between the biodiversity
conservation objectives with objectives for improvement of the quality of the water bodies within the
basin.
b. local livelihood and global environmental benefits
The change of agriculture practices i.e. less use of pesticides and fertilizers has direct benefit for the local
farmers in a sense of reduction of production costs and more income generated from the better quality of
their products. At the same time this changed practices has reduced the stress on the ecosystem in the
watershed.
Page 50 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
3. Please summarize/describe (in both qualitative and quantitative terms) the global environment
benefits that the project has achieved this year in each relevant Focal Area (add additional
columns as necessary):
Focal Area 1 : [name of Focal Area]
Focal Area 2, etc.
Page 51 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Definition of Terms:
Project Objective: intended impact contributing to global environmental benefits via one or more
development interventions.
Outcomes: The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention's outputs
(e.g. energy efficiency of existing heat and hot water supply companies in X city improved, new trust
fund for the conservation of the PAs established, laws and bylaws approved to reduce impact of
forestry practices on biodiversity)
Outputs: The products, capital goods and services which result from a development intervention
relevant to the achievement of outcomes. (e.g. 10 staff trained to operate and maintain an early
warning system, data capture in 5 regions of costal lowlands).
Acronyms:
APR Annual
Performance
Review
CO
Country Office
ERC
Evaluation Resource Center of UNDP
FSP
Full size project
MSP Medium
size
project
OFP
Operational Focal Point
PIMS
Project Information Management System (UNDP GEF)
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PTA
Principal Technical Advisor
RCU
Regional Coordination Unit
RTA
Regional Technical Advisor
TPR
Tripartite Project Review
Page 52 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Annex 1: Project Quarterly Progress Report (Atlas Risk Tab)
Page 53 of 54
FINAL 30 May 2008
Page 54 of 54
Document Outline
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ