mid-term review of the kosovo environmental program final...

Mid-termreviewoftheKosovoEnvironmentalProgram

FinalReportJuly2019

1

EXECUTIVESUMMARYThis is the report of a mid-term review of the Kosovo Environmental Programme (KEP)implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP) and the Inter-MinisterialWaterCouncil(IMWC),GovernmentofKosovo.TheProjectissupportedfinanciallyby the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the consultantcompany FCG Sweden has been procured to provide technical assistance as part of theprogramme.

ThedevelopmentobjectiveofKEPistocontributetoimprovingtheenvironmentalconditionsin Kosovo. Implementation of the programme started in July 2016 and is planned to becompletedbyJuly2020.TheimplementationoftheSwedishsupportisregulatedbyaspecificagreement betweenMESP and Sida dated 2015-10-28, complemented with an amendmentdated2016-11-17,whichstatesthatamid-termreviewshallbecarriedoutin2018.

Thepurposeofthemid-termreviewhasbeentoassist theprogrammepartners inassessingthe progress of implementation, identifying lessons learned and making recommendationsthat can be used for adjusting and improving implementation during the remainingprogramme period. To that effect, the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact,sustainabilityandcoordinationofKEPhavebeenevaluated.

A CONCLUSIONSANDLESSONSLEARNEDThe relevance of KEP in relation to the needs and priorities of beneficiaries as well as toSwedishpolicies and strategies for reformcooperationwashigh at theoutsetof KEP and iseven higher today. Environmental aspects covered in the stabilization and associationagreement with EU, the UN sustainable development goals, and recent Swedish globalthematicstrategiesputincreasedemphasisonseveralthemescurrentlyaddressedbyKEP.

Considering that theProgrammehasbecome seriously under-funded for reasonsbeyond itscontrol, it is considered that KEP has been overall efficient in achieving intended outputs,albeitwithsubstantialdelaysinseveralcases,andresultshavebeenprovidedtoanextentthatjustifies the costs. The programme design, founded on a broad approach engaging keystakeholder institutions, and strong ownership of components and objectives by theparticipating institutions have facilitated efficient and effective implementation with someexceptions.MoreparticipatorymeetingsofthePSCaredesirable,asisputtingmoreemphasisonlocallevelcapacitybuildingthanhasbeenthecaseuntilnow.

Thepovertyreductionaspectwasnotspecifically included intheKEPProgrammedocument,whichisadesignweakness.WhileKEPcanbeexpectedtoreducepovertyinseveralways,e.g.byimprovinglivelihoodsdirectlythroughcleanerairandwaterandthroughoveralleconomicdevelopment, theprogrammedocumentdoesnotspecifically includepoverty reductionasacorecross-cuttingissue.Notaddressingpovertyreductionspecificallyisamissedopportunity

2

tooptimisethecontributionofKEPtoachievingthemainobjectiveofSwedishdevelopmentcooperation,whichistoenablepeoplelivinginpovertytoimprovetheirlives.

TheapproachappliedbyKEPhasbeentobuildcapacitythroughtechnicalassistanceexpertsthat supportandwork togetherwith the staffmembersof thebeneficiarydepartmentsandinstitutionstoachievetheresultsspecifiedintheProgrammeDocument.Basedonthefindingsof the review, it is concluded that this has been realised to a considerable extent. TheengagementandparticipationofMESPandIMWChasbeenstrongandeffectiveandthereisgeneralsatisfactionamongstaffatall levelswiththeperformanceoftheTAConsultant,whohasmanaged inmostcases tokeeptheroleofassisting thebeneficiary institutions,withouttakingovertoomuchofimplementation.

Althoughmuchremainstobedoneintermsofgendermainstreamingintheprogramme,KEPhasdonepioneeringworkinintroducinggenderequalityconsiderationsintheenvironmentalsector.

WeaknessesinKEPimplementationhaveincludedthefollowing:

• ItwasspecifiedintheProgrammedocumentthatTechnicalCommittees(TC)weretobeestablished,oneforeachentityimplementingKEP:attheoutsetoneforKEPA,onefortheEnvironmentalProtectionDepartmentandonefortheWaterDepartment.Dueto the relatively straight-forward character of Component 8 it was not considerednecessary to have a TC for that component. The purpose of the TCwas to create abody at the implementing entity level for decision-making for each component onoverall planning, management, coordination, monitoring, review, and approval ofexpert inputs and deliverables. These committees were not established, butsubstituted by Implementation Units or Working Groups, which have had a morelimited function to support the implementationof the components. This changehasreducedthetransparencyandeffectivenessofKEP.

• Annual reporting is toa considerableextentactivity-basedandnotdirectly linked tothe programme logframe and result indicators. Progress reporting has been done inmainlytwodifferentways:aspercentageachievementagainst indicatorsandagainstexpecteddeliverablesintheformofreportsandotherdocuments.Inthefirstcase,itisnoteasytofollowhowthepercentageshavebeenarrivedat.Inthesecondcase,thereporting has not been transparent in showing the actual level of finalisation of thereports.Thewaytheleveloffinalisationofdeliverables isprojectedintheworkplanthat is part of the annual report (whichpresents activities and results for theentireprogrammeperiod) isnotclear; insomecases the impression iscreated in theworkplanthatareportisalreadyfinalisedwhen,infact,onlyadraftorpreliminaryreporthasbeenprepared.

• Several important reports have been produced, but KEP has not been efficient inmaking the reports available to the public through the website intended for thatpurpose1.Even for thepurposesof thecurrent review, ithasbeendifficultand time

1SettingupaKEPwebsitewasnotspecificallymentionedintheProgrammeDocument.

3

consuming to get access to even a rather limited number of requested technicaldocuments,whichhascausedaverylongdelayinthefinalisationofthereviewreport.

• The reportsproducedbyKEPhavenotalwayshad sufficientlyhigh technicalquality.The communication of the documented results of the Programme has also beenlimitedinthefirstpartofitsimplementation.

Asummaryconclusionisthateveniftherehavebeendifficultieswithregardtounderfundingof the programme and even considering the abovementioned main weaknesses, KEP hasoverall been a successful programme that has both produced results valuable to theGovernmentofKosovoandinitiatedbuildingofcapacityinMESPandKEPAthatinitselfcanbeexpectedtobeoffuturevalueandimportance.

It isconcludedthat thevalueofKEPwould increaseconsiderably if itwere followed-upbyasecondphase.

WithregardtotheproposalfortwinningbetweenKEPAandSEPA,thefollowingisconcluded:

• TheproposalisrelevantandwillbeagoodcomplementtoKEP,eveniftheresourcesunderthisprojectwillbefairlylimited.

• One weakness with the proposal is that it is very technical and lacks attention togenderequality,rightsaspectsandpovertyreduction.

B RECOMMENDATIONSMainrecommendations

The MESP request dated 03.07.2018 for additional funding from Sida to compensate forbudgetreductionsisconsideredavalidrequestandshouldbeconsideredbySida.Becauseoftime limitations, it is at this stagemostprobablynot realistic to add this fundingwithin theyear that remains of the programme period. Unless it can be ascertained that additionalfundingcouldbearrangedquickly,thefollowingshouldbetherecommendedcourseofaction:

• Continue implementation of remaining activities during the remaining yearwith theresourcesthatarestillavailable,basedonanup-datedoverallworkplanforwhatcanrealisticallybeachieved.

• Agree on a one-year extension of the Programme with added resources largely inaccordancewith theMESP request but complementedwithmore attention to corecross-cuttingissuesandwithcontinuedsupportalsotoacomponentundertheIMWC.

• During the extension period, develop separately a programme document for KEPPhaseII.

• Sidashouldascertainthatanappropriateexternalmonitoringfunctionbeputinplace.

Immediateadditionalactionsduringthefinaloneyear

• Establish the Technical Committees in accordancewith the specifications in the KEPProgrammeDocument,whererelevant.

• Improveclarityofprogressreportingandascertainqualityoftechnicalreports.

4

• Enhanceeffortsto increasefocusonworkingatthelocal level;particularlywithlocalgovernmentandwithlocalstakeholdersintheDriniRiverBasin.

• Make efforts to address poverty reduction specifically in activities that remain. ThiscouldbeparticularlyimportantandrelevantunderComponents3,5and7.

One-yearextension

• Finaliseallremainingcomponents,includingtheDriniRiverBasinManagementPlaninaccordancewitharealisticworkplan.

• Prepare a programme document for KEP Phase II, ensuring complementarity withotheron-goingandplannedprogrammesandprojects.

KEPA/SEPAproposal

• Providetherequestedsupporttotheproposedtwinningproject.

• Strengthentheproposalbyenhancing itsattentiontogenderequality, rightsaspectsandpovertyreduction.

5

CONTENTSEXECUTIVESUMMARY 1

LISTOFACRONYMS 6

1 INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 Backgroundandpurpose 7

1.2 Evaluationobjectandscope 7

1.3 Evaluationcriteriaandquestions 9

2 METHODOLOGY 14

2.1 Overallapproach 14

2.2 Instrumentsfordatacollection 15

3 FINDINGS 16

3.1 Relevance 16

3.2 Efficiency 17

3.3 Effectiveness 20

3.4 Impact 29

3.5 Sustainability 29

3.6 Coordination 30

3.7 Cross-cutting 31

3.8 Risks 38

4 CONCLUSIONSANDLESSONSLEARNED 39

5 RECOMMENDATIONS 41

APPENDIX1 PERSONSMETANDINTERVIEWED 43

APPENDIX2 POINTSFROMSWOTWORKSHOP 45

APPENDIX3 REPORTFINALISATIONAPPROACH 48

6

LISTOFACRONYMSAGE AgencyforGenderEqualityCSO CivilSocietyOrganizationsEEA EuropeanEnvironmentalAgencyEPD EnvironmentalProtectionDepartmentEPWD EnvironmentalProtectionandWaterDepartmentEU EuropeanUnionGEO GenderEqualityOfficerIMWC Inter-MinisterialWaterCouncilKEP KosovoEnvironmentalProgramKEPA KosovoEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyMESP MinistryofEnvironmentandSpatialPlanningMTR MidTermReviewNP NationalParkNTFP Non-TimberForestProductsPD ProgrammeDocumentPFU ProgrammeFacilitationUnitPG ParticipationandGenderPSC ProgrammeSteeringCommitteePTL ProgrammeTeamLeaderRRBA RegionalRiverBasinAuthoritySEPA SwedishEnvironmentalProtectionAgencySida SwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperationAgencyTA TechnicalAssistanceTC TechnicalCommitteesToR TermsofReferenceWD WaterDepartment

7

1 INTRODUCTIONThis is the final reportof amid-term reviewof theKosovoEnvironmental Programme (KEP)implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP) and the Inter-Ministerial Water Council (IMWC) of the Government of Kosovo. The Project is supportedfinanciallybytheSwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperationAgency(Sida)andtechnicalassistanceisprovidedbyFCGSwedeninconsortiumwithEptisaServiciosdeIngenieria.

Themid-termreviewstartedon16November2018andthreefieldmissionstoKosovowerecarried out by the two-member review team: an inceptionmission in November-December2018, a fact-finding mission in January 2019 and a field visit mission in February 2019.Meetingswereheldwith thekeyprogrammestakeholders inPristinaand representativesofmunicipalities, anda SWOTworkshopwasorganisedaspartof the fact-findingmission. TheteamalsocarriedoutfieldvisitstoSharrNationalParkandtomunicipalitiesintheDriniRiverBasin.

1.1 BackgroundandpurposeThedevelopmentobjectiveofKEPistocontributetoimprovingtheenvironmentalconditionsin Kosovo. Implementation of the programme started in July 2016 and is planned to becompletedbyJuly2020.TheimplementationoftheSwedishsupportisgovernedbyaspecificagreement betweenMESP and Sida dated 2015-10-28, complemented with an amendmentdated2016-11-17,whichstatesthatamid-termreviewshallbecarriedoutin2018.

The purpose of the mid-term review is to assist the programme partners in assessing theprogress of implementation, identifying lessons learned and making recommendations thatcan be used for adjusting and improving implementation during the remaining programmeperiod. To that effect, the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability andcoordinationofKEPshallbeevaluated.

Thereviewhasbeenrequiredtobedesigned,conductedandreportedsuchthatitmeetstheneedsoftheintendedusers,whichareprimarilyMESP,theSwedishEmbassyinPristina,Sida’sEurolatinDepartmentinStockholm,andFCGSweden.

1.2 EvaluationobjectandscopeThe Kosovo Environmental Programme is described in a programme document dated June2015.

Inorder tomeet thedevelopmentobjectiveof contributing to improving theenvironmentalconditionsinKosovo,KEPhasthefollowingfourspecificobjectives:

- TodevelopthecapacityoftheMinistryofEnvironmentandSpatialPlanning,theInter-MinisterialWaterCouncil,municipalities,civilsocietyandotherstakeholdersinenvironmentalmonitoringandmanagement.

8

- Todevelopthecapacityforimplementationofenvironmentallegislation,incompliancewithEuropeanUnion(EU)directives.

- ToenhancetheknowledgeofKosovo’swaterresourcesanddevelopcapacityfortheirimprovedmanagementandenhanceresiliencetoenvironmentalandclimatechange.

- Toenhanceknowledgeandprotectionofbiodiversityanddevelopcapacityforimprovedmanagementoftransboundaryprotectedareas.

Asdesigned in theProgrammeDocument (PD),andclearlystated in theTermsofReference(ToR) for theTechnicalAssistance (TA)Consultant,KEP is a knowledgeandcapacitybuildingprogramme.Thetaskof theTAconsultant isnot to implementthedifferentcomponents,asthis is the responsibility of the assigned MESP entities and IMWC. The TA Consultant isexpectedtoassistintheimplementationtoaconsiderableextentbutshouldnottakeover.

In order to build the capacity and knowledge articulated in the specific objectives, thefollowing eight technical components have been included in the programme (the entityresponsibleforimplementationisprovidedinbrackets):

1. Strengthening Kosovo Environmental Protection Agency (KEPA) capacity forenvironmentalmonitoring,assessmentandreporting(KEPA).

2. ConservationofbiodiversitythroughRedBookofanimalspeciesinKosovo(KEPA).3. Strengtheningthemanagementoftransboundarynaturalareas(KEPA).4. EstablishmentofgroundwatermonitoringnetworkinKosovo(KEPA).5. Strengtheningcapacityforimplementationofenvironmentallegislationatcentraland

locallevel(MESP/EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment).6. GroundwaterinvestigationinDriniRiverBasin(MESP/WaterDepartment).7. RiverbasinmanagementplanforDriniRiverBasin(MESP/WaterDepartment).8. Support to the Inter-Ministerial Water Council through short-term assignments

(IMWC).

In order to ensure an efficient implementation of the programme, a 9th component wasspecified in the ToR to manage the provision of technical assistance services through aProgramme Facilitation Unit (PFU). The PFU has been set up under the EnvironmentalProtection and Water Department (EPWD) of MESP, which is the government entityresponsiblefortheimplementationofKEP.Inadditiontotheadministrativeandcoordinationfunctions initially intended to be performed under this component, the implementation ofgenderandequalitypolicieswasaddedasaspecificoutputduringtheinceptionphase.

WithPrimeMinisterDecreedated4May2017 theWaterDepartment (WD)wasclosed, thenewEnvironmentalProtectionandWaterDepartment(EPWD)wasestablishedtoreplacetheformerEnvironmentalProtectionDepartment(EPD)andanewRegionalRiverBasinAuthority(RRBA)wascreated,initiallyasadepartmentbutwiththeintentionofeventuallybecominganagency. The corresponding formal responsibilities for the implementation of Components 6and7of theProgramme initiallyassignedto theWDwere transferred to theEPWDandtheRRBAbecamethemainstakeholderofthesameComponents6and7.

9

ASteeringCommitteechairedbytheGeneralSecretaryofMESPwithmembersrepresentingimplementing and contributing agencies and other stakeholders, provides oversight to theimplementation of the program. Three Technical Committees (TCs) were part of theorganisationaldesign,oneforeachofthe implementingentitiesexceptthe IMWC.Themainobjectivesof theTCswere to superviseandmonitor implementation,decideonapprovalorrejectionofprogrammeplanningdocuments,reportsandotherdeliverables,andproposedTAexperts, and facilitate exchange of experiences and creation of links and synergies betweencomponents, and with other relevant programmes and projects. The fact that thesecommitteeshavenotbeenformallyestablishedisdiscussedinmoredetailinSection3.6.

Onthetechnicalassistanceside,theteamisheadedbyaProgrammeTeamLeader(PTL)atthePFUandforeachentitythereisonecomponentteamleader.AtthePFUthereisalsoapart-timeinternationalparticipationandgenderexpert.

NoexplicitTheoryofChangematrixwaspreparedduringthepreparationandplanningoftheprogram,but resultsmatriceswerepreparedbothat theprogrammeandcomponent levels.These are deemed to provide an adequate account of causal linkages between activities,outputs,outcomesandimpact,withmeasurableindicatorsandbaselines.TheresultsmatricesweretransformedintoaLogicalFrameworkMatrixintheprogrammeinceptionreport.

Thereviewhascoveredanevaluationoftheentiretyofprogrammecomponentsuptotheendof2018,forwhichthereexistsaprogressreport2.

1.3 Evaluationcriteriaandquestions

Twosetsofevaluationquestionsandrequiredanalysesareincludedinthetermsofreference:

1. Generic evaluation questions based on OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of relevance,efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, complemented with questionsrelated to coordination, poverty reduction, rights, conflict sensitivity and genderequality.

2. Required specific assessments related to thequality of programmedesign, risks andrisk mitigation, value added by the Swedish contribution, lessons learned andrecommendations.

Intheinceptionphase,itwasagreedtoacceptallevaluationquestionsincludedintheToRasrelevant and evaluable. The review team integrated and structured all evaluation questionsand the required specific assessments in an evaluation matrix, containing also furtherspecificationintheformofindicators,datacollectioninstrumentsanddatasourcestobeusedinthereview.TheevaluationmatrixisshowninTable1.

2MESP/IMWC,2019:KosovoEnvironmentalProgramme,AnnualNarrativeandFinancialReport,4thJanuary2019

10

Table1. Evaluationmatrix.

EVALUATIONQUESTIONS

INDICATORS DATACOLLECTIONINSTRUMENTS

DATASOURCES

1.RELEVANCE

1.1Towhatextenthastheprojectconformedtotheneedsandprioritiesofthebeneficiariesanddonorpolicies?

-Currentalignmentwithkeynationalpoliciesandstrategies

-AlignmentwithEUdirectivesandotherdocumentation

-Alignmentwithglobal,regionalandcountrystrategiesforSwedishreformcooperation

-Perceptionofkeystakeholdersofconformitywithnationalneedsandpriorities

DocumentstudyStakeholderinterviews

NationalpolicyandstrategydocumentsEUdirectivesandotherdocumentationStrategydocumentsrelevanttoSwedishreformcooperationwithKosovoKosovogovernmentstaffStaffofTAconsultantsanddonor

1.2Towhatextentwastheprojectrelevantatthetimeofconceptualization?Doestheprogrammeremainrelevantandsuitedtothecountry?

-Changesovertimerelatedtotheaboveindicators(forEQ1.1)


NationalpolicyandstrategydocumentsEUdirectivesandotherdocumentationStrategydocumentsrelevanttoSwedishreformcooperationwithKosovoKosovogovernmentstaffStaffofTAconsultantsanddonor

2.EFFICIENCY

2.1Canthecostsfortheprojectbejustifiedbyitsresults?

-Currentlevelandvolumeofresultsachievement

-Qualityofresultsachieved

-Currentleveloffundsused


ProgrammedocumentProgressreportsTechnicalreportsGovernment,consultantanddonorstaff

11

2.2Whatisthequalityoftheprojectdesign,includingitsobjectives?

-Numberandregularityofprogrammecommitteemeeting

WorkshopnotesstudyDocumentstudy

SWOTworkshopProgrammedocumentProgressreportsAuditreportsPSCminutes

2.3Couldanyalternativeapproach(es)havebeenadopted?

-Possiblealternativeapproaches

WorkshopnotesstudyStakeholderinterviews

SWOTworkshopGovernment,consultantanddonorstaff

2.4WhatistheaddedvalueoftheSwedishcontributionwithintheprogram?

-StakeholderperceptionofTAqualityand

-Alternativesourcesoffunding

DocumentstudyStakeholderinterviewsQuestionnaire

ProgressandtechnicalreportsGovernment,consultantanddonorstaff

3.EFFECTIVENESS

3.1Havetheintendedprogrammeresultsbeenachieved?Ifso,why?Ifnot,whynot?Towhatextenthastheprogrammemadeeffectiveprogressinattainingitsspecificobjectivesforall8components?

-Resultsachievementfortheprogrammeanditscomponentsaccordingtoprogressreports

-Resultsachievementfortheprogrammeandits8componentsasperceivedbymajorstakeholders

-Reasonsforachievement/non-achievementasperceivedbystakeholders

DocumentstudyStakeholderinterviewsWorkshopnotesObservationsinthefield

ProgressreportsAuditreportsGovernment,consultantanddonorstaffSWOTworkshopFieldvisits

3.2Towhatextenthavelessonslearnedfromwhatworkswellandlesswellbeenusedtoimproveandadjustprogrammeimplementation?

-Lessonslearnedthathavebeenbroughtupbystakeholdersandinfluencedtheimplementationoftheprogram



12

3.3Givingspecificattentiontogenderandparticipationaspectsoftheprogrammeandtocomponents3,5and7inassessingrealisticallytherequirementsforsuccessfulcompletion,whatistheassessmentoftherequestbyMESPregardingadditionalsupportrequiredforsuccessfulcompletionoftheprogram?

-Percentageofactualtechnicalachievementofexpectedresults

-Theextenttowhichthecurrentresultsaresatisfactory,consideringpovertyorientation,gender,rightsandsustainabilityaspects

-Realismandvalueaddedofrequestedadditionalsupport


ProgressandtechnicalreportsMESPrequestGovernment,consultantanddonorstaff

4.IMPACT

4.1Whatistheoverallimpactoftheprogrammeintermsofdirectorindirect,negativeandpositiveresults?

-TheextenttowhichtheKEPdevelopmentobjectivehasbeenachieved

-Theextenttowhichotherhigher-levelresultscanbenoted



5.SUSTAINABILITY

5.1Isitlikelythatthebenefits(outcomes)oftheprojectaresustainable?

-Theextenttowhichcapacitybuildingofimplementinginstitutionshaveactuallybeenachieved



6.COORDINATION

6.1Towhatextenthavetheinterventionsofdifferentactorsbeenharmonized?

-Leveloffunctioningofprogrammecommittees,facilitationunitandconsultant

-Numberofharmonisationissuesraised

WorkshopnotesstudyDocumentstudyStakeholderinterviews

SWOTworkshopProgressandtechnicalreportsGovernment,consultantanddonorstaff

7.CROSSCUTTING

13

7.1Hastheprogrammecontributedtopovertyreduction?How?

- Extentof improvement inenvironmentalconditions(air,water)

- Changes in level ofenvironment-relateddiseases

-Livelihoodimprovements

WorkshopnotesStakeholderinterviewsStatisticaldataDocumentstudy

SWOTworkshopKosovoAgencyofStatisticsAnnualNarrativeReports

7.2Hastheprojectbeenimplementedinaccordancewiththerightsperspective?

-Havetargetgroupsbeenparticipatinginprojectplanning,implementationsandfollowup?-Hasanyonebeendiscriminatedbytheprojectthroughitsimplementation?-Hastheprojectbeenimplementedinatransparentfashion?-Arethereaccountabilitymechanismsintheproject?

- Typesof eventsorganisedandparticipationof localbodies, communities andminorities, and genderconsiderations in theseevents

- Number and quality ofcommunication activitiesoriented towards localbodies, communities andminorities

- Frequency,participationand communication withregard to programmecommitteemeetings

- Leveloftransparencyinprocurement

-Numberofauditremarks- Number of court or

ombudsperson casesrelatedtotheprogram

WorkshopnotesStakeholderInterviewsDocumentstudyWebpagestudy

SWOTworkshopProgressreportsGovernment,consultantanddonorstaffMESPandKEPwebpage(publicaccess)ProcurementreportsProgrammemeetingminutes

7.3Hastheprojectbeendesignedandimplementedinaconflict-sensitivemanner?

-Availabilityandqualityofaconflictanalysisfortheprogram

-ConsiderationofconflictissuesparticularlyinthepreparationofmanagementplansforprotectedareasandDriniriverbasinmanagementplan

-Evidenceofconflictbetweenauthoritiesandlocalpopulations

-Evidenceofinequalityanddiscrimination

DocumentstudyWorkshopnotesStakeholderinterviews

ProgressReportsSWOTworkshopProjectconsultantandMESPstaff

14

7.4Hastheprojecthadanypositiveornegativeeffectsongenderequality?Couldgendermainstreaminghavebeenimprovedinplanning,implementationorfollowup?

- Inclusionofgender intorevision of documentsproduced byMESP, suchasdraft laws, regulationsandpolicypapers

- Changes in genderconsiderations related tostaff recruitment anddecision-makingpositions

DocumentstudyWorkshopnotesStakeholderinterviews

ProgrammedocumentInceptionreportProgressreportsSWOTworkshopProjectconsultantandMESPstaffGenderAnalysisDocument

8.RISKS

9.1Whataretherisksduringtheremainingimplementationperiodandhowcantheybemitigated?

-Re-assessmentofrelevantrisksandmitigationactionsspecifiedintheprogrammedocumentandinceptionreport



[1]ThewordstakeholderismeantinthistabletoincludebothstakeholdersinawidesenseandbeneficiariesoftechnicalassistanceprovidedunderKEP.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Overallapproach

ThereviewhasbeencarriedoutasanobjectiveexternalevaluationinaccordancewithOECD-DACcriteriaandguidelines.TheapproachbuildsonthekeyevaluationquestionsspecifiedintheToRandfurtherspecifiedintheevaluationmatrix.

ThereviewteamhasengagedinaparticipatorywaywiththegovernmentandTAconsultants.ThishasincludedaSWOTworkshopthatwasintendedtoprovideevidenceandguidanceforthe review team and at the same time serve as a learning event for the programmeimplementersandpartners.

Theproposedapproachandmethodologyforthereviewhasincludedapplyingevidencefromseveral sources todrawwell-foundedconclusions, identifying lessonsand specifying realisticrecommendationsthatcanbeusefulforimplementationoftheremainingpartoftheprogramandbeyond.

In spiteof several changesanddelays in theworkprogrammecausedbydelays inacquiringprogramme documentation and adjusting to time availability of the team members, it hasbeen attempted to keep the three main programme partners – Government of Kosovo,EmbassyofSwedenandFCGSweden–duly informedabouttheprocessandprogressofthereview.

15

2.2 Instrumentsfordatacollection

Thefollowingmethods,toolsanddatasourceshavebeenusedtogatherinformationanddataneededforthereview:

1. DeskstudyofKEPdocumentation.2. Semi-structured interviewswitharound30selectedkeyprogrammeandboundary

stakeholders.3. Fieldvisits.4. A SWOT workshop with participation of government, FCG Sweden and Embassy

staff.

Itwasoriginallyintendedtousealsoquestionnairesasameansofinformationgathering,butdue to the rather limited number of direct beneficiaries of the programme, and since theSWOT exercise was well attended by a variety of stakeholders and beneficiaries, it wasassessedthatsufficientinformationwouldbegatheredthroughinterviewsandtheworkshop,soquestionnaireswerenotused.

DeskstudyofKEPdocumentation

DocumentationmadeavailablebytheEmbassyofSweden,thegovernmententitiesandFCGSwedenhasbeenstudiedandanalysedfromtheperspectivesoftheevaluationquestionsandindicators.

Whileasetofbasicprogrammeadministration,financialandprogressreportdocumentationwasmadeavailabletotheReviewTeamattheoutset3,acquiringthetechnicaldocumentationrelatingtothedifferentcomponentswasfarfromeasy,whichledtolongdelaysinconductingandfinalisingthereview.Thepartsofthedocumentationthatwasconsideredrelevantforthereviewwasstudiedbytheteam.

As expected, there has been limitations with regard to information about effects of theprogrammeonpoverty reduction,considerationof rightsaspectsandonhigher-leveleffectsontheKosovoenvironment.

Semi-structuredinterviews

NamesofkeyinformantsinterviewedduringthereviewareprovidedinAppendix1.

The interviewswere carried out by the teammembermost suited to interview a particularrespondent, and sometimes by both members. The interviews were in some casescomplemented with additional communication by e-mail or phone. Specific interviewquestions adapted to the person interviewedwere prepared based on the indicators in theevaluationmatrix.

Fieldvisits

3 Thisincluded,i.a.,theprogrammedocument,inceptionreport,draftassessmentreport,genderanalysisdocuments,implementationmanual,administrativemanual,procurementplans,andprogressandfinancialreports.

16

FieldvisitsweremadetotheSharrNationalParkandtoDecanandPejamunicipalities,whichincludedmeetings and interviewswithmunicipality and decentralised government staff andotherlocalstakeholders,andfieldobservationsofinvestmentsmadeundertheprogramme.

SWOTworkshop

ASWOTworkshopwasorganisedwiththepurposeofprovidinganopportunityforthereviewteamtocollectpreliminaryevaluationevidenceandprovideinputstoplanningthestakeholderinterviewsonthreecentralthemes.Atthesametime,theworkshopwasintendedtoserveasa dialogue and learning event for the participating programme stakeholders. The themes oftheworkshopwere(1)relevanceanddesignoftheprogramme,(2)capacitybuilding,and(3)povertyorientation,rights-basedapproaches,genderandconflictsensitivity.Theparticipantsweresplit intothreegroupsbyrandomselection.AsynthesisofresultscomingoutfromtheworkinthegroupsandfromdiscussionsinplenumisprovidedinAppendix2.

Processofanalysisanddevelopingconclusions

Thepreliminarydiscretefindingscollectedbytheteamwereenteredintoanevidencematrixon Google Drive, having the same structure as the evaluation matrix. This was used foranalysing and developing triangulated consolidated findings and the final conclusions of thereview.

3 FINDINGS

3.1 Relevance

3.1.1 Towhatextenthastheprojectconformedtotheneedsandprioritiesofthebeneficiariesanddonorpolicies?

ThePDwaspreparedin2015asajointendeavourbetweentheprogrammebeneficiariesandprogrammepreparationconsultantsengagedbySida.Itwasbasedonanearlierstudythathaddefinedpriorityareas forSwedish support to theenvironment sector inKosovo, consideringbothMESPandSidaneedsandstrategicpriorities.ThelatterarespecifiedinSweden’sstrategyfor reformcooperationwithEasternEurope, theWesternBalkansandTurkey for theperiod2014-2020,inwhichabetterenvironment,reducedclimateimpactandenhancedresiliencetoenvironmentalimpactandclimatechangemakeuponeofthreeresultareas.

Stakeholders and beneficiaries in MESP have expressed satisfaction with the fact that theprogrammeconsistsofcomponentsthataretheirownideasfromthebeginning–thelevelofownershipinthatregardishigh.

KEP is well aligned with the stabilization and association agreement between the EU andKosovo, where there is, in addition to several references to environment as a cross-cuttingissue,aspecificarticleontheenvironment(Article115).Thisarticlecoversi.a.waterquality,reduction of water pollution, nature protection, administrative structures and procedures,strategic planning of environment issues and coordination between actors, and a gradualapproximationtotheEUacquis.All8technicalcomponentsofKEParerelevantinrelationto

17

theEUacquis.KEPComponent1,4and6willimprovethecapacityofKosovoreportingonthestate of the environment with regard to groundwater resources and Component 7 willimplementseveralimportantpartsoftheEUwaterframeworkdirective.

The implementation of KEP can be expected to contribute to achieving several of the UNSustainable Development Goals, particularly those related to clean water and sanitation,sustainablecitiesandcommunities,climateactionandgenderequality.

3.1.2 Towhatextentwastheprojectrelevantatthetimeofconceptualization?Doestheprogrammeremainrelevantandsuitedtothecountry?

Asstatedintheprevioussection,KEPwashighlyrelevantwithregardbothtotheneedsandprioritiesofitsbeneficiariesandtoSidaatthetimeofitsconceptualizationin2015and2016.Sincethen,therehasbeennopolicyreorientationorchangeintheinstitutionalenvironmentinKosovothathasmadeitlessrelevant.Despitepoliticalchangesthathavetakenplaceduringtheimplementationperiod,KEPremainsinmostaspectsinlinewithitsoriginaldesign.

Similarly, therehavebeennochanges inSwedishdevelopmentstrategies thatwould reducethe relevance of the Swedish support to KEP.On the contrary, several new global thematicstrategieshavebeendevelopedmorerecently,whichstrengthentheargumentforsupportingKEP,includingstrategieson:

• Environmental sustainability, sustainable climate and oceans, and sustainable use ofnaturalresources.

• Sustainable social development, which includes improved access to clean water,sanitationandhygiene.

• Genderequalityandwomen’sandgirls’rights.

3.2 Efficiency

3.2.1 Canthecostsfortheprojectbejustifiedbyitsresults?

The levelofprogrammeeffectiveness ispresented inSection3.3.Therehavebeendelays inseveralresultareas,anditisprobablethatsomeoftheresultswillnotbeachievedtothefullexpectedlevelandqualityduringtheProgrammeperiod.However,consideringthesubstantialreductionsintheSwedishcontributionthathavebeenexperiencedfordifferentreasons,itisassessedthattheProgrammecostsarejustifiedfromanefficiencypointofview.

3.2.2 Whatisthequalityoftheprojectdesign,includingitsobjectives?

Thequalityofprogrammedesign is consideredhighby stakeholders interviewed. In spiteofpoliticalchangesthathavetakenplaceduringtheimplementation,thedesignasitwasagreedduring the inceptionphasehasbeenkept intact. In fact,KEPhasbecomeamodel forotherexternallyfundedprojects.

18

Thebasicconceptsonwhichtheprogrammewasdesignedwereadherencewithkeypoliciesand strategic goals of both the Kosovo government and Swedish reform cooperation withKosovo; a broad approach engaging key stakeholder institutions; and strong ownership ofcomponents and objectives by the participating institutions. The ownership was basedprimarily on the fact that the component outlineswere already availablewithMESP at theoutset of programme preparation and on MESP participation in the detailed design of thecomponentsandoftheprogrammeassuch.

The steering, oversight, coordinationand communication functionsofKEPweredesigned tomakingKEPanefficientprogramme.TheProgrammeSteeringcommitteewassetupandhasreportedly had three meeting up to the end of 2018. Several stakeholders, includingparticipants at the SWOT workshop and Sida representatives, have suggested that the PSCmeetingscouldbemademoreparticipativeanddiscussion-oriented,forinstancebyorganisingtheminconjunctionwithannualSWOTexercisessimilartotheonethatwasorganizedduringtheMTR.

Thenon-implementationoftheentity-levelTechnicalCommitteesasspecified inthePDasakey body for oversight, coordination, monitoring and communication has reduced theefficiencyintheseregards(seedetailsinSection3.6.1).

ThedesignoftheProgrammewasmadewithacertainbalancebetweenemphasisoncentraland local levelactivities respectively. Several stakeholders, includingSidaandparticipantsattheSWOTworkshop,haveexpressedthatthereshouldmemoreemphasisonthe local-levelactivitiesthanhasbeenthecaseuntilnow.

The budget allocations in the PD for gender activitieswere limited and this, in combinationwiththebudgetcutsthatfollowed,madeitdifficulttoallocatesufficientamountsduringtheimplementationstage.

3.2.3 Couldanyalternativeapproach(es)havebeenadopted?

Thefollowingtwoalternativeapproacheswouldhavebeenrealistic:

1. Afullyconsultant-implementedapproachwherealloutputshavebeenproducedentirelyby TA consultants, based on pre-prepared detailed terms of reference on which theprocurementwouldbebased.

2. Twinningwas discussed during the preparation of KEP and it was considered a feasiblealternative.However,whencontacted,therelevantSwedishtwinningorganisation(SEPA)informed that they were not in a position to enter into a twinning engagement withMESP/KEPAatthatpointoftime.

Acomparisonofadvantages,disadvantagesandrisksbetweenthesetwoapproachesandtheoneactuallyappliedbyKEPisshowninTable2.

Table2. AlternativeapproachescomparedtoKEPapproach.

Possibleapproaches Advantages Disadvantages RisksConsultant-implementedapproach

Better efficiency (time-and cost-wise) in

Lower levelof long-termcapacity building in

High risk: Sensitiveto procuring the

19

producing specificresultsatoutputlevel.

terms of GoK staffcompetenceandskills.Lower level ofinstitutionalownership.

competentconsultant – withthe wrongconsultant a lot oftime and funds canbewasted.

Twinning with relevantSwedishauthorities

High level of long-termand sustainablecapacitybuilding.

More limited technicalscopeoftheprogrammewould be necessary dueto relatively narrowcompetence withinrelevant Swedishauthorities.

Lowrisk.

KEPapproach With the rightconsultant in place: agood balance betweenefficiency and resultseffectiveness on theonehand, and capacitybuildingontheother.

Necessitates strongoversight and effectivemonitoring as well asflexibility inimplementation, whichmay not always bepossibletoestablish.

Mediumrisk..

3.2.4 WhatistheaddedvalueoftheSwedishcontributionwithintheprogramme?

Theprogrammehas servedasamodel forotherdonorengagements4, abasic characteristicbeinganactiveparticipationofMESPrightfromthebeginninginthedesignoftheprogrammeandthroughitsimplementation.

AsdesignedinthePD,andclearlystatedintheTermsofReferencefortheTAconsultant,KEPis a knowledge and capacity building programme. The task of the TA consultant is not toimplementthedifferentcomponents,asthisistheresponsibilityoftheassignedMESPentitiesand IMWC. The TA consultant is expected to assist in the implementation to a considerableextentbutshouldnottakeover.

In general, based on interviewswith programme stakeholders and beneficiaries, the reviewteamhasfoundthatthe inputsoftheTAConsultantare inmostcaseshighlyappreciatedbythebeneficiaryentities. In linewithKEPbeingdefinedasaknowledgeandcapacitybuildingprogramme, the TAConsultant hasmanaged inmost cases tohave the role of assisting thebeneficiaryinstitutions,ratherthantakingovertoomuchofimplementation.Thisisadifficulttask in the context of MESP having limited staff and other resources for actual projectimplementation, particularly so for field-oriented work as has been the case in most KEPcomponents.

Examplesof thisengagement,providedtotheMTRteamduring interviews,areavailable forall the components. To mention a few, there has been an intensive engagement andparticipation of the concerned MESP staff in the field work in the Drini Basin undercomponents6and7.Forinstance,thehydrogeologicalandhydrologicalmapsweredraftedbyMESPstaff,notbyconsultants.Similarly,forcomponent5,theworkoftheTAteamhasbeen

4AccordingtointerviewwiththeGeneralSecretaryofMESP.

20

wellanchoredandintegrated,withasubstantialparticipationofMESPstaff.Forcomponents1to 4, staff from KEPA have been engaged both at the KEPA office in Pristina, at theHydrometeorologicalInstituteandinthenationalparks.Thecharacterofcomponent8isabitdifferent since ithas consistedofanumberof studiesandpreparationofdocuments ratherthanon-the-jobcapacitybuilding.Evenhere,however, theparticipationof the IMWCWaterPolicyAdvisorhasbeenstrongandeffective.

Onenotablevalueadded,whichisdirectlyrelatedtotheSwedishcontribution,hasbeenthatfor the first time in the Balkan region, specific expertise on gender issues and gendermainstreamingrelatedtoenvironmentalsectorhavebeenavailableandputtouse.

AlthoughitwasnotalwayseasytocombineSidaandnationalrulesonprocurement,stillthisisconsideredasagoodexperiencewheretheSwedishcontributionhasmadeadifferenceandcontributedtobuildingprocurementcapacity.

3.3 Effectiveness

3.3.1 Havetheintendedprogrammeresultsbeenachieved?Ifso,why?Ifnot,whynot?Towhatextenthastheprogrammemadeeffectiveprogressinattainingitsspecificobjectivesforall8components?

TheresultsmatrixthatwasincludedintheProgrammeDocumentwasrestructuredduringtheKEPinceptionphaseintoan‘UpdatedLogicalFramework(ResultOrientedMatrix)’,whichisamix of objectives/impacts/results/components/tasks/activities (in Column 1) followed bymeasurable indicators/objectives/outcomes/activities/inputs (in Column 2), means ofverification/outcomes/targets/outputs (in column 3) and assumptions/baselines/risks (inColumn 4). It may be a useful tool for programme planning but has not been used formonitoringofprogress.Itseemsthatthevaluesofindicatortargetshavenotbeencollected,atleastitisnotavailableforthegenderindicators.5

Theprogressreportcontainstablesonannualresultsachievementsagainstselectedindicators(in %) as well as results achievements for the entire programme period against selectedindicators (in%) up to thedateof theprogress report. Table 3 provides a summaryof theprogrammeresultsachievementin%upto03.01.20196.

Table3 Summaryofprogrammeresultsachievement.

Componentnumber

Results achievement againstindicatorsupto03.01.2019(%)

0 1001 75.92 90.13 71.24 83.2

5PersonalcommunicationfromPTL6Thedatehasbeengivenas03.10.2018inthetextreferringtothetablebutthisisprobablyamistake

21

5 86.06 1007 60.88 1009 70.8Average 83.8BasedonAnnualReport2019.01.03Themethodologybehindthesecalculations isnotperfectlyclear. It isdifficult tounderstandthat60.8%oftheworkunderComponent7couldhavebeenfinalisedwhentheworkontheactualRiverBasinPlanhadnotevenstarted,and9outofatotalof16reportsremaintobedelivered, including theactualRiverBasinManagementPlan (see tablesbelow). It isequallysurprising that it is considered that Component 8 has achieved 100%when the ComponentCoordinatorhas informed thatonly7outof12 studieswereactuallyperformed,ofwhich2werecarriedoutwithouthisclearanceandonedidnotmeetqualitystandards.

Another indicatorused in theannual reporting formeasuring theprogress is through tablesprovidedonthedeliverablesintheformofreportsforeachcomponent(seeTable4).7

7 Thesetableswerereceived24.04.2019fromthePTLaftererrorspointedoutinthetablesintheprogressreportof03.01.2019hadbeencorrected.

22

Table4. Statusofreportdeliverables.Nos. TypeofReport Reviser Planned

deadlineDateofdelivery

Dateoffinalpublication

Source:Tablereceivedon24.04.2019fromthePTL.

23

Source:Tablereceivedon24.04.2019fromthePTL.

24

Source:Tablereceivedon24.04.2019fromthePTL.Table5showstheeffectivenessofeachcomponent,calculatedas thepercentageof reportsdelivered.

Table5. Effectivenessbasedonpercentageofreportsdelivered.

Componentnumber

Numberofreportsdelivered

Totalnumberofreportsinthecomponent

Resultsachievementaspercentageof

reportsdeliveredupto03.01.2019

(%)0 8 8 1001 5 6 832 6 7 863 7 19 374 0 6 05 1 25 46 12 13 927 7 16 448 10 12 839 InformationinsufficienttocalculateALL 56 112 50

Basedontablesonstatusofreportdeliverablesreceivedon24.04.2019fromthePTL.

TheProgrammeusesanunconventionalapproachtotheprocessofdraftingandfinalisingthereports (seeexplanationcommunicatedbythePTL inAppendix3).MostreportsprovidedtotheMTRteamdidnotindicateonthefrontpageorelsewherewhetheritwasadraftorafinalversion of the report. Neither does the Consultant seem to always produce an inceptiondocument (inception report or inception note) in which important adjustments to the ToR

25

couldbemade,withtheacceptanceof theClient.Thishascreatedconfusion inat leastonecase.8Itwouldbebettertoproducethereportinthesequencedraftinceptionreport/note-commentsfromstakeholders-finalinceptionreport/note-draftfinalreport-commentsfromstakeholders-finalreportsubmitted–finalreportaccepted.Thisshouldbethepointofformal‘delivery’andthecontractpaidfor.Itisunclearnowwhentheconsultantactuallygetspaid,ifthis happens before the final report is accepted that is not correct. After the final report isreadyfromtheconsultant’sside,itcantakeseveralmonthsfortheClienttoformallypublishthereportbutthatisadifferentmatter.Anytechnical,editingorlanguage/spell-checkingworkafterthereporthasbeenacceptedshouldbetakencareofbytheClient.

Yetanotherwayofindicatingprogressisthroughtheworkplan,whichcontainsnotonlytheupcomingperiodbyalso thepreviouspartsof theprogrammeperiod,where thedocumentoutputsareplacedonthetimeline.

Thelackofclarityastowhatstatusthereportsactuallyhavemeansthatitisnotevidentthattherightpicture isgivenofwhetheracertainreport isactually finalisedornotby lookingattheworkplan.

In summary, as a crude estimate based on KEP progress reporting, the programme hasproducedsomewherebetween50and83.8%ofitsoutputsafter2.5yearsofimplementation.

Somequalitative findingsbasedon interviewswithMESPandTAConsultant staffduring theMTRmissionsrelatingtoprogrammeeffectivenessisprovidedinthebelowBoxundereachofthecomponents.Component 1: Strengthening KEPA environment monitoring, assessment and reportingcapacity.-Thereisnotsufficientexperience(education/training)inspecificenvironmentalfields.-Legislationisnotfullyimplemented.Component2:RedBookofanimalspecies-TheRedBookofAnimalSpecies isconsideredanexcellentandusefulproductbyallpersonsmet.-MESP/KEPAisverysatisfiedwiththeconsultantsandtheirdeliverablesunderthiscomponent.-ThreeworkshopshavebeenorganizedandafinaloneforthepromotionoftheRedBookwasunderpreparationatthetimeofthereview.- A community-friendly summary version of the Red Book was under preparation aiming tomakelocalcommunities(menandwomen,andminorities)awareofthevalueofbiodiversity.Component3:Transboundarymanagementofnaturalareas-Under this component itwas anticipated to prepare 4 regulatory plans for 3rd zones (2 forSharrand2 forBjeshketeNemuna)andaManagementPlanforBjeshketeNemunaNationalPark, all to be completed by the end of 2018. This had not been achieved other than tworegulatoryplansof3rdzonesfinalisedforBjeshketeNamunaNationalPark.

8ThiswasthecaseofthereportontheWaterAccountunderComponent8.ThetitleofthatassignmentspecifiedtheproductionofawateraccountforKosovo,buttheConsultantproducedtheaccountonlyforDriniBasinsincethatiswheredatawasavailable,whichtheComponentCoordinatorobjectedto.Aninceptionnoteorreportthatthepartiescouldhaveagreedonwouldhaveavoidedthatmisunderstanding.

26

-AtSharrNationalParktheregulatoryplanfor3rdzoneiscompletedforGuriZiandadraftonPrevallaispreparedaswell.-Informationandconsultationworkshopsonregulatoryplanswereorganizedwithpresenceoflocalcommunity,localgovernment,andlocalbusinesses.-AdraftmanagementplanforBjeshketeNamunawassubmittedforcommentstocomponentcoordinatoronMarch4th,2019.-Nospecificactivityonawarenessandsupporttobusinesses(environmentallyfriendly,women,youth) has been organized. No data are collected in the field on potential activities witheconomicbenefits.Suchactivitiesunderthiscomponentarebehind.-Representativesofprotectedareas/nationalparksofbordercountries(Albania,MonteNegro,Macedonia) and Kosovo representatives of the two National Parks (Sharr and Bjeshket eNamuna) have organized a workshop on July 2018, as a result of which a list of potentialcommonprojectsisgeneratedandprovidedforconsiderationtoSidaKosovo.-GoodexperiencewasgainedduringastudytourorganizedinSlovenia,ItalyandAustriaatthebeginningof2017.Component4:GroundwatermonitoringTherehadbeenonevisitfromtheinternationalconsultanttothiscomponent.Thereportwassomewhat inconclusiveand suggested further investigation into thequalityof themonitoringwellstoberefurbishedandusedformeasurement.Asaresult,onecansaythatithadnottakenoffatthetimeoftheMTRmissions.Component5:EnvironmentallegislationatcentralandlocallevelThis component is very sensitive to political change. Laws have to go to parliament, MESPpreparedthelaws,whichtooktime,thentherewereelectionsandanewparliament,meaningtheyhave to goback to thedrawing table, procedurehas tobe re-doneand there areotherpolicydirectionsfromnewministers.New laws have to be explained to the parliamentary commission, why they need to do in aspecific way, and all this takes time, therefore there has been little progress in quantitativetermsSeveral laws are with the parliament now and several concept notes are either with thecommissionorintheprocessofbeingpreparedLawson industrialwaste,noise,andairprotection,EIAsweredraftedafter theelections,andconceptnotesforwaterandstrategicEIAswerepreparedMost of these have been preparedwith the assistance of the international consultant(s) in averysatisfactorywayMuchwork has also been done using the KEP resources for the secondary legislation (whichdoesnotgotoparliament)More funds should go to senior experts rather than to junior ones, but good to keep somejuniorexpertsaswellComponent6:GroundwaterinvestigationatDriniRiverBasinComponentcompleted,geophysicalinvestigationsdone,25wellsdrilledandpumptestedComponent7:RiverBasinManagementPlanforDriniBardh.TA Consultant unhappy from the very beginning about the insufficientworking days and notsufficientfundsforthiscomponentItisveryimportant,however,tofinalisetheRiverBasinManagementPlanasafirstproductofsuch type in Kosovo, ifwell prepared it canbe a goodpilot for theotherbasins (plans tobe

27

fundedbySwitzerlandandothers). It isdoubtful that theRBMPScanbeproducedwithin thedurationandremainingbudgetofKEP.TherehavebeenuncertaintiesamongtheimplementersastowhetherandRBMPwasactuallyanexpecteddeliverable.Ithasbeencommunicatedtotheprogrammebythereviewteamthatthis was actually the case, which is evident from the results matrix in the ProgrammeDocument9aswellastheKEPInceptionReport10.Component8:SupporttoIMWCIn general, this component has produced some good results, including an updated waterstrategy,regulatorysupportandawaterglossary.ThewateraccountreporthasnotbeenacceptedassatisfactorybytheComponentCoordinator.The report has been reviewedby an internationally renowned expert onwater accounts andfoundnottobeofsatisfactorystandard. It isnotedthat inthequalifications list inthecall-offinquiry,theexperienceofactuallyhavingdevelopedwateraccountsisnotincluded.Notwithstanding, this component is registered as 100% performance in the latest progressreport. However, according to the Component Coordinator, around half of the studies haveeither not been carried out, not led to any result or not had the technical quality tomake ituseful.Thewater glossary is based on the EU terminology and is considered bymany, including thereviewteam,anexcellentandveryusefulproduct;severalstakeholdersinterviewedconsidereditbeingoneofthemostimportantoutputsofKEP.

3.3.2 Towhatextenthavelessonslearnedfromwhatworkswellandlesswellbeenusedtoimproveandadjustprogrammeimplementation?

Therearenotmanyexamplesmentionedofwherelessonslearnedhavebeenusedinternallyto improve programme implementation. One would be that the lack of formal TechnicalCommittees for coordination and experience sharing between components has beencompensated to some extent by such cooperation being established informally betweencomponentswithsimilarcontent.

3.3.3 Givingspecificattentiontogenderandparticipationaspectsoftheprogrammeandtocomponents3,5and7inassessingrealisticallytherequirementsforsuccessfulcompletion,whatistheassessmentoftherequestbyMESPregardingadditionalsupportrequiredforsuccessfulcompletionoftheprogramme?

Regarding Component 3, the active participation of local communities, relevant businesses,women,andyouth isamust toguarantee integrationof relevantsocial issues into3rd zonesregulatoryplansandBjeshketeNamuna(BN)NationalParkManagementPlan.Asindicatedbythe project stakeholders, specific expertise and capacity to integrate social problems into

9

p.10intheComponentdescription:theimpactindicatorisgivenas“RiverBasinManagementPlandeveloped,adoptedandimplemented”andthetargetas“by2019RiverBasinManagementPlanforDriniriverdevelopedandadopted”.10P.16intheInceptionReport:Sub-taskA7.04.09SynthesisationofallinformationintoaRiverBasinManagementPlanforDrini

River

28

regulatory plans is missing, thus a multidisciplinary team would have better served thispurposeandproductquality.BNdraftmanagementplanhasbeensubmittedforconsultationto the Coordinator of Component 3 in March 2019 and will be further discussed with theworking group and the director of BN-NP. The practical workload for preparation of theManagement Plan as it has been reported ismore than the planned volume of work, thustherehasbeenathreemonthsdelay.

The process of establishing active Information Centres is also well behind, though thesecentrescouldhaveservedasagoodpointofinformationandattractionforvisitors,enhancingthevalueoftheNPs,andsupportingthegenerationofeconomicandnon-economicactivities.

InthetwoNPsitisanticipatedtoprovideawarenessandsupporttoenvironmentallyfriendlybusinesses, and to businesses run by women or youth. These activities as reported by thecoordinator of the component have not started yet; neither has data on potential activitieswitheconomicbenefitsinsupporttotargetgroupsbeencollectedinthefield.

Regarding Component 5, the support to increased capacity at central and local governmentlevel on legal base preparation, improvement, and implementation ismuch needed. Duringthe SWOT workshop, participants indicated that sufficient experience in special fields(includinglegislationimprovement)isnotavailable,thisismostlyduetolackofstafftrainedinthese specific environmental fields, insufficient funds to increase human capacities, andlimitedworkingdays for someofKEPexperts toprovide their support. Theseare importantreasons why the legislation is not fully implemented. In addition, the political processes inconnection with elections forced re-start of processes of getting legislation throughparliament,resultinginheavydelays.

Although the legislation is being elaborated considering also gender issues, this has notamountedtopropergendermainstreamingtillrecently.BasedontheKEPanalysisandreports,the Environmental Impact Assessments by MESP have not reflected the impact ofenvironmental degradation onwomen andmen, respectively;most strategies developed byMESP that relate to its work have been gender blind - not addressing women and men’sdifferentneedsandconcerns;strategiesdonottakeintoaccountgenderequalitylegislation;reportsreviewedarealsogenderblind.Sufficientconsultationor involvementoftheGenderEqualityOfficer(GEO)andwomen’sCivilSocietyOrganizations(CSOs)havenotbeenappliedindraftingpoliciesandstrategies.

WithregardtoComponent7,theparticipationofcommunitiesandotherstakeholdersneedtobeanintegralpartofallprocessesindevelopingtheriverbasinmanagementplan.TheprocessofpreparingthereportonSignificantWaterManagementIssuesthatwasfacilitatedbytheTAConsultantswascarriedout inaparticipatoryway, involvinga largenumberof stakeholdersandwater users, including community representatives. Although questionnaire respondentswerenotdifferentiatedbysex,judgingfromthenamesitisestimatedthat25%werewomen.

The original external budget for theDrini RBMPprovided in the ProgrammeDocumentwas944,610EUR.TwosimilarRBMPswerepreparedunder theSida/WorldBank-financedWaterResourcesandIrrigationProjectinAlbaniaduring2015-2017atacostof1.3millionEUR,thatis650,000EURperbasin.There isnoobviousreasonwhytheone inDriniBasinshouldcost

29

more, especially since the ones in Albania were produced by the externally contractedinternational consultant company,with no substantial inputs from theministry in charge ofwater resource management. So, compared to the Albanian case, the budget for the DriniRBMPwasslightlyonthehighside.Consideringthatsomeofthepreparatoryworkhasalreadybeen done, and more will be carried out later this year, the amount of 2.87 million SEKproposedintherequestfromMESPisconsideredasufficientamount.

Thefinancialproposalattachedtotherequestforadditionalfundingincludesbudgetlinesforjunior national short-term experts. While there have been some examples where juniorexpertshaveperformedwellduringthe implementationofKEPsofar, thegeneral findingofthereviewisthatseniorexpertsareconsideredmoreusefulbyseveralKEPstakeholdersmetduringthereviewmissions.ThetimeallottedforjuniorexpertscouldthereforebereducedtosomeextentinanycontinuationofKEP

3.4 Impact

3.4.1 Whatistheoverallimpactoftheprogrammeintermsofdirectorindirect,negativeandpositiveresults?

ThedevelopmentobjectiveofKEPistocontributetoimprovingtheenvironmentalconditionsin Kosovo.While there have certainly been some outputs produced that will contribute toachievingsuchlong-termeffects11,foralmostallcomponentsthetotalityofimmediateresultsstillremainstobecompleted.Itisassessedthatatpresent,thereisnosuchdiscernibleeffect.

3.5 Sustainability

3.5.1 Isitlikelythatthebenefits(outcomes)oftheprojectaresustainable?

Most of the design work of KEP took place during 2015. Now, almost four years later thecomponents are still all in place and as relevant as during thedesign as assessed in Section3.1.2. In spite of political changes, including two different parties in power and 4 differentMinisters,theProgrammeisstillintact,andthisisagoodindicationofitsrobustness.

The reviewhas found thatKEPhasbeen fairly successful in implementing thecapacitybuilding orientation specified in the Programme Document, both in the institutionsinvolved and in relation to the individual components and results. Establishinginstitutional capacity is an exit strategy in itself. It can therefore be assessed that,provided theexpectedoutcomescanbeachievedbefore theendof theProgrammeforallcomponents,thereisarelativelyhighlikelihoodthattheycanbesustainedovertime.

11 TheOECD-DACdefinitionofImpactis:Positiveandnegative,primaryandsecondarylong-termeffectsproducedbyadevelopmentintervention,directlyorindirectly,intendedorunintended.

30

3.6 Coordination

3.6.1 Towhatextenthavetheinterventionsofdifferentactorsbeenharmonized?

The scopeof KEP iswide to say the least, touchinguponalmost all facetsof environmentalprotectionandmanagement.Theimportanceofcoordinationforachievingbothefficiencyandeffectiveness in its implementation was considered particularly important when theprogrammewasdesigned.

It was specified in the Programme document that Technical Committees (TC) were to beestablished, one for each entity implementing KEP: at the outset one for KEPA, one for theEnvironmental Protection Department and one for the Water Department. Due to therelativelystraight-forwardcharacterofComponent8itwasnotconsiderednecessarytohaveaTCforthatcomponent.ThepurposeoftheTCwastocreateabodyfordecision-makingforeach component on overall planning, management, coordination, monitoring, review, andapprovalofexpertinputsanddeliverables.

TheTCswereneverestablished.ThereasongivenintheFrameworkImplementationManualisthatitwasinordertosimplifytheprojectorganisation,andthattherolesoftheTCswouldbetakenoverby thecorresponding ImplementingUnits (IUs)orWorkingGroups (WGs)as theyhave also been called12. This implies a misinterpretation of the role that the TCs weresupposedtoplay,whichhadbeenclearlydefinedbytheirtasksintheProgrammeDocument.The objectives, tasks andmembership of the two groups are different: while the TCs wereintended to provide coordination, communication and oversight, the IUs are, as the nameimplies,meanttomanageimplementation.

Withregardtotasks,several important intendedfunctionsoftheTCwerenottakenoverbytheIUs,includingthegeneralcoordinationfunction;theexchangeofexperiencesandcreationof links and synergies between components, and with other relevant programmes andprojects; the function of accepting or declining proposals for short-term experts; and theapprovaloftechnicalreportsandinputsofshort-termexperts.

The membership of the two groups is also quite different. The IUs/WGs are small groupsconsisting of only the Component Coordinator, the Programme Team Leader, the TA LocalTeamManagerandrelevantshort-termexperts.TheTCsontheotherhand,wouldinadditionhave included also representatives of other programme components, contributing agenciesandstakeholders,aswellastheTAGenderandParticipationExpertandSidarepresentativesasobservers.

NothavingaformalgroupforcoordinationandoversightforComponent8wasadesignflawin theProgrammeDocument.This isprobablywhereaTCwouldhavebeenmost importantand effective in limiting several problems in implementing that component as described inSection3.3.1.Theresultof theabove is that theonly formalgroupthathashadanoversight functionhasbeen the Steering Committee, of which there have been only three meetings.While these

12ThiswasalsoconfirmedbythePTLduringinterviewsandinpersonalcommunication2019.04.21

31

meetingsareimportantforoversightandforformalapprovalofdeliverables,forcoordinationand harmonization they contain too little of discussion according to interviews withparticipantsinthemeetings13.

With regard to IU/WG meetings, the MTR Team has received minutes from two meetingsunder Component 6, which show that they were limited to cover only information anddiscussion about component activities. There is no information about how many suchmeetingswere held under this or other components. The overall impression gathered frominterviews with MESP staff is, however, that the groups that have been in operation havefunctionedwell.InthecaseofComponent5therehavebeenad-hocmeetingsastheneedhasarisen, also here these meetings have reportedly served their purpose for supportingimplementation.

Notwithstanding the above, according to interviews with implementing staff, coordinationbetween content-wise related components has been relatively good, for instance betweenComponent 4 and Components 6 and 7; between Component 1 and component 4; andbetweenComponents6and7.

With regard to external coordination, communication lines and coordination have beenestablishedbetweentheProgrammeandtheAgencyforGenderEquality(AGE).

Under Component 3, a working group related to the preparation of regulatory plans wasestablished composedof awide groupof representatives ofMESP, KEPA, related institutes,nationalparts,municipalities,NGOsandlocalstakeholders.Thisworkinggrouphasreportedlybeenfunctional.14

3.7 Cross-cutting

3.7.1 Hastheprogrammecontributedtopovertyreduction?How?

WhiletheProgrammeDocumentdoesnotmentionpovertyreductionasaspecificobjectiveorindicator,manystakeholdersandbeneficiaries interviewedstatethatKEPis intendedto,anddoes, improve living conditions for people living in poverty. This is certainly true to someextent,peoplelivinginpovertyhavelessresiliencetoenvironmentalandclimatechange,andanyactivity that reducesenvironmentaldegradationor risk shouldhaveapositiveeffect forthem. Improvednatural resourcemanagement and creating a healthier environment,whichseveral KEP components aimat achieving,will havedirect effectsonpoverty reduction. Butdeveloping specific activities targeted directly to people living in poverty or to othermarginalised groups can be used to enhance the general effects. An environmentalprogramme that does not specifically address poverty reduction can therefore be seen as amissed opportunity to maximise the achievement of the main objective of Swedishdevelopmentcooperation,whichistoenablepeoplelivinginpovertytoimprovetheirlives.

13 TheagendaforSteeringCommitteeMeetingon28October2016providedonly30minutesfordiscussion.14BasedoninterviewwithDirectorofNP-S,KEPInceptionReportandotherdocumentationreceivedfromtheTAConsultant.

32

TheSWOTworkshopconcludedthatthelevelofaddressingpovertyreductioninKEPhasbeenlow.However,severalKEPcomponentsdohavegoodpotentialtosupportpovertyreductionin the general sense, notably Component 3 through engagement with communities on themargins of protected areas, Component 5 through creating legal and planning instrumentsintended to improveenvironmental conditions,andComponents7and8 through improvingthe availability and management of water resources for economic development. However,sucheffectsaremorelong-termandhavenotoccurredyet.

Several areas where the programme could work with reaching people living in povertyspecifically, havebeenmentioned in interviewswithMESP staff andother stakeholders andduringtheSWOTworkshop.Thiscouldbethroughadaptingzoningaswellasregulatoryplansforprotectedareastocreatejobopportunitiesforlessaffluentgroupsandcommunities,andbyapplyingsomeformofparticipatorymanagementthatwouldallowforcommunityuseofforestproduce.Reachingpeoplelivinginpovertycanalsobefacilitatedthroughengagingandcoordinatingwithrelevantgovernmentagencies,suchasthoseresponsibleforsocialwelfareprogrammes or water supply and sanitation, and by working more at the local level withcommunity inclusion. Such work would need to be supported by the inclusion of povertyindicatorsandbudgetallocations.

3.7.2 Hastheprojectbeenimplementedinaccordancewiththerightsperspective?

-Havetargetgroupsbeenparticipatinginprojectplanning,implementationandfollowup?

-Hasanyonebeendiscriminatedbytheprojectthroughitsimplementation? -Hastheprojectbeenimplementedinatransparentfashion? -Arethereaccountabilitymechanismsintheproject?

- Havetargetgroupsbeenparticipatinginprojectplanning,implementationandfollowup?Publicinformation,consultationandparticipationinKosovoisbasedonLaw03/L-189,Article56:“Cooperationofadministrationbodieswithcitizens”,whereforinstanceonthelegalrightsitisstatedthat:“Stateadministrationbodiesareobligedtoenableforcitizenstheirlegalrightsand obligations without hindering and on time”... “to provide legal assistance withoutdiscrimination”... “to cooperate within the legal framework, in correct and civilized mannerwithcitizens”.

TheinvolvementoflocalcommunitieshasbeensupportedbyKEPinthecaseofComponent3,where the local communities being interested in the future development of the parks havebeenactively involved inconsultativeworkshops for thepreparationof3rdzonesregulatoryplansinbothNationalParks.Asinformedbythelocalauthoritiesandlocalcommunity,publicconsultationshavetakenplacethroughworkshopswithpresenceoflocalbodies,businesses,localcommunitieswithpropertyorbusinessesinthe3rdzones.

Involvement of local government has been part of component 5, where the municipalitieshavebeen involved,butnot to thesameextent the localcommunities.Thesameconcern isvalid forComponent7,RiverBasinManagementPlan forDriniRiverBasin,wheresignificant

33

local community participation is a necessity15. The importance of public consultation in thiscasewasstressedbythegenderfocalpointofDragashcommunementioningasabigconcerntheprocess of striking a balancebetween conservation andexploitation demands forwaterresources.Atthesametimeastheconservationofavailablewaterresourcesisnecessaryfortourism development and formeeting the environmental demands of the local community,thereisahighdemandfordevelopinghydropowerfromthebusinesscommunity.

Ingeneral,ordinarycitizenshavenotparticipatedmuch.Thisfindingbasedoninterviewsanddocument study is reinforced by the wider consultation with various actors at the SWOTworkshop,where itwas stated that KEP has had “a low level of community inclusion in thecomponentsoftheprogramme”.

Evenwhereconsultationhastakenplacewithcommunities,consultationwithwomengroupsandCSOsaremissing.Forinstance,basedoninterviewwiththeParticipationandGender(PG)Consultant in the national parks during the 3rd zones regulatory plans preparation,womenwere not consulted or invited.WhileNGOs do participate in generalmeetings organized byKEP,theyarenoparticularlyinvolvedinworkshopsandtrainingcourses.

The PG expert at the Programme level, is working in cooperation with gender officials atcentral and local government level on mainstreaming gender and addressing participatoryissuesinalltherelevantcomponentsoftheProgramme.Inthisconnection,adocumentwithparticipatoryguidelineisbeingprepared,whichisgood,butitwouldhavebeenevenbetterifthisdocumenthavebeeninplaceevenbeforethestartoftheconsultativeandparticipatoryprocessesundereachcomponent.

As mentioned during the SWOT workshop in relation to the rights perspective andparticipation,the involvementofmunicipalities inminorityareas,and involvementofpeoplewith specialneeds remains critical. Involvementof communeswithminoritiesparticularly inthe north of the country has been problematic due to political tensions during the last 4-5months,puttingat risk thecommunicationwiththeseareas.Despite these issues,whicharenotwithinthepowerofKEPtoresolve,somemovetowardsinclusionofminoritieshavebeenmade, including reports being prepared also in the Serbian language. Groups of minoritiesincluding Turks, Roma, Ashkaly and Egyptians are employed in MESP, but only in lowerpositions.

As reported by the PTL, KEP has been supporting the revision of the draft law on publicconsultation that is to be sent to all MESP departments and the Ministry of Finance forcomments. This draft law tackles also the involvement of local communities and NGOs inpublicconsultations. Inaddition,aguidelineonstakeholderengagementwillbepreparedbyKEPwiththesupportofanationalgenderandparticipationconsultant.

In order to be able to prepare valuable events with relevant contents and achieving fullparticipation,allemployeesofMESPwereinterviewedattheoutsetoftheprogrammetofindout their training needs. The training programme was prepared based on this information.According to the latestprogress report,KEPhasorganized118events.Asorally reportedbythe PTL it has always been full and very participative. Specific information about the

15AsinformedininterviewwiththePTL.

34

participation,ofmenandwomen,pereacheventhasnotbeenprovided,butonlyatablewithasummaryincludinggenderdisaggregateddata.

TheKEPwebsitehasstillnotbeenadequatelypopulatedwithkeyprogrammedocumentationaccessibletothepublic.ThegeneralinternetvisibilityofKEPislow.16

- Hasanyonebeendiscriminatedbytheprojectthroughitsimplementation?

Kosovohas about180,000 individualsbelonging tominorities, including Serbs,Bosnians andTurkshavingthehighestpercentages followedbythegroupsofRoma,Ashkali,EgyptianandGoran populations17. Kosovo has in general a young populationwhere themain part of thepopulation(59.79%)isbetween15and54yearsold.KEPattemptstostrengthenthecapacitieswithinMESP to establish a constructive dialoguewithminorities and to adopt participatoryapproachesforinclusionoftheseminoritiesandmainstreaminggenderissues.

It has been reported by Programme officials at central and local level that KEP is facingproblems to address minority communities, thus the processes in these communities havebeamsloweddown.It isnotthattheprogrammehasactivelydiscriminatedtheseminorities,effortshavebeenmadefortheirinclusion,forinstanceinworkshops.

FrominterviewsithastranspiredthatsmallmarginalizedcommunitiesfeelexcludedfromtheprogrammesuchasitisthecaseofDragashmunicipality.Furthermore,genderconsiderationsare reported to be problematic in these municipalities especially due to strong genderstereotypes for education and professions. For instance, the Goran community of Bulgarianoriginconstitutes40%oftheDragashpopulation.Thoughtheareaisonly30kmfromPrizrenandhasgreatpotential fortourismdevelopmentorbusinessesrelatedtoNon-TimberForestProducts(NTFP),theemploymentopportunitiesforwomenareverylimited.Womenfeelthattheyareanexcludedgroup. Theydonotget involved incollectionoperationsor in runningcollectionpoints.

According to theKEPPGconsultant, there isno specific attentiongiven tomechanisms thatwouldsupportgenderequality inprocurementprocesses.Anothertypeofexclusionthathasbeenmentionedbyintervieweesisthenon-involvementofMESPgenderofficerinanyofthestudytoursabroad.

- Hastheprojectbeenimplementedinatransparentfashion?

The absence of the Technical Committees has been discussed in Section 3.6. The fact thatthese were never established has resulted in lack of participation of important KEPstakeholders in important coordination, discussions and decision making related to, amongothers,proposingandacceptingordecliningproposalsforshort-termexperts,andapprovaloftechnicalreportsandinputsofshort-termexperts.

In some cases it is not clear how and by whom the quality of reports delivered by the TAConsultant isdeterminedandaccepted. In theabsenceofTechnicalCommittees, thisshouldbedoneonlybytheconcernedMESP,KEPAorIMWCCoordinator.18

16 A google search for “Kosovo environmental programme” gives 35 hits (09 July 2019) 17WorldDirectoryofMinoritiesandindigenousPeople.https://minorityrights.org/minorities/serbs-3/).18 Examples include some of the studies carried out under Component 8.

35

The non-functionalweb page, notably the lack of access to published reports, hampers thetransparency,publicvisibility,andtimelyandtransparentinformationtocitizens.Asstatedinthegroupdiscussions in theSWOTanalysisworkshop, thisalso reduces theopportunities topromoteparticipationinProgrammeactivities.

ThefactthatprogrammedocumentshadnotbeenmadeaccessibleontheKEPwebsite,wasaserious limitation to information access not only by theMTR team but presumably also byprogramme stakeholders and the general public. This is true particularly with regard totechnicaldocuments.

Thewebsitehasmorerecentlybeenpopulatedwithsomedocuments,mostlyprogressreportsand administrative documents, almost all being password-protected. Only two technicaldocuments produced during the implementation of KEP are currently available for opendownload(09July2019):SignificantWaterManagementIssuesforDriniBasin,1stdraftofJune2017(Component7)andtheEnglish-AlbanianWaterGlossary,February2018(Component8).This is a lownumber considering that79outof aplanned105 technical reports/documentswerereportedasproducedattheendof2018.19

TheprocurementplananditsannualadjustmentshavebeenapprovedbytheProjectSteeringCommitteeandprocurementprocedureshavefollowedtheSidaProcurementGuidelinesandtheKosovoLawNo.042/L-42“onPublicProcurementintheRepublicofKosovo”.Itisnotcleartowhatextentandwheretheprocurementplanispublished.

- Arethereaccountabilitymechanismsintheproject?

The Programme is organised largely in accordance with the Programme Document andadheres to normal accountability procedures of the Government of Kosovo and Swedishcompaniesintermsofgovernmentcontrolmechanisms,reporting,auditetc.Onekeypartoftheorganisationalset-updefinedspecificallyforKEPinthePDismissing,namelytheTechnicalCommittees,whichhasaccountabilityimplications(seeSection3.6.1).

3.7.3 Hastheprojectbeendesignedandimplementedinaconflict-sensitivemanner?

As indicated by participants in the SWOTworkshop, potential conflicts existwithin KEP andtheyarerelatedmainlytopropertyonnaturalresourcesandcompetitiononwaterresources.Based on the information available in documentation provided to the Review Team,surprisingly little attention has been paid to conflict analysis in KEP so far. The componentwhere conflict analysis is most central is probably Component 7 on the preparation of theRiverBasinManagementPlan.ThereportonSignificantWaterManagementIssuesproducedunderthatcomponentdoesnotanalysewaterconflicts,probablybecausetheconflictissueassuchwas notmentioned by the questionnaire respondents. However, there is an upcomingreport specifically dealing with existing and potential conflict between upstream anddownstreamwaterusers,plannedfordeliveryon30.07.19.

19 AnnualReportfor2018(2019.01.03).

36

Forthepreparationofthe3rdzonesregulatoryplansunderComponent3,meetingswithheadofmunicipalitieswereorganisedtoexplainactivitiesandregulatoryplansunderKEP,aimingtopointoutandtacklepotentialconflictsattheoutsetoftheProgramme.

AccordingtotheinterviewwiththeComponentTeamLeaderofComponent3,theprocessfor3rd zones regulatory plan preparation requires first the approval of the spatial planning byKosovoParliament,thenbasedonspatialplanningtheregulatoryplansareprepared,andonlyafterthattheconstructionpermitsareissuedfor3rdzones.WhilethespatialplanforSharrNPisapprovedbytheParliament,forBjeshketeNamunatheapprovalofthisplanisonhold.ThisisaconflictingsituationastheMunicipalityofBjeshketeNamunawantsmoreinfluenceonthespatial planandpermits approval. Strategically, to copewith theComponent's targetwithinthe deadline, KEP has progressed and finished the work for the 3rd zone regulatory planspreparationinBNanditsapprovalisnowdependentontheapprovalofthespatialplan.

One could expect that typical areas of minorities would have high potential for conflictgeneration.TherealityshowsthatKEPisnotnecessarily impactedbysuchpotentialconflictsas for instance atMali SharritNP, the areaof Shterpca andDragashi are characterisedby averygoodco-existenceofminoritiesandAlbanians(SerbsandBosnians).Theydorespecteachother,andtheyrespectthenatureandtheenvironment,andtheyareusedtorespecttheruleoflaw.Asaresult,theseareasarewellprotected.

3.7.4 Hastheprojecthadanypositiveornegativeeffectsongenderequality?Couldgendermainstreaminghavebeenimprovedinplanning,implementationorfollowup?

Theoverallperceptionasexpressedbyparticipantsat theSWOTworkshop is thatsocietyatwide in Kosovo has a low awareness of gender issues, and in many cases there is a lot ofmisunderstandingofgenderconceptsandgenderequality.BeforeKEP,genderissueshadnotreceivedmuchattention.

Gender issues at MESP were considered and analysed only after KEP started itsimplementation,providingthefirstexpertiseofthistypeprovided intheBalkans.Aseriesofinterventions under KEPhave resulted in a better understandingon gender concepts, but itstillneedstobeassimilatedwhygenderis importantandtomakegenderpartoftheregularworkagenda.

KEPsupportstartedwithaGenderAnalysis,whichwaspresentedinthoroughdocument.ThiswasthefirstdocumentofthistypepreparedfortheKosovoenvironmentalsector,anditcouldserveasamodelforothersectors.Accordingtointerviewswithstakeholders,aworkshopwasorganizedwith representativesofGender andEqualityOffices fromallministries topresentthe Gender Analysis document. It was also presented in Peja, Dragash, Gjakov and PrizrenmunicipalitiesaspartoftheDriniRiverBasinworkbyKEP.Itisthemostimportantdocumentbeingusedasaguidelineforsubsequentaction inpreparationofgenderstrategyandactionplan.

KEPprepareda“GenderPolicyDocument:Aviewthroughmyglasses”andmade itavailableforMESPgenderworkinggroupinaworkshoporganizedonNovember2018,anditisplannedtopublishitelectronicallyforawiderpublic.

37

Thedocumenthasthoroughlyanalysedthestatusofthelegalframework;knowledgegapsandtraining needs; operational systems on gender balance at all hierarchical levels; genderresources related to expertise available; gender budget considerations; communicationchannelsandmessagesandmanagementpositioningrelatedtogendermainstreaming.

As indicatedbyhigh levelofficials,asuccessfuland importanteventaspartofComponent8wasorganizedongenderandrelatedwatersectorissues.ThisnationalroundtableleadbytheprogrammePGexpertandaninternationalconsultantonwaterandgenderissuesfocusedona training and discussion package referring to importance of gender, introduction of newgenderconceptsandrelationsbetweengenderandwaterresources.

TheTAConsultantsandGEOareworkingonpreparingthefirsteverMESPgenderstrategyinaparticipatoryway.Aworkinggroupcomposedof severalMESPDepartments includingLegalDepartment,DepartmentofFinanceandGeneralServices(HumanResources),EUintegrationand Policies Coordination, Department of Environment and Water Protection, and tworepresentatives of local level gender equality officers from Peja and Dragash, has beenestablishedand isworkingon issues related to integrationofgenderequality forMESP.Theworkinggrouphasrecentlyattendedaworkshopdefiningthegenderstrategymission,vision,strategic directions and developing gender concepts. The strategy direction, as indicated bythePGexpert isanticipatedto leadtothepreparationofaGenderActionPlanforMESP.Atthesametime,basedontheKosovoLawonGenderEquality,oneoftheresponsibilitiesoftheAgency forGender Equality (AGE) is preparing theNational ProgrammeonGender Equality,whichhasbeensentouttoallrelevantinstitutionsforconsultationandcomments.BasedonKosovoLawonGenderEqualityNo.2004/2,Section4,itisstipulatedthatitistheobligationoftheinstitutionsto“collaboratewiththeAgencyforGenderEqualityduringthepreparationofthedraftlaws,amendmentstotheexistinglawsandreviewrecommendationsbythisAgencyconcerning draft-laws and other documents in the aspect ofgenderequalitypriortotheirpresentationbeforetheGovernmentwhichtakesthedecisions”.

It is only lately, and under KEP support, that gender inclusion into legislation, policies anddocument’s revisionhas started. Thishas required first and foremost a change inmentality,and efforts to increase awareness andwillingness of high officials to follow the gender lawrequirements.As reportedbyGEO, somedocumentsofMESParenowbeing reviewed fromthe gender point of view, including the Law on Environmental Protection with manysuggestionsforchanges;anddocumentsforthepreparationofdetailed3rdZoneRegulatoryPlans for two areas: Boge and Gropa Erenikut at National Park “Bjeshkët e Nemuna".Meanwhile during 2019, as reported byMESP gender officer, the office has been asked tocontributeto(i)preparationofaconceptdocumentonwaste-regardingthechangeofLawnr04/L-060 on Wastes; and (ii) preparation of two concept documents on StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentandClimateChange.

Despite the progressmade, it seems to theMTR team thatmost efforts are being orientedtowardsKEPconsultant’s“doing”ratherthanfocusingonsupportingnationalstafftoenhancetheircapacity.

The Kosovo Law on Gender Equality obliges all public institutions to ensure equalrepresentation of women andmen at all levels of government. KEP has actively supported

38

actionstoguaranteeequalityatcertainlevels.TheGEOofMESPisnowpartofthePSCforKEP.As reported by the PTL, each event organized under has a separate template that providesinformation on participation and involvement and an evaluation of the event in a genderdisaggregatedway.Mid-term summary data on events is planned to be provided by KEP inJune2019.

There is no evidence provided in terms of gender disaggregated data regarding MESPemployeesingeneralanddecision-makinglevelsinparticulartocomparepre-KEPandcurrentsituation.However,thePTLhasreportedthattherehavenotbeenmuchchangesingeneral.This is due to Law 03/L-189, dated 16 September 2010 on “State Administration in theRepublicofKosovo”,whichdoesnotallowmuchchangesespeciallynewrecruitmentsofpublicservantsduetoGovernment’sBudgetlimitations.

According to KEP management, moving gender from each component to a cross cuttingComponent9wasmadewiththepurposeofachievinggenderinclusionthroughouttheentireprogramme,andsecondlyfromapracticalpointofviewandforbettermanagement.ThisisachangefromtheProgrammeDocumentandtheMTRTeamdoesnotfindthisargumentfullyconvincing. It just makes it more confusing and it becomes more difficult to monitor andevaluate.

Despitetheprogressmadesofar,thechangeofinternationalPGconsultantdelayedsomeofthe support actions. For instance, the process ofMESPGenderAnalysiswas interrupted forabout 3-4 months. Gender equality is not really fully part of theMESP agenda. Somehow,peoplehaveunderstoodtheconcept,butstillneedabetterunderstandingonwhatgenderis,andwhy it is important.Opportunities forgender-sensitiveenvironmentaleducationhasnotbeen discussed so far andmight require to be included in the strategy directions with theapprovalfromtheMinistryofEducation.

OnlyalimitedbudgetforgenderandparticipationwasallocatedintheProgrammedocument.AllrequeststhatwereforeseenongenderissueswerefulfilledunderabudgetfullypaidunderComponent 9. What is still not funded are the additional days for international expertsrequiredandforstudytourabroad.

3.8 Risks

3.8.1 Whataretherisksduringtheremainingimplementationperiodandhowcantheybemitigated?

ProgrammeriskswereidentifiedintheprogrammedocumentandToRoftheTAcontract,andfurtherspecifiedduringtheinceptionphase.Alimitedsetofmeansofmanagingtheriskswerealsoincluded.Therisktableandthesetofriskmanagementmeanshavebeenrepeatedintheannual narrative reporting without any detailed follow up on whether the risks havematerializedofifrisklevelshavechanged.Somelimitedadditionalriskshavebeenadded,e.g.in the latest progress report, where the risk of delays in carrying out study visits has beenincluded.

39

At the current stage, based on the progress reporting and information collected duringinterviews andmeetings, the following risks to a satisfactory finalisation of the programmewithinthecurrenttimeandfinanciallimitsseemtobethemostevident:

- LackoffundsforsatisfactorycompletionofallProgrammecomponents- Lackoftimeavailable- Institutional reforms have been slow, e.g. the Regional River Basin Authority has been

establishedbutnotyet fullyoperational,whichmayhampertheeffectivepreparationoftheDriniRiverBasinManagementplan.

4 CONCLUSIONSANDLESSONSLEARNED The relevance of KEP in relation to the needs and priorities of beneficiaries as well as toSwedishpolicies and strategies for reformcooperationwashigh at theoutsetof KEP and iseven higher today. Environmental aspects covered in the stabilization and associationagreement with EU, the UN sustainable development goals, and recent Swedish globalthematicstrategies,putincreasedemphasisonseveralthemescurrentlyaddressedbyKEP.

Considering that theProgrammehasbecome seriously under-funded for reasonsbeyond itscontrol, it is considered that KEP has been overall efficient in achieving intended outputs,albeitwithsubstantialdelaysinseveralcases,andresultshavebeenprovidedtoanextentthatjustifies the costs. The programme design, founded on a broad approach engaging keystakeholder institutions, and strong ownership of components and objectives by theparticipating institutions have facilitated efficient and effective implementation with someexceptions.MoreparticipatorymeetingsofthePSCaredesirable,asisputtingmoreemphasisonlocallevelcapacitybuildingthanhasbeenthecaseuntilnow.

Thepovertyreductionaspectwasnotspecifically included intheKEPProgrammedocument,whichisadesignweakness.WhileKEPcanbeexpectedtoreducepovertyinseveralways,e.g.byimprovinglivelihoodsdirectlythroughcleanerairandwaterandthroughoveralleconomicdevelopment, theprogrammedocumentdoesnotspecifically includepoverty reductionasacorecross-cuttingissue.NotaddressingpovertyreductionspecificallyisamissedopportunitytooptimisethecontributionofKEPtoachievingthemainobjectiveofSwedishdevelopmentcooperation,whichistoenablepeoplelivinginpovertytoimprovetheirlives.

TheapproachappliedbyKEPhasbeentobuildcapacitythroughtechnicalassistanceexpertsthat supportandwork togetherwith the staffmembersof thebeneficiarydepartmentsandinstitutionstoachievetheresultsspecifiedintheProgrammeDocument.Basedonthefindingsof the review, it is concluded that this has been realised to a considerable extent. TheengagementandparticipationofMESPandIMWChasbeenstrongandeffectiveandthereisgeneralsatisfactionamongstaffatall levelswiththeperformanceoftheTAConsultant,whohasmanaged inmostcases tokeeptheroleofassisting thebeneficiary institutions,withouttakingovertoomuchofimplementation.

40

Althoughmuchremainstobedoneintermsofgendermainstreamingintheprogramme,KEPhasdonepioneeringworkinintroducinggenderequalityconsiderationsintheenvironmentalsector.

WeaknessesinKEPimplementationhaveincludedthefollowing:

• ItwasspecifiedintheProgrammedocumentthatTechnicalCommittees(TCs)weretobeestablished,oneforeachentityimplementingKEP:attheoutsetoneforKEPA,onefortheEnvironmentalProtectionDepartmentandonefortheWaterDepartment.Dueto the relatively straight-forward character of Component 8 it was not considerednecessary to have a TC for that component. The purpose of the TCwas to create abody at the implementing entity level for