Fact-sheet 6 - Albania - 8140-01/2010
6.6
Which risks for the achievement of outcomes were formulated?
(xiv)
6.7
Is the intervention exemplary/ a model for other interventions,
does it form structures and can it be up‐scaled?
(xv)
7.
Assessment of the impact in general
Sources
7.1
Which is the most important positive impact of the intervention?
(xvi), (xvii), (xviii),
(xix)
7.2
Which is the most important negative impact of the
intervention?
8.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the key environmental
criteria
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
8.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the key criteria
ʺenvironmental protectionʺ, and which external factors
contributed to these changes?
2 (xvi), (xvii), (xviii),
(xix)
8.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the key criteria for
“sustainable management of natural resources”, and which
external factors contributed to these changes?
2 (xvi), (xvii), (xviii),
(xix)
8.3
… ʺreduce conflicts about the use of resourcesʺ
2
8.4
… ʺimprovement of standard of livingʺ
8.5
… ʺimproved access to energy and resourcesʺ
8.6
… ʺcontribution to climate change adaptation and mitigationʺ
Explanation
• Rivalry among government ministries and institutions hampers common efforts towards achieving regional development and further implementation of
decentralisation.
• LGUs (municipalities and communes) do not understand fully the project purpose and the potential shared benefits of regional planning and are either
unwilling to participate fully in the project or continue to carry out local development planning in isolation and in competition with neighbouring LGUs.
• Qark administrations are unable to establish effective coordination between local (LGU) and central level government administrations for implementation
of both decentralisation and regional development.
• Civil servants within qark administrations who are included in the programmes capacity development measures deny the Qark the benefits of their newly
acquired capacities by finding better paid employment elsewhere or being displaced due to political reasons.
• The rights and interests of poor, marginalised and vulnerable groups, particularly women, and their legal representatives are not integrated adequately
enough into project activities at the local level.
• Engagement in governance efforts that are envisaged to be undertaken jointly, tends to happen along party‐politics and does not necessarily center
around a common and result‐based development goal.
• Patriarchal and male‐dominated governance structures maintain the systemic exclusion of female citizens and other disenfranchised groups from
management, reform and decision‐making processes.
Indirect contribution through the funding of a project called: “Eco‐social farm for social inclusion”.
With the generally better functioning of LGU and Qark‐level administration a better higher capacity in conflict regulation may be deducted.
No contribution as the poverty rate and the unemployment rate in the region during project time even increased.
Explanation
There is no direct impact regarding “environmental protection” as the project did not strive for this. An indirect contribution may be assumed with the list
of selection criteria, elaborated by the SMTs. One of the ten selection criteria for prioritization of regional development projects says: “The project promotes
sustainable environment objectives expressed by the Regional Plan on Environment Impact”.
Provided that a generally better working administration is rather in a position to enforce laws and rules for environmental protection more
effectivelyanother indirect impact may be assumed by this .
The intervention followed a two pronged strategy: Strengthening structures and functionality of regional administrative bodies (Qark Administration) to
initiate and steer regional rural development and at the meantime initiating and implementing development projects of different complexity, thus creating a
field of practice and exposure for strengthened institution. However, bringing such an endeavor to a successful end, obviously needs more time than the
3,5 project years under the given situation.
Initiation of so‐called Subject Matter Teams (SMT) as steering bodies for regional development. These teams, consisting of Qark officials, managed to create
relevant development scenarios that can work as guiding instruments for further regional development projects and initiatives. As well formal
establishment of a Regional Development Agency in the Lezha Qark can help to foster regional development in future.
Page 8
Fact-sheet 6 - Albania - 8140-01/2010
8.7
… ʺstrengthening of governmental institutions and civil societyʺ
6 (xvi), (xvii), (xviii),
(xix)
8.8
… ʺimproved possibility to implement multilateral
environmental agreementsʺ
4 (xvi), (xvii), (xviii),
(xix)
8.9
… ʺothersʺ
9.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the thematic
operational fields for environment and development
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.1
Sustainable natural resource management and preserving
biodiversity
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.1.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes regarding the key
criteria ʺpropagating ecologically appropriate, diversified
agriculture and promoting organic farmingʺ? Which external
factors contributed to these changes?
2
9.1.2
… ʺadvocating precaution in the use of genetically modified
organismsʺ
9.1.3
… ʺcontributing to secure land and use rights and to sustainable
long‐term land‐use planningʺ
9.1.4
… ʺsecuring protected areas and promoting innovative
incentives for resource conservationʺ
9.1.5
… ʺsupporting sustainable forest and timber managementʺ
9.1.6
… ʺenhance the environmental awareness of the populationʺ
9.1.7
… ʺdevelop sustainable tourism conceptsʺ
Indirect contribution through the funding of a project of the municipality of Vau i Dejes, called “Cultural and natural heritage for Zadrimas sustainable
tourism development”.
3 (xvi), (xvii), (xviii),
(xix)
9.1.8
… ʺdevelop sustainable tourism management conceptsʺ
9.1.9
… ʺrisks and potentialsʺ
9.2
Sustainable chemicals and waste management
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.3
Climate protection
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.4
Water and sanitation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
10.
Assessment of the impact on the beneficiaries and the
institutions
Sources
Explanation
Explanation
The principal objective of the project was to strengthen particularly local and regional governmental institutions and civil society organizations. There is
evidence that regional administration has gained capacities to initiate and steer regional development projects. “Parallel to the upgrading of institutions 29
actual regional project initiatives of different complexity have been approved and are in the state of implementation. These projects are being implemented
by civil society associations (Blinds Association) and local administration bodies (municipalities).
Explanation
Indirect contribution by supporting national policy dialogue forums and platforms with national and EU‐ and UN‐institutions, working on the topic of
regional development (i.e. EU Strategy for the Adriatic‐Ionian Region EUSAIR).
Explanation
Explanation
See 8.1.
Explanation
Page 9
Dostları ilə paylaş: |