project document biodiversity strategy update · web viewthe new cbd strategic plan, adopted at...

Project document Biodiversity Strategy Update

UNDP Project Document

Government of Montenegro

Executing Agency: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Additional partners: Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

United Nations Development Programme - UNDP

Global Environment Facility - GEF

UNDP GEF PIMS no. 5024

National Biodiversity Planning to Support the implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Montenegro

Brief description

This project is part of the second generation of Biodiversity Enabling Activities (BD EA) under the GEF. Montenegro has been Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) since 06/03/2006. The project addresses the country’s need to continue to fulfill its obligations under the CBD, with particular focus on the Convention’s Article 6 and the CBD COP Decision X/2. Above all, the project is a significant contribution to Montenegro’s efforts towards implementing the CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020 at the national level. The project builds on the current status and achievements of Montenegro’s with respect to biodiversity planning and reporting. It aims to integrate Montenegro’s obligations under the CBD into its national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process. This process is expected to produce measurable targets for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. It will equally ensure that the value of ecosystems’ goods and services, as well as the challenges and opportunities for ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience are taken into consideration in the process. The project will achieve its objective through the implementation of three components, whose activities are thoroughly described in the GEF approved proposal for BD EA. They are: (1) A participative stocktaking exercise on biodiversity planning takes place and national biodiversity targets are developed in response to the global Aichi Targets; (2) The NBSAP is revised/updated and it fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as mainstreaming and anchoring the implementation of the plan into national development frameworks, valuing ecosystem services and promoting ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience; and (3) National frameworks for resource mobilization, Convention reporting and exchange mechanisms are strengthened.

Agreed by (Ministry of Sustainable development and Tourism):

Agreed by UNDP:

Table of Contents

3Overview of Approved Proposal

5SECTION I: Elaboration of the Narrative

5PART I: Situation Analysis

5Point of Departure

5Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement

7PART II: Strategy

7Project Goal, Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/activities

8Project Risks

8PART III: Management Arrangements

10PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

10Monitoring and reporting

11Communications and visibility requirements

11PART V: Legal Context

13SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK (SRF) AND GEF INCREMENT

13PART I: Strategic Results Framework, SRF (formerly GEF Logical Framework) Analysis

13Indicator framework as part of the SRF

17SECTION III: Total Budget and Workplan

19SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

19PART I: Other agreements

19Co-financing Letters

21Project Annexes

21Annex 1. Approved GEF proposal for BD EA

53Annex 2. GEF CEO Approval Letter

54Annex 3. Minutes of the Local Project Appraisal Committee (LPAC) Meeting

Overview of Approved Proposal

Overview of headings in the original proposal included in Annex I

part i: project IDentifiers

A. EA Framework

B. Co-Financing For The Ea By Source And By Name

C. Grant Resources Requested by Agency, Focal Area and Country

D. EA Management Cost

part ii: Enabling Activity JustiFication

A. Enabling Activity Background and Context

B. Enabling Activity Goals and Objectives

C. Describe the EA and Institutional Framework for Project Implementation

D. Describe, if possible, the expected cost-effectiveness of the project

E. Describe the budgeted M&E Plan

F. Explain the Deviations from typical Cost Ranges (where applicable):

part iii: approval/endorsement by gef operational focal point(s) and GEF agency(ies)

A. Record of Endorsement of GEF Operational Focal Point(s) on Behalf of the Government(s):

B. Convention Participation

C. GEF Agency(ies) Certification

Annex A: consultants to be hired for the Enabling Activity

Annex B: Operational Guidance to Focal Area Enabling Activities

-- Refer to Annex 1 for the approved proposal --

Acronyms

APR/PIR

Annual Project Review / Project Implementation Report

BD EA

Biodiversity Enabling Activities

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CDR

Combined Delivery Report

CHM

Clearing House Mechanism

CO

Country Office (UNDP)

COP

Conference of the Parties

GEF

Global Environment Facility

NBSAP

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

PoWPA

CBD’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas

QOR

Quarterly Operational Reports

TBW

Total Budget and Workplan

TEEB

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

SECTION I: Elaboration of the NarrativePART I: Situation Analysis

Point of Departure

This Project Document (PRODOC) serves to operationalise at the level of UNDP and government, the proposal for Biodiversity Enabling Activities approved by the GEF on April 13, 2012. This proposal is appended to the PRODOC in Annex 1 and the GEF CEO Letter of Approval is in Annex 2.

1. The project builds on the current status and achievements of Montenego with respect to its obligations vis-à-vis the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in particular the country’s biodiversity planning and Convention reporting processes, and its commitment to implement, at the national level, the CBD’s Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2020. These processes and achievements are summarised in a matrix in Annex 1, under the heading ‘Enabling Activity Background and Context’.

2. In particular, the NBSAP for Montenego was completed in 2010. This version of the NBSAP does not include a number of elements of the CBD Strategic Plan’s Aichi Targets and newer COP guidance. The new CBD Strategic Plan, adopted at CoP-10 in 2010 in Nagoya, clearly addresses the need for updating NBSAPs, stating in Target 17 that “By 2015, each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.” The strategic plan also covers a range of issues that will need to be incorporated into the revised NBSAPs, including guidance to countries to: a) fully realise the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and incorporate these values into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies (Targets 1 and 2); b) increase the global terrestrial protected area estate from 12% to 17% and the marine estate from 6% to 10% (Target 11); c) restore and safeguard key ecosystem services, especially for water, health and livelihoods (Target 14); and d) strengthen ecosystem resilience to climate change and promote ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Target 15).

3. The achievements and shortcomings of previsous biodiversity planning processes in Montenego are described in the GEF proposal (Annex 1), under heading ‘The Baseline Project: The Current NBSAP and the new CBD Strategic Plan’.

4. Together, all of the above elements constitute the ‘Point of Departure’ and general context for the current Biodiversity Enabling Activities project of Montenego.

Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement

5. There is an extensive body of guidance explaining how those responsible for biodiversity planning can approach the task of identifying stakeholders. In its guidance to Parties on the organization of NBSAPs and preparation of national reports, the COP has repeatedly stressed that, if the necessary transition from biodiversity planning to biodiversity implementation is to be made, then everyone with a stake in the outcome of the NBSAP needs to be engaged.

6. The stakeholder engagement process in Montenego will start with the CBD national focal points, the NBSAP responsible authority Ministery of sustainable developement and Tourism; and thereafter it will expand to include a much broader range of national actors. Developing and implementing Montenego NBSAP will be a widely inclusive and participative process.

7. A national steering committee and working groups will be proposed for accompanying the process of developing national targets, updating the NBSAP and preparing the national reports. As far as possible, the steering committee should include representatives of all sectors. Below is an overview of the potential role of different stakeholders and the rationale for their involvement in the project.

Table 1. Stakeholder Matrix

Sector

Agency/department

Potential role in the project and rationale for involvement

Biodiversity conservation

Environment Protection Agency (EPA)

Role of the EPA in this project is to participate in joint decisions on biodiversity conservation activities and by linking biodiversity conservation actions with Montenegro’s commitments to international conventions.

Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

Role of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) Environment is the key governmental entity responsible for biodiversity conservation policy and to coordinate with the secretary of the CBD convention. Role of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) in this project is to participate in joint decisions on biodiversity conservation activities and by linking biodiversity conservation actions with Montenegro’s commitments to international conventions.

Public Enterprise National Parks (PENP)

Role of PENP in this project is to participate in joint decisions on biodiversity conservation activities and by linking biodiversity conservation actions with Montenegro’s commitments to international conventions.

Sustainable agriculture

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management

MAFWM – Forestry Administration

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management will be involved in the joint development of biodiversity strategy and conservation initiatives, and will also play a role in the development of sustainable use alternatives.

Tourism

Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

Role of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) Environment is the key governmental entity responsible for biodiversity conservation policy and to coordinate with the secretary of the CBD convention. Role of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) in this project is to participate in joint decisions on biodiversity conservation activities and by linking biodiversity conservation actions with Montenegro’s commitments to international conventions.

Non-governmental Organizations

National NGOs: NGO Centre for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro, NGO Green Home, NGO Natura.

Organizations will support public consultations for this GEF Project at all stages.

National Finance and Budgeting

Ministry of Economic Development

Ministry of Finance – Real Estate Administration

Line ministries identified as the key government institutions responsible for the public finance policy of the country. The Ministries are important stakeholders which should be involved from the early stages of the NBSAP development in order to secure high buy-in and financially-sound actions plan.

Indigenous and local community organizations

Local Government – Kotor, Podgorica, Andijevica and Kolasin

Union of municipalities Representatives of local communities

Work with local NGOs, communities to conserve and restore biodiversity in selected locations. Research and biodiversity conservation activities.

PART II: Strategy

Project Goal, Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/activities

8. The project’s goal is to enable Montenegro’s to integrate its CBD obligations into national planning processes, in light of the CBD’s Strategic Plan 2011-2020.

9. The project objective is to integrate Montenegro’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) into its national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process, in a manner that is in line with the global guidance contained in the CBD’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2020.

10. In order to achieve the above objective, three ‘outcomes’ (corresponding to GEF components) are expected from the project:

· Outcome 1 – A participative stocktaking exercise on biodiversity planning takes place and national biodiversity targets are developed in response to the global Aichi Targets

· Outcome 2 – The NBSAP is revised/updated and it fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as mainstreaming and anchoring the implementation of the plan into national development frameworks, valuing ecosystem services and promoting ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience

· Outcome 3 – National frameworks for NBSAP implementation, CDB reporting and exchange mechanisms

11. The Outcomes of the project, as well as the expected outputs and activities under those, are thoroughly described in the GEF proposal in Annex 1.

Project Risks

Table 2. Project Risks Assessment and Mitigation Measures

Identified Risks

Risk Assessment

Mitigation Measures

Date of recording of risk in Atlas

The MSDT conflicts with other sectors (e.g. forestry, fishing, agriculture, tourism and urban development), and/or Local level (e.g. local municipalities, public institutions and private individuals) over identified priorities and proposed course of action.

Medium

The implementation of a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan will underpin effort to engage all relevant partners. Conflict-resolution tools and procedures will be taken in consideration by the project to support these processes.

Lack of political commitment to deliver identified priorities

Medium

Project will seek to identify benefits arising from these processes, as well as underlying importance of having relevant international framework expectations being properly meet.

Quality and performance of all interested parties both governmental and non-governmental.

Low

Project management unit will monitor partner commitment and performance and in a timely manner secure improvement and cooperation when needed.

PART III: Management Arrangements

12. The institutional and management arrangements for this project are described in the GEF proposal in Annex 1 under the heading Part II-C: Describe the Enabling Activity and Institutional Framework for Project Implementation and ‘Project Implementation Arrangement’.

13. A National Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be convened by the UNDP and MSDT, and will serve as the project’s coordination and decision-making body. The PSC will include representation of all the key project stakeholders. It will meet according the necessity, but not less than once in 6 months, to review project progress, approve project work plans and approve major project deliverables. The PSC is responsible for ensuring that the project remains on course to deliver products of the required quality to meet the outcomes defined in the project document.

14. The following are the proposed TOR for the National Project Steering Committee (PSC):

· Provide policy and strategic oversight and support to the implementation of the project, in particular to the process of updating the NBSAP, completing and submitting national reports to the CBD with full government endorsement.

· Advise and ensure stakeholder involvement on matters of biodiversity sectoral and development mainstreaming, biodiversity valuation and on the nexus biodiversity-climate change.

· Review and approve project’s annual workplans, as well as other project planning and implementation instruments.

· Support project evaluations, if applicable

· Deliberate on the TOR and membership for other committees and working groups that are expected contribute to the implementation of project activities and the achievement of its outcomes.

· Any other relevant task as applicable.

15. Besides the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders outlined in this PRODOC and in the approved proposal in Annex 1, the following project diagram represents the expected key relationships governing the project.

SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT

16. The National Project Steering Committee (PSC) is responsible for making management decisions for a project in particular when guidance is required by the Project Manager. The Project Board plays a critical role in project monitoring and evaluations by quality assuring these processes and products, and using evaluations for performance improvement, accountability and learning. It ensures that required resources are committed and arbitrates on any conflicts within the project or negotiates a solution to any problems with external bodies. Based on the approved Annual WorkPlan, the National Project Steering Committee can also consider and approve the quarterly plans (if applicable) and also approve any essential deviations from the original plans.

17. In order to ensure UNDP’s ultimate accountability for the project results, National Project Steering Committee decisions will be made in accordance to standards that shall ensure management for development results, best value money, fairness, integrity, transparency and effective international competition. In case consensus cannot be reached within the National Project Steering Committee, the final decision shall rest with the UNDP Project Manager.

18. Project Manager: The Project Manager (PM) has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Implementing Partner within the constraints laid down by the Board. The Project Manager’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

19. Project Support: The Project Support role provides project administration, management and technical support to the Project Manager as required by the needs of the individual project or Project Manager.

20. Audit: The project will undergo annual audit by a certified auditor according to UNDP rules and regulations.

PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

Monitoring and reporting

21. At the initial stage of the project, the project Monitoring and Evaluation system, composed of following components will be developed:

a) Monitoring plan, with defined benchmarks, indicators and targets, based on results and resources framework to be developed by the PM/coordinator in consultation with relevant UNDP programme staff;

b) Risk, issues and quality logs to be created by the PM and relevant program officer;

c) Quarterly project planning (with detailed activities and budget) and reporting to be conducted by the PMU;

d) Quarterly project reporting and monitoring, conducted by the PMU and the Project Board (also to include risk and issues monitoring and development of lessons learned reports);

e) Annual project planning (with general activities and budget) and reporting to be conducted by the PMU;

f) Annual project review to be conducted by the Executive Board on the basis of monitoring reports and products prepared by the project (also to include proposal for eventual changes to the project strategy or even project revision)

22. All main reports will be complied by the PMU and endorsed by the Project Board. Regular financial reports will be submitted to UNDP according to the UNDP financial rules and regulations. The M&E System should include standardized formats (aligned with UNDP procedures and formats) for the following documents:

· quarterly action plan

· quarterly progress report, including financial report

· quarterly monitoring report, including risk monitoring report

· quarterly lessons learned report

· annual action plan

· annual report, including financial report

· the simplified Biodiversity Enabling Activities Annual Project Review / Project Implementation Report (APR/PIR)

· PMU monthly workplans and progress reports

· task reports

· final report, including lessons learned

Communications and visibility requirements

23. Full compliance is required with UNDP’s Branding Guidelines. These can be accessed at http://intra.undp.org/coa/branding.shtml, and specific guidelines on UNDP logo use can be accessed at: http://intra.undp.org/branding/useOfLogo.html. Amongst other things, these guidelines describe when and how the UNDP logo needs to be used, as well as how the logos of donors to UNDP projects needs to be used. For the avoidance of any doubt, when logo use is required, the UNDP logo needs to be used alongside the GEF logo. The GEF logo can be accessed at: www.thegef.org/gef/GEF_logo. The UNDP logo can be accessed at http://intra.undp.org/coa/branding.shtml.

24. Full compliance is also required with the GEF’s Communication and Visibility Guidelines (the “GEF Guidelines”). The GEF Guidelines can be accessed at:

www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.40.08_Branding_the_GEF%20final_0.pdf. Amongst other things, the GEF Guidelines describe when and how the GEF logo needs to be used in project publications, vehicles, supplies and other project equipment. The GEF Guidelines also describe other GEF promotional requirements regarding press releases, press conferences, press visits, visits by Government officials, productions and other promotional items.

25. Where other agencies and project partners have provided support through co-financing, their branding policies and requirements should be similarly applied.

PART V: Legal Context

26. This document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and UNDP which is incorporated by reference constitute together a Project Document as referred to in the SBAA and all CPAP provisions apply to this document.

27. Consistent with the Article III of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, the responsibility for the safety and security of the implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the implementing partner’s custody, rests with the implementing partner.

28. The implementing partner shall:

a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried;

b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan.

29. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement.

30. The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

Audit clause:

31. The Audit will be conducted in accordance with the UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules and applicable audit policies on UNDP projects.

SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK (SRF) AND GEF INCREMENT PART I: Strategic Results Framework, SRF (formerly GEF Logical Framework) Analysis

Indicator framework as part of the SRF

Objective/ Outcome

Indicator

Baseline

End of Project target

Source of Information

Risks and assumptions

Objective – To integrate Montenegros obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) into its national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process, aligning the results of the process to the global guidance contained in the CBD’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2020.

The inclusion of measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets into the following sectoral planning frameworks:

Agriculture,

Forestry

Hunting

Livestock

Tourism, Trade, Transport

Energy

Fishery

Development Planning & Finance

Water

Presently only 2 sectoral planning frameworks envisage measurable targets.

By 2014 measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets are developed and ready to be included in 3 sectors

NBSAP

Risk: The targets will not be agreed by the stakeholders

Assumption:

Close consultation with the main stakeholders; commitments assumed by the country under various international conventions and treaties

Risk: The targets will not be agreed by the stakeholders

Assumption: Close consultation with the main stakeholders; review of the national developing planning process at an early stage of the project.

The inclusion of measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets into the following development frameworks:

Land-use management, including spatial and infrastructural development planning

Development finance

Poverty alleviation

Rural development and livelihoods

Food security

Local development and decentralization

Climate change mainstreaming

Population & urban planning

Health provision, including traditional medicine

Presently only 2 development frameworks provide measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets

By 2014 measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets are developed and ready to be included in 3 development frameworks

NBSAP

Outcome 1 – A participative stocktaking exercise on biodiversity planning takes place and national biodiversity targets are developed in response to the global Aichi Targets

1.1 Review and stocktaking of products and results from previous biodiversity planning processes at the national level are carried out in participative manner.

1.2 In response to the global Aichi Targets, national biodiversity targets are developed in a manner that is attuned to Montenegro reality.

1.3 The achievement of national targets, developed in line with the global Aichi Targets, is duly monitored during the project duration and beyond, and this is reported upon to the CBD through national reports and other means.

1.4 In an iterative manner, Montenegro taps into useful information on, and participates into, global networks and initiatives on biodiversity data and indicators (such as the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, the Global Environment Outlook portal, among other relevant ones).

Effective establishment of a multi-sectoral/multi-stakeholder working group

Working group is not established

By end of 2012, a multi-sectoral/multi-stakeholder working group is established and it completes the stock-taking exercise.

Project reports

CBD National Reports

Risk: Low wiliness of some of the key stakeholders to participate

Assumption: Close cooperation with the ongoing GEF/UNDP Protected Areas System Project

Risk: The framework of the global Aichi targets are known by a limited number of specialists

Assumption:

Technical consultations and specialised assistance should increase the awareness on the global Aichi Targets

Development of a national targets in response to the global Aichi Targets

No national targets have been developed

By 2012, national targets in response to the global Aichi Targets are developed.

Project reports

CBD National Reports

Official gazette

Outcome 2 – The NBSAP is revised/updated and it fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as mainstreaming and anchoring the implementation of the plan into national development frameworks, valuing ecosystem services and promoting ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience

2.1 A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for Montenegro anchored into national development frameworks, is updated, in a manner that is participative, widely disseminated and fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as:

(i) mainstreaming;

(ii) the valuing of ecosystem goods and services; and

(iii) the incorporation of challenges and opportunities linked to ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience.

2.2The updated and fully endorsed NBSAPs for Montenegro are submitted to the CBD preferably within the deadline set by the COP, incorporating recommendations of the following strategic studies:

· Integrating the challenges to Protected Areas in the 21st Century into the NBSAP and the national implementation of the CBD’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA)

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) developed for assessing and capturing value in ecosystems’ goods and services in Montenegro

Status of NBSAP vis-à-vis the guidance in the CBD Strategic Plan (2011-2020)

NBSAP is out of date and does not consider newer guidance

By 2014, the Montenegro NBSAP is fully updated, it is in line with the guidance in the CBD Strategic Plan (2011-2020)

CBD Website.

Risk: Lack of political will to include vital areas in the strategy

Assumption: Early consultation of sensible areas with all stakeholders

Outcome 3 – National frameworks for resource mobilisation, Convention reporting and exchange mechanisms are established and strengthened

Output 3.1National frameworks for NBSAP implementation is in place and includes: (i) institutional leadership for implementation is established and strategic partnerships forged (nationally and internationally); (ii) a costed and prioritized Action Plan is appended to the NBS; (iii) needs assessments on capacity, technology and finance are carried out; and (iv) a strategy for resource mobilization for the implementation of the NBSAP is produced and includes a baseline assessment of existing biodiversity finance.

Output 3.2An effective, user-friendly and easily updatable country-driven CHM site is developed; it is linked up to the CBD’s global CHM networks and to other information and knowledge exchange network on biodiversity.

Output 3.3.Immediate CBD reporting obligations are met by Montenegro in a timely manner: (1) The Second National Report to the Cartagena Protocol by 30th September 2011; and (2) The Fifth National Report to the CBD by 31 March 2014.

The Firth National Report to CBD prepared and submitted

The Firth National Report to CBD is not available

By 31 March 2014 the report is prepared and submitted to CBD

CBD website

Risk: Late submission of the 4th National report to CBD

Assumption: Sound Plan of Activities developed by the PM at early stages of project initiation

Risk: Weak financial framework for implementation of the NBSAP

Assumption:

Biodiversity conservation is a priority for Montenegro

Status of the capacity, technology and financial frameworks for implementing the revised NBSAP

No framework exists

By 2014, a complete plan for implementing the NBSAP, including capacity, technology and finance needs assessment, has been produced and underpins NBSAP implementation

Project APR/PIR

Biodiversity Support Programme Website (being revamped)

32. A detailed activity list and a chronogram of activities per output will be finalised upon project inception.

SECTION III: Total Budget and Workplan

Award ID:

00066667

Business Unit:

MNE10

Project ID:

00082774

Project Title:

National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan

Award Title:

PIMS 5024, Enabling Activity, National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan

Implementing Partner (Executing Agency)

UNDP

GEF Component (Outcome) /Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/ Implementing Agent

Fund ID

Donor Name

ERP / ATLAS Budget Code

Atlas Budget Description

TOTAL Amount (USD)

Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Budget Notes

Comp 1. Stocktaking and national target setting

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71200

International Consultants

5,000

5,000

a

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71300

Local Consultants

8,000

8,000

b

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71600

Travel

5,000

5,000

c

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100

Contractual Services-Companies

8,000

8,000

d

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


5,000

5,000

e

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


3,000

3,000

f

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72800

Information Technology Equipmt

2,110

2,110

g

GEF Subtotal Atlas Activity 1 (Comp 1)

36,110

36,110

0

0

TOTAL ACTIVITY 1 (Comp 1)

36,110

36,110

0

0

Comp 2. NBSAP update

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71200


13,000

13,000

a

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71300

Local Consultants

18,000

18,000

b

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71600

Travel

8,000

8,000

c

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


17,100

17,100

d

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


14,000

14,000

e

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


9,000

9,000

f

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


12,500

12,500

h

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

74200

Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs

3,700

3,700

i


95,300

0

95,300

0


95,300

0

95,300

0

Comp 3. National frameworks for NBSAP implementation, CDB reporting and exchange mechanisms

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71200


7,000

7,000

a

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71300

Local Consultants

13,000

13,000

b

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71600

Travel

5,000

5,000

c

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


10,000

10,000

d

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


6,000

6,000

e

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


6,000

6,000

f

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


12,500

12,500

h


59,500

0

0

59,500


59,500

0

0

59,500

Project Mgt

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71400

Contractual Services - Individ

7,425

2,475

2,475

2,475

j

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

71400


7,425

2,475

2,475

2,475

k

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

72100


1,700

700

500

500

l

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

74500

Miscellaneous Expenses

540

200

200

140

m

DIM

62000

GEF-10003

74100

Professional Services

2,000

550

850

600

n

GEF Subtotal Atlas Activity 4 (Proj Mgt)

19,090

6,400

6,500

6,190

DIM

04000

UNDP TRAC - 0012

71400


5,000

1,667

1,667

1,667

o

TRAC Subtotal Atlas Activity 4 (Proj Mgt)

5,000

1,667

1,667

1,667

TOTAL ACTIVITY 4 (Project Management)

24,090

8,067

8,167

7,857

SUB-TOTAL GEF

210,000

42,510

101,800

65,690

SUB-TOTAL UNDP TRAC

5,000

1,667

1,667

1,667

GRAND TOTAL (in cash)

215,000

44,177

103,467

67,357

Budget Notes

a

Int. NBSAP Consultant fee (lump-sum $25K / or approx. 10 weeks) - budget spread among the three components

b

National Expert Biodiversity Management and Consultation Processes (lump sum $39K / or approx. 60 weeks) - budget spread among the three components

c

Travel for Int. NBSAP Consultant; Environmental economics, finance and biodiversity service provision; Capacity needs assessment for BD management service provision, and Local Travel

d

Groups of Experts: (1) National Target Setting and NBSAP Update Working Group; and (2) Economic and Development Sectors. Lump sum $35.1K / or approx. 54 weeks - budget spread among the three components

e

Environmental economics, finance and biodiversity mainstreaming service provision (lump sum $25K / or approx. 10 weeks) – budget spread among the three components

f

Consultations and meetings in connection with the biodiversity planning stock-taking and target setting exercises; NBSAP update exercise; NBSAP implementation plans and 5NR.

g

Two laptops for local consultants

h

Capacity needs assessment for BD management service provision (lump-sum $25K/or approx. 10 weeks) - divided equally among components 2 and 3

i

Printing of 1000 copies of the NBSAP and related reports. May involve basic editorial work.

j

Project Manager (lump sum $7,425 / or approx. 16 weeks financed by GEF).

k

Project Assistant (lump sum $7,425 / or approx. 18 weeks financed by GEF).

l

Costs of communication, including telephone costs and internet service provision.

m

Stationary and other supplies for the office.

n

Project Audit

o

Project Assistant (lump sum $ 5,000 / or approx. 13 weeks financed by UNDP)

SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPART I: Other agreements

Co-financing Letters

Project Annexes

Annex 1. Approved GEF proposal for BD EA

part i: project IDentifiers

REQUEST FOR BIODIVERSITY enabling activity

Proposal for Funding Under the GEF Trust Fund

EA Title:

National Biodiversity Planning to Support the implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Montenegro

Country(ies):

Montenegro

GEF Project ID:

4876

GEF Agency(ies):

UNDP

GEF Agency Project ID:

5024

Other Executing Partner(s):

UNDP in close collaboration with the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

Submission Date:

March 30, 2012

GEF Focal Area (s):

Biodiversity

Project Duration (Months)

30

Check if applicable:

NCSA FORMCHECKBOX NAPA FORMCHECKBOX

Agency Fee ($):

21,000

A. EA framework

EA Objective: To integrate Montenegro obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) into its national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process, in a manner that is in line with the global guidance contained in the CBD’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2020.

EA ComponentGrant Type

Expected OutcomesExpected OutputsGrant Amount

($)Confirmed Co-financing

($)

1) Stocktaking and national target setting

TA

· By end of 2012, a multi-sectoral/multi-stakeholder working group is established and it completes the stock-taking exercise.

· By 2012, national targets in response to the global Aichi Targets are developed.





36,110

42,133

2) NBSAP update

TA

· By 2014, the Montenegro NBSAP is fully updated, it is in line with the guidance in the CBD Strategic Plan (2011-2020) and has been submitted to the CBD COP

2.1 A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for Montenegro anchored into national development frameworks, is updated, in a manner that is participative, widely disseminated and fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as:

(i) mainstreaming;



2.2The updated and fully endorsed NBSAPs for Montenegro are submitted to the CBD preferably within the deadline set by the COP, incorporating recommendations of the following strategic studies:

· Integrating the challenges to Protected Areas in the 21st Century into the NBSAP and the national implementation of the CBD’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA)

· The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) developed for assessing and capturing value in ecosystems’ goods and services in Montenegro

95,300

100,000

3) National frameworks for NBSAP implementation, CDB reporting and exchange mechanisms

· By 2014, complete plan for implementing the NBSAP, including capacity, technology and finance needs assessment

· By 31 March 2014, the Fifth National Report is submitted to the CBD (beyond the project’s proposed time-frame)

3.1 National frameworks for NBSAP implementation is in place and includes: (i) institutional leadership for implementation is established and strategic partnerships forged (nationally and internationally); (ii) a costed and prioritized Action Plan is appended to the NBS; (iii) needs assessments on capacity, technology and finance are carried out; and (iv) a strategy for resource mobilization for the implementation of the NBSAP is produced and includes a baseline assessment of existing biodiversity finance.

3.2. Immediate CBD reporting obligations are met by Montenegro in a timely manner, in particular the Fifth National Report to the CBD by 31 March 2014.

59,500

70,000

Subtotal

190,910

212,133

EA Management Cost

19,090

27,867

Total EA Cost

210,000

240,000

a List the $ by EA components.

B. Co-financing for the EA by source and by name

Sources of Co-financing

Name of Co-financier

Type of Co-financing

Amount ($)

National Government

Government of Montenegro

Grant

235,000

Multilateral donor

UNDP CO Montenegro

Grant

5,000

Total Co-financing

240,000

C. Grant Resources Requested by Agency, Focal Area and Country

GEF Agency

Type of Trust Fund

Focal Area

Country Name/Global

EA Amount (a)

Agency Fee (b)

Total (c)=(a)+(b)

UNDP

GEF TF

Biodiversity Focal Area Set-Aside

Montenegro

210,000

21,000

231,000

Total Grant Resources

D. EA Management Cost

Cost Items[GEF only] Total Estimated Person Weeks/MonthsGrant Amount($)Co-financing ($)EA Total ($)

Local consultants*

34

14,850

10,467

25,317

International consultants*

0

0

0

Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications*

1,700

15,400

17,100

Travel

0

0

0

Others**: Miscellaneous expenses and project audit

2,540

2,000

4,540

Total

19,090

27,867

46,957

* Details to be provided in Annex A. ** Other items to be clearly specified.

Additional information for Table D, if applicable:

If costs for office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications, travels are requesting for GEF financing, please provide justification here:

The GEF will finance 16 weeks of work for a Project manager and 18 for a Project Assistant. Exact rates are in Annex A. Most of expenses for the office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications will be borne by the Government of Montenegro. Only part of total expenses under this category will be requested from GEF financing, mainly for communication. Facility costs covered by GEF will also include phone, fax and internet expenses kept at approx. $1.7K for the project duration. Audit was budgeted for at $2K, also for the entire project duration, and For more details, refer to the Total Budget and Workplan in Annex C.

part ii: Enabling Activity JustiFication

A. Enabling Activity Background and Context (Provide brief information about projects implemented since a country became party to the convention and results achieved):

Montenegro became the 192nd member of the United Nations on 28 June 2006 and an official candidate for membership of the European Union in 2010. Montenegro is a small (13,812 km2) mountainous country located in south-eastern Europe. It borders Bosnia & Herzegovina to the north-west, Serbia (Kosovo) to the north-east, Albania to the south-east and Croatia to the west. It has 293km of coastline along the Adriatic Sea. The maritime zone of Montenegro extends up to 12 nautical miles out to sea and is some 2,500 km2 in extent. The terrain of Montenegro ranges from high mountains along its borders with Serbia (Kosovo) and Albania, through a segment of the Karst of the western Balkan Peninsula, to a narrow (2-10 km wide) coastal plain. The coastal plain disappears completely towards the hinterland, where Mount Lovcen and other ranges plunge abruptly into the inlet of the Gulf of Kotor. With 3,250 plant species, Montenegro is considered as one of the most floristically diverse areas of the Balkan Peninsula. It has a species-area index for its vascular flora of 0.837, the highest of all European countries (Stevanovic. et al 2000). Montenegro also forms part of the Mediterranean Basin ‘biodiversity hotspot’, one of 153 centers of globally significant floral diversity. The number of Balkan vascular floral endemics in Montenegro is very high, with 392 taxa (~7% of the total vascular flora) recorded, markedly in the high mountain areas of the country. Of particular global significance are the 46 locally endemic vascular plants, mostly comprising Tertiary relicts. The remaining flora of Montenegro includes around 1,200 species of freshwater algae, approximately 1,500 species of marine algae (300 of which are macro algae) and 589 species of bryophytes. In addition, some 284 species of lichens have been recorded, and some 2000 species of fungi. About 295 fish species have been recorded in the waters of Montenegro, of which some 90 species are freshwater and more than 205 marine. There are 56 species of amphibians and reptiles. The coastal region of Montenegro and its hinterland - the Skadar Lake, Lovćen and Prokletije - are considered the most significant centers of biodiversity of reptiles and amphibians on the Balkan Peninsula and in Europe. Of a total of 526 European bird species, 297 (or 57%) can be found regularly in Montenegro, with several additional species (~29 species) registered as occasional visitors. With 204 nesting bird species, Montenegro has a species-area index for nesting birds of 0.557, considerably higher than the figure for the entire Balkans (0.435). Lake Skadar, shared with Albania, is one of the most important wintering sites for waterfowl in Europe. Sixty five species of terrestrial mammals have also been recorded within the territory of Montenegro.

Economic Development Challenges: Montenegro has enjoyed strong economic growth in recent years, along with low inflation and a significant amount of direct foreign investment. The life expectancy at birth is 74, well above the global average of 69. One of the major successes has been the decrease in percentage of the population in poverty – in 2005, more than 11% of the population lived in poverty, while in 2008, less than 5% of the population lived in poverty. The gross national income per capita is $6,750 (for 2010). The mortality rate of children under 5 has continued to decline annually for the past 20 years, and now stands at 8 per 1000, far below the average of developing countries in Central Asia of 23 per thousand. The country has also made important advances in the areas of price and trade liberalization, privatization and banking sector reform. One of the main challenges in economic development is the area of institutional reform, especially in the areas of corporate governance and competition. In addition, nearly a third of all adults are unemployed – this is by far the most important economic challenge facing the country.

On the basis of the available information, the following 6 main categories of threats to biodiversity can be identified:

1. Uncontrolled urban and tourism development, particularly on the coast and in Podgorica with which building of road and hydro-technical infrastructure is connected which lead to the loss, degradation and fragmentation of the remaining natural habitats, particularly coastal and wetlands habitats;

2. Changes in land use practices, associated with urban and tourism development and introduction of new practices in agricultural production leads not only to the loss of natural and semi-natural habitats but also to the loss of agro-biodiversity, that is, local varieties and breeds;

3. Unsustainable and illegal use of natural resources due to: (i): logging of natural forests, (ii) over-harvesting and unsustainable use of edible and medicinal plants, fungi and invertebrates, (iii) game hunting and (iv) fishing;

4. Pollution in the first place, freshwater and marine ecosystems waste waters and solid waste which apart from intoxication of organisms leads to eutrophication in those ecosystems;

5. Introduction of alien, invasive species, mostly for commercial reasons, is a threat to biodiversity which has not been well studied yet , but is expected to intensify in the near future;

6. Climate change represents a forthcoming threat to biological diversity which has a narrow variation amplitude, particularly in the temperature and water regime, and there must be a greater analysis of the existing and potential consequences from climate change

.

7. Habitat loss: the most significant cumulative effect of the above mentioned threats to biological diversity is the loss of rare or endangered habitats and their associated rare, endemic or endangered species particularly on the coast as well as a reduction in the functionality and stability of ecosystems, particularly of forest and water ecosystems

A number of ministries and administrative bodies are responsible for environmental and protected areas management in Montenegro. The main responsibilities of the environment sector of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) are to develop national strategies, policies, laws and standards for environmental protection. The Environmental Protection Agency performs executive tasks and, together with the Ministry, enables efficient and effective development and implementation of environment/nature policies. The Ministry also performs administrative supervision over the work of several public institutions, including Public Enterprise National Parks and Nature Protection Institute. The Public Enterprise National Parks of Montenegro (PENP) is the only specialized institution tasked with PA management in Montenegro. PENP is responsible for protection and management of the five Montenegrin National Parks - Durmitor, Biogradska gora, Skadar Lake, Lovcen and Prokletije (in process of proclamation). The responsibilities of the Nature Protection Institute (NPI) includes: the identification of natural assets that need special protection status; carrying out preparatory studies for establishing new protected areas, proposing nature protection measures and issuing decrees/ resolutions on placing certain natural assets under protection; maintaining inventories of protected natural assets; conducting research and supervising conservation, restoration and protection projects; preparing plans and programs for the advancement of protected areas and species; and providing expert opinions on project documentation and physical plans. Other ministries whose competencies are closely linked to environment and nature protection include: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in charge of forestry, agriculture and fishery, and water protection and use; and the Ministry of Economic Development with competences in the areas of economic development including industry, energy, and spatial planning and construction. The 2008 Nature Protection Law delegates competences for proclamation and management of certain categories of nature protected areas (namely for regional/ nature parks, natural monuments, and landscapes with outstanding characteristics) to local government level. Similar provisions were already in place under previous legislation, although the actual performance of municipalities in relation to these competences remains limited because of the lack of financial resources, technical facilities and human capacity. The administrative set up of the country includes national and local level governments, with local self-government structured into 21 municipalities.

Currently the national protected area system (PAS) covers 108,886 ha, or 7.88 % of the territory. The largest portion (85,695 ha or ~79%) of the PAS is represented by the 4 national parks (and their constituent nature reserves, 610ha in extent) – Durmitor, Skader Lake, Lovćen and Biogradska gora. A revision of the Law on National Parks is currently in process to provide for the proclamation of a fifth National Park – Prokletije, approximately 18,000 ha in extent. The remaining protected areas, comprising a total of 23,191ha (~21% of the PAS), include: 41 Monuments of Nature; four Areas with Exceptional Natural Features; and one area protected by Municipal decision. Montenegro also has one Ramsar site (Skadar Lake NP), one Biosphere Reserve (Tara River Basin – 182,899ha, including Durmitor and Biogradska Gora NP’s) and two World Heritage Sites (WHS) – Durmitor (Durmitor NP) as a natural WHS and Boka Kotorska (15,000ha) as a natural and cultural WHS. Although there has been much progress in establishing protected areas, there remains much to be done in other areas of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas, including improving connectivity, protected area policy reform, sustainable finance, management planning and transboundary areas, among others.

There are a number of barriers to the effective implementation of the CBD in Montenegro, the most significant being:

1. Low political priority on the protection of the environment - although environmental protection and conservation of biodiversity and natural resources are formally declared as priority in numerous official documents (The Declaration of the Ecological State, Spatial Plan of Montenegro, National Strategy for Sustainable Development, etc.), in practice they are positioned low in the political agenda since the economic sectors (tourism, energy, agriculture etc) considered as profitable are priorities. Interests of "development without barriers" are generally substantiated with strong financial and investment arguments that are stronger than environmental arguments including legal procedures and administrative measures that are considered as barriers to that kind of development.

2. Low level of limitations and incentives relating to protection of biodiversity/protection of nature - the current system of prohibitions and sanctions for the violation of regulations concerning nature protection (ranging from pollution to the direct use of biological resources) is not very efficient. As a result, these systems fail therefore to control and limit harmful activities that contribute to biodiversity loss. When applied, penalties are often perceived as "extra taxes" that complicate economic activities. In addition, there is a lack of incentives for investment in improvements of the state of natural resources for both economic sectors (agriculture, industry, tourism) and individuals that have to change their awareness and behaviour.

3.Demographic, social and economic changes which influence biodiversity - significant demographic changes affected the region in past two decades (the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the migration of refugees and displaced persons etc.) consequently changed previous resident population of Montenegro (in ethnic, social and economic sense). On the other hand, internal migrations (e.g. from villages to the city and from the north to Podgorica and to the Coastal Area) have changed the demographic profile of rural settlements. Also, there were significant changes in the age structure of the population, which further affects the labour capacities and economic potentials of the Montenegrin people. These changes affected traditional forms of the utilization of natural resources as well as traditional life style, especially in mountainous areas. Unfavorable economic conditions have resulted in an increase in the direct exploitation of biological resources. Further, the overharvesting/direct exploitation of biological resources much depends on accessibility whilst the unequal distribution of the benefits arisen from their exploitation is causing dissatisfaction among the local people.

4.Poor participation of stakeholders in decision making processes - Historically, there has been little participation of key stakeholders in decision-making process regarding use and management of natural resources. Existing mechanism for the management of protected natural assets do not meet basic rights and needs of the local population, whose livelihoods are linked to the use of natural resources. Although perceptions are changing with in rural areas, natural resources in public/state use are mostly seen as “nonentity” property that should be exploited “as much as possible”. Further, the general public only declaratively supports the protection of the environment and biodiversity, but only few individuals and groups take an active role in it. This responsibility for catering for the environment and biodiversity is transferred to “someone other who is in charge for taking action”, resulting in low public commitment, participation and feedback from public institutions to the general public.

5. Poor harmonization of legal and inter-institutional responsibilities - Fragmented distribution of responsibilities and low level of inter-institutional coordination are causing: 1) an overlap of institutional responsibilities regarding biodiversity/natural resources management, and 2) a lack of efficiency in the execution of obligations regarding biodiversity protection / conservation and sustainable use. In addition to that, there is a gap between the reforms in the legislative framework for biodiversity / nature protection and socio-economic transition / reforms required by the EU accession process. For example, regulations for the development of management plans for protected areas do not require a participatory approach in its preparation, adoption and implementation.

6. Lack of public and political awareness of biodiversity and lack of public involvement in its protection - a low level of knowledge and awareness on a wide range of issues regarding biodiversity / nature protection is reflected in various aspects, such as inadequate solid waste disposal and lack of knowledge about the protected areas. Public awareness campaigns on these issues are rare, usually opportunistic and focused on specific issues (e.g. campaign against the construction of hydropower plants on Tara River). Further, there is low public support to initiatives for increased nature protection (e.g. lack of public support for establishing National park "Prokletije"), resulting in discouragement of the general public and lack of political interest and support. The establishment of new protected areas is considered as a “barrier” to local economic development of rural areas, negatively affecting the public opinion on these important assets.

7. The weaknesses in the systems of management and designation of protected areas - The low level of operational and managerial capacities of authorities in effectively managing the existing protected areas of Montenegro are important barriers to the conservation of the key natural values of the country. Further, the inability or the numerous barriers experienced in the designation of new protected areas, particularly those of large size, require more efficient models for their designation.

Other related biodiversity planning processes:

The preparation of Montenegro’s new NBSAP is slated to build on prior biodiversity planning, CBD reporting processes and on the conclusions from previous capacity needs assessments.

Montenegro has been developing or is about to finalise the following further national-level policies, strategies and/or planning processes that are equally of relevance to the NBSAP formulation:

· The National Strategy of Sustainable Development, launched in January, 2007 and supported by UNDP, UNEP and the government of Italy, set out to explore sustainable development options for economic development, sustainable use and protection of natural resources and biodiversity, and social development.

· Strengthening the sustainability of the protected area system of Montenegro (PIMS 3688): a project aimed at mitigating threats to biodiversity within protected areas and improving management effectiveness

· Catalyzing Financial Sustainability of the PA System (Project 3947): A project aimed at catalysing the financial sustainability of the protected area system of Montenegro.

1) National Reporting to CBD

Reports

Date of Submission to CBD Secretariat

Current Status*

Comments

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

07-30-2010

Submitted

Currently outdated, as does not address Aichi Targets fully

Revision of NBSAP

Not submitted

Not yet started

Funding being applied for under this project

1st National Report

Not submitted

Not completed

No funding was requested from GEF for this.

2nd National Report

Not submitted

Not completed


3rd National Report

Not submitted

Not completed


4th National Report

10-25-2010

Submitted

Although completed, the report does not fully consider the Aichi Targets and new CBD guidance.

2) Capacity Needs Assessments carried out YES FORMCHECKBOX NO FORMCHECKBOX

Start Date: Jan 2006

End Date: Dec 2010

Please list all of the CBD Program of Work and cross-cutting themes that were addressed in the Biodiversity Enabling Activities Capacity Needs Assessments:

Dates

· Cross-cutting capacity needs assessments for the implementation of the Rio Conventions. See e.g. http://www.undp.org/mainstreaming/docs/ncsa/ncsa-reports/finalreportsandplan/ncsa-montenegro-fr-ap.pdf

Nov 2007

· Under the Fourth National Report to the CBD:

· Agricultural Biodiversity

· Forest Biodiversity

· Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing

· Biodiversity for Development

· Invasive Alien Species

· Protected Areas

· Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

· Marine and Coastal Biodiversity

Oct 2010

3) Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) established?

YES FORMCHECKBOX NO FORMCHECKBOX

CHM link(s):

Montenegro doesn’t have website developed for these purpose

Is the CHM website maintained up to date?

YES FORMCHECKBOX NO FORMCHECKBOX

How many people currently operate and maintain the national CHM?

n.a.

How many people visited the national CHM website in the past 12 months?

n.a.

B. Enabling Activity Goals and Objectives (The proposal should briefly justify the need for the project.)

The Baseline Project: The Current NBSAP and the new CBD Strategic Plan

The new CBD Strategic Plan, adopted at CoP-10 in 2010 in Nagoya, clearly addresses the need for updating NBSAPs, stating in Target 17 that “By 2015, each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.” The strategic plan also covers a range of issues that will need o be incorporated into the revised NBSAPs, including guidance to countries to: a) fully realise the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and incorporate these values into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies (Targets 1 and 2); b) increase the global terrestrial protected area estate from 12% to 17% and the marine estate from 6% to 10% (Target 11); c) restore and safeguard key ecosystem services, especially for water, health and livelihoods (Target 14); and d) strengthen ecosystem resilience to climate change and promote ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Target 15). The most recent NBSAP for Montenegro was completed in 2010. This version of the NBSAP does not include the following elements of the CBD Strategic Plan’s Aichi Targets:

· A plan for integrating the value of biodiversity into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems (Target 2)

· A plan for creating incentives and removing harmful subsidies (Target 3)

· A plan for developing landscapes that have sustainable production and consumption and ensure the use of natural resources falls well within safe ecological limits. (Target 4)

· A plan for fully implementing the Programme of Work on Protected Areas, including increased protection and landscape/seascape connectivity (Target 11)

· A plan for restoring and safeguarding ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being (Target 14)

· A plan for strengthening ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks, including the restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems (Target 16)

· A plan for the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all sources (Target 20)

Proposed Response and Rationale: The new generation of BD EA. This project seeks to fully incorporate the above issues into the NBSAP. This ‘new generation’ of NBSAP will help set a regional and global standard of excellence by creating a national road map for achieving the Aichi Targets. Special emphasis will be placed on mainstreaming biodiversity into development plans, incorporating protected area networks and sustainable production systems into ecosystem-based climate adaptation and resilience plans, and creating sustainable finance for biodiversity conservation through the full valuation of key ecosystem services.

Alignment with Focal Area Outcome(s):

BD5 Objective: Integrate CBD Obligations into National Planning Processes through Enabling Activities (herein serving as the ‘Project Development Goal’)

Focal Area Outcome 5.1: Development and sectoral planning frameworks at country level integrate measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets.

The Project Objective is:

To integrate Montenegro’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) into its national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process, in a manner that is in line with the global guidance contained in the CBD’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2020.

This will be achieved through the following Outcomes (corresponding to components described in detail below):

· Outcome 1 – A participative stocktaking exercise on biodiversity planning takes place and national biodiversity targets are developed in response to the global Aichi Targets

· Outcome 2 – The NBSAP is revised/updated and it fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as mainstreaming and anchoring the implementation of the plan into national development frameworks, valuing ecosystem services and promoting ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience

· Outcome 3 – National frameworks for resource mobilization, NBSAP implementation, Convention reporting and exchange mechanisms are strengthened

How the project plans to build national capacity

Enabling Activities are considered foundation activities within the framework of the GEF. The ultimate goal of Biodiversity Enabling Activities is to build national capacity across the board for biodiversity management. The effective achievement of global biodiversity benefits depends on the development of national capacity for managing biodiversity. The approach to building of national capacity in this proposal will include:

(1) driving a participatory and consultative process for preparing all of key products under the project; and

(2) bringing professional expertise into the process, e.g. by planning a few highly strategic output-based consultancies, where one of the key aims is to build national capacity to carry out activities related to biodiversity planning.

The project will focus on strengthening national capacity in Montenegro in the following manner:

Individual

Much of the work under this project will be carried out through working groups. This is an ideal forum for imparting knowledge among different individuals involved in biodiversity planning and in environmental matters in Montenegro. This approach ensures that national and international consultants, technical experts and advisors, stakeholders and government staff collaborate in a shared learning process.

Organizational

UNDP’s approach to Biodiversity Enabling activities in GEF5 goes beyond the mere production of national reports and strategies to the CBD and the development of a website for the CHM. Rather, it is concerned about developing a permanent framework for reporting to the CBD and monitoring on biodiversity management. This implies institutionalizing the capacity for eventually achieving this with as little external assistance as possible. Given the ambitious targets of the CBD Strategic Plan for 2011-2020, it is recognized that actions to engage external assistance and retain national are in the meanwhile needed. This will be availed through the project. In particular, the following activities are specially targeted at building organizational capacity:

· Taking stock of the NBSAP and identifying barriers to its implementation

· Setting targets and priorities

· Developing implementation plans for the revised NBSAP

· Assessing and strengthening capacity needs

· Developing a permanent framework for reporting to the CBD

Systemic

The approach that UNDP has developed for Biodiversity Enabling Activities in GEF5 is transformational with respect to systemic capacity elements (i.e. policy, economic, regulatory, and accountability frameworks within which organizations and individuals operate). The aim is to ensure that the objectives, targets and guidance from the CBD Strategic Plan for 2011-2020 become fully anchored into national development frameworks and that the system is capable of effectively and in those cases where relevant and possible real-time collecting, analyzing and feeding back the relevant information into the policy making. The method will utilize systemic and societal capabilities and harness those for policy making and monitoring and evaluation that will combine traditional with innovative mechanisms of data collection. The knowledge developed through these activities will become part of Montenegro’s new NBSAP and will have a greater chance of influencing and even becoming policy. In particular, the following activities are specially targeted at building systemic capacity:

· Assessing and integrating ecosystem services through economic valuation

· Mainstreaming biodiversity into development policies, plans and practices, into sectoral plans and strategies, and into national accounting frameworks

· Incorporating climate change issues into the NBSAP, including the incorporation of challenges and opportunities linked to ecosystem-based adaptation and mitigation and ecosystem resilience.

· Integrating the NBSAP implementation plan with the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas implementation plan

· Securing sustainable finance for NBSAP implementation

· Monitoring and reporting on the status of biodiversity under climate change scenarios

C. Describe the Enabling Activity and Institutional Framework for Project Implementation (discuss the work intended to be undertaken and the output expected from each activity as outlined in Table A ).

Detailed Description of Activities per Project Component / Outcome

The description that follows has been organized in five modules (I -V), following the GEF’s guidance, but which for the sake of simplicity were grouped within the three already mentioned Components / Outcomes. The following are modules:

Component

Outline of modules for NBSAP Revision and Related Activities

Indicative percentage of total GEF funding in the proposal (mgt costs excl.)

1

I. Preparation

9%

II. Setting national targets, principles, & main priorities of the strategy

10%

2

III. Strategy and action plan development

50%

3

IV. Development of Implementation plans and related activities

16%

V. Institutional, monitoring, reporting and exchange

15%

Component 1. Stocktaking and national target setting

Key Outputs expected under this component includes the following:





Key Outcomes:

· By mid- 2012, a multi-sectoral/multi-stakeholder working group is established and it completes the stock-taking exercise.

· By October 2012, national targets in response to the global Aichi Targets are developed.

Key Products or publications resulting from activities:

· Brief Review of the Biodiversity Planning Process in Montenegro

· Biodiversity Targets for Montenegro: As part of national efforts to implement the CBD’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2020

Key Activities (I-II):

The National Expert Biodiversity Management and Consultation Processes, the Group of experts in economic and development sectors and the National Target Setting and NBSAP Update Working Group will play a pivotal role in preparatory and target-setting activities under Component 1. They will be assisted by the International NBSAP Consultant and an International service provider on environmental economics, finance and biodiversity mainstreaming. Meetings, consultations, research (e.g. into global networks and initiatives on biodiversity data and indicators) and desk reviews (including policy analyses) will be carried out for producing the required products. The process of setting targets will be participatory and should count on the views of a wider audience, e.g. through a national workshop. Key activities are:

I. Preparing for the NBSAP revision

· Taking stock of the NBSAP and identifying barriers to its implementation: This activity will focus on rapidly but accurately taking stock of existing plans, policies and practices, and of the root causes of biodiversity loss. Within country-specific contexts, the aim is not only to identify key threats, but to understand the drivers behind these threats, as well as the key aspects of the policy environment that are barriers and challenges to effective conservation/sustainable use. Based on existing studies and analyses, the emphasis of this activity will be on identifying key gaps in the existing NBSAP, understanding the primary drivers and root causes, and identifying the means of overcoming existing barriers and challenges.

· Stakeholder consultation and participation: This activity will focus on ensuring a robust consultative process that engages representatives from key sectors, administrative leaders, and traditionally under-represented groups. The aim is to develop and sustain a participatory process in order to increase the likelihood of successful implementation of the NBSAP. This is especially important relative to the goals of mainstreaming biodiversity into national development plans, and promoting resilient landscapes that include production sectors.

For this specific task the project will closely collaborate with the currently on-going UNDP/GEF Projects on Protected Areas System which has identified the main stakeholders in the biodiversity area and established a good practice for exchange of information and stakeholder buy-in, which should ensure success of both projects.

II. Setting targets

· Setting targets and priorities: This activity focuses on setting specific, measurable, achievable and time-bound targets for the NBSAPs based on the global Aichi Targets, including targets on restoration of ecosystems, protected area coverage, overall biodiversity loss, and other aspects of the Strategic Plan. This activity, which is linked to priority setting among different aspects within the NBSAP, will be initiated (if not completed) by CoP-11.

Component 2. NBSAP Update

Key Outputs expected under this component includes the following:

2.1. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for Montenegro, anchored into national development frameworks, is updated, in a manner that is participative, widely disseminated and fully integrates new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as:

(i) mainstreaming;



2.2 The updated and fully endorsed NBSAPs for Montenegro is submitted to the CBD preferably within the deadline set by the COP, incorporating recommendations of the following strategic studies:

· Local-level TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity): Assessing and capturing value in ecosystems’ goods and services in Montenegro

· Exploring and costing options for Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Montenegro

Key Outcome:

· By early 2014, Montenegro’s NBSAP is fully updated, it is in line with the guidance in the CBD Strategic Plan (2011-2020) and has been submitted to the CBD COP

Key Products or Publications resulting from activities

· Second National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Montenegro

· Sub-product 1: Assessing and capturing value in ecosystem’s goods and services in Montenegro

· Sub-product 2: Exploring and costing options for Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Montenegro

Key Activity (III)

III. Developing the NBSAP

This step will seek to achieve the following: (i) Developing the strategy and actions to implement the agreed targets though national consultations; (ii) Application of the NBSAP to sub-national entities through sub-national and local consultations; and (iii) Sectoral integration including mainstreaming into development, poverty reduction and climate change plans through sectoral consultations.

The National Expert Biodiversity Management and Consultation Processes, the Group of experts in economic and development sectors and the National Target Setting and NBSAP Update Working Group will play a pivotal role in the NBSAP development activities under Component 2. They will be assisted by the International NBSAP Consultant, an international service provider on environmental economics, finance and biodiversity mainstreaming and an international service provider on capacity needs assessment for biodiversity management. Collectively, these consultants, service providers and working groups will be responsible for preparing the required products according to their TOR (see Annex A, D and E) and for involving a wide range of stakeholders in the NBSAP development process.

While the project will focus on updating all aspects of NBSAPs, it will place particular emphasis on those aspects that are both highlighted in the 2011-2020 CBD Strategic Plan, and that are typically absent from its existing NBSAP. These include the following:

· Assessing and integrating ecosystem services through economic valuation: The study on the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) has drawn attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services and to the growing costs of biodiversity loss and degradation. However, Montenegro has not yet linked the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services to its own national development goals, including poverty alleviation, employment and sustainable livelihoods. The only effort to develop a rough estimate of the lower limit of the total economic value (TEV) of the protected area system was done through a GEF-funded project “Strengthening PA system in Montenegro”. This economic valuation was done for the PAS in order to support the case for sustained public investment in protected area establishment and management. Based on the previous study, but by looking at other elements of ecosystem valuation not typically captured in the mentioned study, Montenegro will be able to demonstrate the benefits and values of ecosystems and biodiversity at a national level, and better link ecosystems and priority sectors in national development plans, in order to guide allocation of resources. The aim is to strengthen the point that biodiversity not only underpins human well-being, but that biodiversity and associated ecosystem services can make a significant contribution to poverty reduction and economic development. By engaging national specialists and providing support from global specialists, hard economic data will be collected and processed at the country level to demonstrate the costs and benefits of investing in biodiversity management. Capacity to carry out the assessments and make important links to priority economic sectors will be simultaneously built within the country. The availability of essential data and the analysis will allow Montenegro to “make the case” for biodiversity and will facilitate the process of mainstreaming biodiversity into sectoral planning through concrete biodiversity valuation examples.

Specific steps in this process include:

a. Identify and assess the full range of values of key ecosystem services within the country, based on existing local, national, regional and global studies on the value of ecosystems and biodiversity, including: the national TEEB valuation results, the valuation of protected areas, any other national ecosystem services studies that have been conducted (e.g. water, carbon), and existing global and regional maps and overlays of key ecosystem services

b. Identify the implications of these services for different stakeholder groups within the country, including those who benefit from, and pay for, the maintenance of these ecosystem services, and those that degrade ecosystems through unsustainable use.

c. Estimate and demonstrate the value of key ecosystem services (using methods appropriate to each service), including the value of the ecosystem service in contributing to climate resilience, adaptation and mitigation; reducing poverty, and sustaining livelihoods.

d. Where appropriate, this activity will also identify potential means of capturing the value of targeted ecosystem services including through policies such as payments for ecosystem services and other positive incentives.

· Mainstreaming biodiversity into development policies, plans and practices and into sectoral plans and strategies: Mainstreaming has been defined as the internalization of biodiversity conservation goals into economic and development sectors, policies and programs, such that they become an integral part of their functioning of these sectors. This aspect is deeply linked to several of the Aichi Targets (3, 4, 14, 16 and 20 to mention a few).

As part of this process, the

project document biodiversity strategy update · web viewthe new cbd strategic plan, adopted at...

Documents