Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00004150 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-80210) ON A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF EURO 20.8 MILLION (US$28.8 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE Republic of Croatia FOR A EU NATURA 2000 INTEGRATION PROJECT ( P111205 ) October 27, 2017 Environment & Natural Resources Global Practice Europe And Central Asia Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective {April 30, 2017) Currency Unit = Euro 1 EUR = US$1.3861 (at Appraisal) 1 EUR = US$1.0896 (at Completion) US$ = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR Republic of Croatia: January 1 – December 31 World Bank: July 1 – June 30 Regional Vice President: Laura Tuck Country Director: Arup Banerji Senior Global Practice Director: Karin Erika Kemper Practice Manager/Country Manager: Valerie Hickey, Elisabetta Capannelli Task Team Leader(s): Vera Dugandzic and Nathalie Weier Johnson ICR Main Contributor: Craig M. Meisner ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAEN Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature (formerly SINP) CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation CPS Country Partnership Strategy CPI County Public Institution DA Designated Account ECA Europe and Central Asia EEA European Environmental Agency EMF Environmental Management Framework EMP Environmental Management Plan EPEEF Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund ERR Economic Rate of Return ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union EUR Euro (currency) FCS Favourable Conservation Status GAF Governance and Accounting Framework GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HRK Croatia Kuna (currency) IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IFI International Financial Institution IFR Interim Financial Report INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IRI Intermediate Results Indicator ISP Implementation Support Plan KEC Karst Ecosystem Conservation LAG Local Action Groups LIFE Programme for the Environment and Climate Action MoC Ministry of Culture MEE Ministry of Environment and Energy MP Management Plan MPA Marine Protected Areas Natura 2000 European Union-wide network of nature conservation areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive and the 1978 Birds Directive NEN National Ecological Network NGO Non-Governmental Organization NP National Park NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure NPIS Nature Protection Information System PA Protected Area PCC Project Coordination Committee PDO Project Development Objective PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PHARE Poland and Hungary Assistance for the Restructuring of the Economy PIU Project Implementation Unit PP Nature Park PPF Project Preparation Facility PROFOR Program for Forests RAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management SAC Special Areas of Conservation SGA State Geodetic Administration SINP State Institute for Nature Protection (now CAEN) TA Technical Assistance TTL Task Team Leader WTP Willingness to Pay TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 5 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................5 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) ..................................... 14 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 15 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 15 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ...................................................................................... 16 C. EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................... 22 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 24 E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) ............................................................................ 24 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 26 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................... 26 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 27 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 28 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 28 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 30 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 31 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 32 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 32 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 34 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 53 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 55 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 56 ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ... 84 ANNEX 6. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND ESIF PIPELINE IN NATIONAL AND NATURE PARKS .... 92 ANNEX 7. MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOL (METT) .................................... 101 ANNEX 8. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ................................................................................ 103 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name P111205 EU NATURA 2000 INTEGRATION PROJECT ( P111205 ) Country Financing Instrument Croatia Specific Investment Loan Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency Ministry of Finance Ministry of Environment and Energy Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO The development objectives of the proposed project are to: (i) help support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura2000 objectives in investment programs; (ii) strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring; and (iii) introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management. PDO as stated in the legal agreement The development objectives of the proposed project are to: (i) support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura2000 objectives in investment programs; (ii) strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring; and (iii) introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management. Page 1 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 28,800,000 28,795,579 25,346,108 IBRD-80210 Total 28,800,000 28,795,579 25,346,108 Non-World Bank Financing Borrower 3,800,000 0 0 Total 3,800,000 0 0 Total Project Cost 32,600,000 28,795,579 25,346,108 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 10-Feb-2011 19-May-2011 09-Nov-2013 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 16-Jul-2015 17.51 Change in Loan Closing Date(s) KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 27-Jun-2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory .07 02 05-Dec-2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.37 Page 2 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 03 18-Jun-2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.93 04 24-Dec-2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.49 05 24-Jul-2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 7.64 06 22-Dec-2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 9.47 07 22-Jun-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 11.41 08 22-Dec-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 15.66 09 15-Jun-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 16.77 10 09-Dec-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 19.40 11 25-May-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 20.40 12 16-Dec-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 23.42 13 01-May-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 25.35 SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 100 Public Administration - Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry 28 Forestry 51 Information and Communications Technologies 100 Public Administration - Information and 5 Communications Technologies ICT Services 11 Other Information and Communications Technologies 5 Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Social Development and Protection 20 Social Inclusion 20 Participation and Civic Engagement 20 Page 3 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Urban and Rural Development 7 Rural Development 7 Land Administration and Management 7 Environment and Natural Resource Management 74 Renewable Natural Resources Asset Management 64 Biodiversity 57 Landscape Management 7 Environmental policies and institutions 10 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Philippe H. Le Houerou Laura Tuck Country Director: Peter C. Harrold Arup Banerji Senior Global Practice Director: Karin Erika Kemper Karin Erika Kemper Practice Manager: John V. Kellenberg Valerie Hickey Nathalie Weier Johnson, Vera Task Team Leader(s): Vera Dugandzic Dugandzic ICR Contributing Author: Craig M. Meisner Note: The above roles can only be edited in the portal’s data sheet (i.e. there is no option to leave them blank or indicate N/A). The Senior Global Practice Director position did not exist at the time of Approval, and the data sheet requires an active name for the ICR to be submitted in the system. At the time of Approval Peter Thomson was the Sector Director, but since retired, and the system does not contain his name for entry. This we have placed Karin Kemper’s name at Approval to get the ICR through the system. Page 4 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Country Context 1. Over the period of 1999-2009, Croatia achieved impressive economic and social progress. The Croatian economy grew at a healthy 4-5 percent annually, incomes doubled, and economic and social opportunities dramatically improved. Croatia’s per capita income reached about 63 percent of the European Union (EU) average, and EU membership negotiations were anticipated to be completed in 2011. By the time of approval, however, Croatia was already feeling the impact of the global financial crisis. 2. Tourism’s centrality to Croatia’s economy made it key to achieving economic recovery. In 2009, tourism revenue contributed to over 14.1 percent of GDP, with the major sub-sector of hotels and restaurants contributing 3.9 percent of gross value-added in GDP. Tourism and its related sub-sectors relied heavily on Croatia’s outstanding cultural and biological diversity, and were key to the country’s growth. Nature protection was viewed as a strategic sector for which Croatia had a comparative advantage relative to its neighbors, and continued investments in this area were considered a priority. The system of protected areas supported the attractiveness of the tourism sector, and helped it remain an important source of sustainable income and jobs in the future. 3. Croatia’s EU accession process required it to meet the requirements of Natura 2000 Network and the Birds and Habitats Directives. As Croatia approached EU Accession1, one of the main requirements for nature protection and conservation was for Croatia to work towards compliance with the Birds and Habitats Directives.2 Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation had been estimated to cost the EU up to 3 percent of its GDP every year. The annual costs of maintaining Natura 2000 network (EUR 6.1 billion) were a fraction of the economic benefits it provides, worth some EUR 200-300 billion each year. In Croatia, as elsewhere, the wide range of ecosystem services provided 1 EU Accession is the process new member states must go through to become a member of the European Union (EU) in line with Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union. A state that wishes to apply for membership of the Union must satisfy two conditions: 1) it must be a European state; and 2) it must respect the common values of the Member States and undertake to promote them. These are human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities (Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union). Accession is not automatic, since it depends on the adequate preparation of the applicant country concerned and on the EU's capacity to integrate the new member. There is thus a pre-accession period of varying length, during which the candidate country adapts its institutions, standards and infrastructure to enable it to meet its obligations as a member state. The accession process involves compliance with the accession criteria, including adoption and implementation of the acquis. 2 The Habitats Directive (together with the Birds Directive) forms the cornerstone of Europe's nature conservation policy. It is built around two pillars: the Natura 2000 Network of protected sites and the strict system of species protection. The Directives protect over 1,000 animals and plant species and over 200 so called "habitat types" (e.g. special types of forests, meadows, wetlands, etc.), which are of European importance. Natura 2000 is the centerpiece of EU nature policy. It is an EU-wide network of Natura 2000 sites, established under the Birds and Habitats Directives. The aim of the network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Over 25,000 sites have already been designated, covering more than one million km2. Page 5 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) – flood mitigation, soil fertility, pollination, water and air purification, carbon storage, health and recreation – depended on the network of protected areas as well as on the sustainable use of the terrestrial and marine environment. Sectoral and Institutional Context 4. Key informational gaps in the nature protection sector needed to be addressed for EU compliance. EU accession requires an expanded ecological network beyond the core National and Nature Parks to be designated and aligned with EU Nature Protection Legislation, and the Birds and Habitats Directives. Croatia’s National Ecological Network (NEN), proclaimed in October 2007, covered 47 percent of Croatian Territory and 39 percent of territorial sea. It served as the preliminary basis for defining the future Natura 2000 network in Croatia. The European Network (Natura 2000) is comprised of Special Protected Areas for wild birds, designated under Birds Directive, and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)3 designated under the Habitats Directive. This network of areas extends across public and private lands with varying degrees of legal protection and required new approaches for public and private collaboration to ensure biological values (e.g., habitats for key species) are maintained. To effectively manage these areas, Croatia needed to conduct new baseline biological data collection at a country-wide scale, and more refined geographical resolution, leading to improved conservation planning and management – that would help Croatia in its future reporting requirements to the EU. 5. Croatia faced capacity constraints in gaining access to EU grant funds for nature protection. The annual costs of maintaining the existing Natura 2000 network lies with each member state being responsible for financing its own component. To help meet these costs, EU members are eligible to draw from a variety of EU grant programs that support co-financing investments to operate and maintain the network. While Croatia would become eligible for these funds after accession, capacity to absorb and program EU grant resources were low, especially at county and park levels. Further work was required prior to accession to build capacity for its management and prepare for longer- term access to EU grant funds to help support financial sustainability. Moreover, in the 2007-2013 programming period, EU member grants for nature protection became more complex with the introduction of mainstreaming across other EU instruments.4 6. The continued growth of nature-based tourism faced unique challenges and needed to foster greater linkages with the rural population. At appraisal, nearly one in five international and almost one-third of domestic tourism visits included the National and Nature parks, with some internationally-known facilities receiving between 500,000 and one million tourists each year. A lack of infrastructure and quality services constrained the growth potential of less visited parks, while compounding their conservation challenges. Additionally, the sector faced the need to spread tourist visits across parks both geographically and throughout the calendar year, while raising the quality of services at a time when Croatia’s investments in internal domestic air and highway transportation links provided the 3 Once a SAC is designated, member states must establish measures to maintain it at or restore it to a “favorable conservation status.” Natura 2000 management plans are used to establish conservation strategies for the habitats and species present, as the Habitats Directive does not dictate what conservation measure must be taken. 4 For example, the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development had 21 articles of relevance to Natura 2000. The European Fisheries Fund had 15 articles of relevance. The European Regional Development Fund had 27 articles of relevance, and the European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, and Research Framework Programs (FP7) each had three or less articles of relevance (but of equal importance). EU LIFE+ was the only EU grant instrument with a dedicated focus on biodiversity and nature, however, its scope was limited by requiring that grant proposals first justify why other grant programs cannot support it. Page 6 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) opportunity to spread the economic benefits of tourism more deeply into rural areas. In addition to potential tourism benefits, EU Accession would open new income possibilities for the local population under several Rural Development grant programs (e.g., Agri-Environment and Natura 2000 payments)5 and would complement Natura 2000’s specific conservation objectives. 7. Rationale for Bank Involvement. The World Bank is one of the largest international financiers of biodiversity investments and draws on substantial international experience which no other international financial institution (IFI) in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region has. The client specifically requested that the Bank continue its support, based on the highly successful earlier collaboration in Croatia on nature protection. This loan drew on lessons and experience from the earlier Global Environment Facility financed Karst Ecosystem Conservation project (P042014), and added several distinct features that expanded support directly in line with EU accession goals. The Bank was actively supporting the agriculture sector accession harmonization process, land registration and cadastre reforms, and water sector investments which linked agendas with the proposed loan. The global perspective the World Bank teams had in supporting the larger Croatia program provided a unique perspective which further strengthened World Bank capacity to provide real-time client support in nature protection sector. 8. At the time of appraisal, it had become apparent that several New Member States could have benefitted more from a larger and longer-term financial and technical support program to help with preparation and early stage integration with the Natura 2000 network. This project was intended to provide Croatia with timely resources to both complement and attract other finance to the sector at an important bridging period when urgent investments and capacity reforms were needed. The project was intended to fill an important financial gap in light of across-the- board, government-wide budget cuts in response to the global financial crisis at a time when sector budgets were projected to increase rather than decline. The opportunity costs for failing to absorb EU grants were highest in the initial years of EU membership when this project was to provide financial support. Finally, the project was to support economically-important investments needed to promote a more sustainable path for future growth and to help build on Croatia’s strengths as an internationally recognized destination for nature based tourism. Higher level objectives 9. The primary, country-specific development goal in the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) (FY09-13) that this project was to support was strengthening the environment and nature protection. It also supported goals for: (i) enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of public finance through its focus on sustainable finance of the nature protection system; (ii) reducing regional and urban and rural disparities through its support for community driven investments; (iii) preparing Croatia to adapt to and mitigate climate change through broadening ecosystem-based approaches to land management; and (iv) improving disaster risk management and mitigation by support to help fill gaps in fire protection capacity at individual park areas. The project also was to support objectives in the subsequent CPS (FY14-17) on increasing capacity to absorb EU funds and helping to align Croatia’s environmental agenda to EU requirements, specifically in nature protection. 5 Agri-environment schemes provide funding to farmers and land managers to farm in a way that supports biodiversity, enhances the landscape, and improves the quality of water, air and soil. Natura 2000 payments compensate farmers for costs incurred and income foregone resulting from the implementation of specific EU Directives (79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC and 2000/60/EC) and which may restrict certain activities or land use practices. Page 7 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 10. The government’s April 2010 Economic Recovery Program came in response to consequences of the global financial crisis and structural weaknesses the crisis revealed. The Program called for Croatia to “use its strengths and emerging opportunities which include a favorable geographic position, pleasant climate and beautiful nature, considerable land and water resources, valuable and preserved culture, tradition of good higher education in natural and technical sciences, and the expected forthcoming EU accession.” It included Sustainable Growth as one of three key pillars. The project was to directly support several priority actions under this program including strengthening incentives and tools for sustainable finance to the environment, support to public sector education and training, support for the introduction of a system of volunteering to promote practical work experience for youth, and capacity building for the use of EU funds. Theory of Change (Results Chain) 11. The project focused on several areas of support that would help the country lead to specific long-term outcomes (see Figure 1 below).6 The project was specifically designed to help Croatia to implement the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives and to enhance its capacity to absorb EU grant funds - especially after its accession when Croatia became the the 28th EU member country in July 2013. For Croatia to meet the requirements of Natura 20007, every 6 years they must report to the EU on the status of their species and habitat types (2019 will be the first reporting period). Specifically, EU Members are required to maintain “favorable conservation status” (FCS) according to the Birds and Habitats Directives.8 Maintaining FCS requires investments and baseline monitoring data to evaluate conservation status of protected areas. To help raise investment funds to comply with the Directives, and with larger projects in general, Croatia needed to build the necessary internal capacity on how to successfully apply for European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF).9 Successful applications would result in funding to build the needed infrastructure and also help conserve protected areas. 6 Note that Figure 1 only presents a summary of major outputs. The project delivered many more and are featured in Annex 1 on outputs by component. 7 Natura 2000 network management consists of a wide spectrum of activities that are focused on taking appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status and avoiding damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types. 8 ‘Conservation status’ for habitats is defined in Article 1(e) of the Habitats Directive as: Conservation status of natural habitats means the sum of influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within the territory referred to in Article 2. The conservation status of natural habitats will be taken as ‘favourable’ when: i. its natural range and areas it covers within t hat range are stable or increasing, and ii. the species structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and iii. the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive. 9 The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are: European regional development fund, European social fund, Cohesion fund, European agricultural fund for rural development, European maritime and fisheries fund. The purpose of these funds is to invest in job creation and a sustainable and healthy European economy and environment. The ESIF mainly focus on 5 areas: research and innovation, digital technologies, supporting the low-carbon economy, sustainable management of natural resources, and small businesses. Page 8 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Figure 1. The Results Chain Activities Outputs PDOs/Outcomes LT Outcomes Developed 37 investment programs with Support Park and County Public Enhance Croatia’s capacity to Ecological Network educational and interpretation services, Institutions to implement Natura 2000 absorb EU funds after Investments including training on fundraising, park objectives in investment programs. accession for improved infrastructure, equipment and capacity • Strengthened capacity and nature protection and building financing for Park management management of Natura 2000 • Increased nature-based income sites in a more sustainable Conducted conservation M&E of species and • Leveraged funds from manner. habitats necessary for conservation activities, Environmental Protection and park management and monitoring of Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF) Enhanced capacity to conservation status of species and habitats and EU Structural Funds maintain “favorable • Developed an accurate habitat map at conservation status” at Ecological Network 1:25,000 scale Natura 2000 sites as defined Data Systems • Converted Natura 2000 border maps from Strengthen capacity for EU- by the EU Birds and Habitats scale 1:25000 to 1:5000 compliant reporting and biodiversity Directives. • Developed internal and external Web/Geo monitoring. Portal • Identified Species and Habitats for Improve compliance with EU Inventorying INSPIRE Directive requirements on • Developed 8 agri-environment measures for transparency and publicly Natura 2000 sites and incorporated in the available data. Rural Development Operational Programme Introduce programs that involve a • Piloted PP Papuk border delineation wide group of stakeholders in Natura • Developed 31 volunteer programs (including Broaden stakeholder 2000 network management. program budget) for all 19 parks involvement in ecosystem- Ecological Network • Increased awareness, inter- • Conducted 32 regional workshops and 4 based approaches to land Capacity Building sectoral cooperation and national workshops benefitting 1000 management and more integrated management of the participants (farmers, nature protection inclusive ecological ecological network by inspectors, staff of the Paying Agency and management of protected stakeholders, volunteers and the Extension Service) areas. local community. • Developed system to track and diversify protected area finance with UNDP PDO: to (i) support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in investment programs; (ii) stre ngthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring; and (iii) introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management. 12. In order to address the country’s needed capacity and lacking infrastructure in park management – the first objective was to support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in their investment programs, including with park educational and interpretation materials (i.e. Ecological Network Investments). At Appraisal, the Project was to support 35 ecological network investments to be built at parks and Natura 2000 sites at the county level and help in spreading tourist visits both geographically and throughout the calendar year and contribute to improved nature-based income for the local rural population living within and adjacent to protected natural resources. Civil works included visitor or info centers, educational trails, adaptation of caves for visiting, interpretation or information boards, two bridges and rehabilitation of several cultural monuments sites.10 Capacity building was intended to be catalytic and resulted in enhanced nature protection staff skills and 10 There was a total of 35 proposed investments at Appraisal and by Closing the number of investments totaled 37. Page 9 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) knowledge for managing Natura 2000 sites in a more sustainable manner and for longer-term access to EU grant funds. This increased capacity would be demonstrated by the leveraging of funds from the ESIF and potentially from the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF).11 These skills in the longer term would help ensure adherence to the current and future requirements under the EU Birds and Habitats Directive and help demonstrate Croatia’s ability in maintaining favourable conservation status of Natura 2000 sites. 13. The second objective was to strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring (i.e. Ecological Network Data Systems). To meet the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive, detailed habitat and biodiversity maps are necessary for the nature protection sector in planning and conducting conservation activities, monitoring the conservation status of wild species and habitats and for the development of effective management plans. The Directive requires updates every 6 years and this reporting must cover more than just the Natura 2000 sites.12 The project was to provide the necessary tools for conservation actions through the establishment of data systems to help Croatia meet EU reporting requirements in line with Birds and Habitats Directives and to harmonize data systems with the EU INSPIRE Directive.13 As the aim of the Natura 2000 network is to ensure the protection of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats the project was to provide much needed baseline data as a starting point for conservation actions. It focused on strengthening the Nature Protection Information System (NPIS), which comprised of 2 key activities - Habitat Mapping and Field Research and Laboratory Processing of new inventory data (i.e. Biodiversity Inventory). These activities were to lead to the production of a 1:25000 scale Habitat Map and a higher resolution Natura 2000 border maps (i.e. 1:5000). These maps are crucial in providing a spatial overview of natural and semi-natural habitats’ distribution in Croatia – and would be instrumental to Croatia’s EU biodiversity reporting requirements in nature protection. 14. Another sub-component of this work was to focus on completing the taxonomic classification of species in Croatia (i.e. Identification of Species and Habitats for Inventory). New distributional data for concerned taxonomic groups were to be collected, site visits undertaken and then populated in the “Crofauna” database.14 This data was then to be compiled on an internal and external Geoportal for future use and planning. 15 The assembly of this level of detailed information – and made publicly available – would also help Croatia in meeting the requirements under the EU INSPIRE Directive which requires greater efficiency and transparency in information sharing nationally and 11 The Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF) is the central point for collecting and investing extra budgetary resources in the programs and projects of environmental and nature protection, energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. 12 Article 17 and Article 12 require Member States to report every six years about the progress made with the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directive. As the main focus of the Directive is on maintaining and/or restoring a favourable conservation status for habitat types & species of community interest, it is important to focus on monitoring & reporting to comply with the Directive. Monitoring of conservation status is an obligation arising from Article 11 of the Habitats Directive for all habitats (as listed in Annex I of the Directive) and species (as listed in Annex II, IV and V) of Community interest. Consequently, this provision is not restricted to Natura 2000 sites and data need to be collected both in and outside the Natura 2000 network to achieve a full appreciation of conservation status. Each Member State needs to set up a monitoring system to provide data for all the requirements of a common EU28 reporting format. Through this project, basis has been set for the establishment of monitoring system and furthermore, project for monitoring implementation that is going to be financed through EU funds has been supported. 13 The INSPIRE Directive aims to create a European Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. This European Spatial Data Infrastructure will enable the sharing of environmental spatial information among public sector organizations, facilitate public access to spatial information across Europe and assist in policy-making across boundaries. 14 See at: https://hirc.botanic.hr/fcd/ 15 See at: http://www.dzzp.hr/eng/ Page 10 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) across EU borders. 15. The third objective of the project was to introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management (i.e. Ecological Network Capacity Building). Natura 2000 management requires the efforts of many different stakeholders across a broad spectrum of interests. To effectively coordinate stakeholders under the common objective of improving the management of protected areas, a wide variety of training and capacity needed to be developed. The most important programs to be introduced were: i) an Agri- environment scheme for nature protection inside and outside Natura 2000 areas targeted at farmers, ii) volunteer programs in protected areas,16 iii) training l programs,17 iv) improved protected area border delineation through a pilot, and v) help improve systems to track and diversify protected area finance. The component was to also support training on access to EU grant programs for nature protection and tools to improve park management and learning through study tours and seminars, public information campaigns, and project management and operating costs. Through these measures, stakeholders’ awareness was to be raised, greater cooperation fostered, greater participation by volunteers and more inclusive ecological management by local communities. Project Development Objectives (PDOs) 16. The objectives of the Project are to: (i) support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in investment programs; (ii) strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring; and (iii) introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management. 17. The three sub-objectives of the PDO specifically address the constraints identified in the sector context above – with the first recognizing that Croatia had a lack of capacity and investments in the parks and County Public Institutions (CPIs) which contained Natura 2000 sites – and support was necessary to be compliant with the Birds and Habitats Directives in the future. Activities under the first sub-objective were designed to close some of the investment gaps and build capacity on how to raise further funds from EU Structural and Investment Funds. 18. The second sub-objective addressed the informational constraints in complying with the EU Directives, notably Birds and Habitats Directives and as an important input to demonstrating favourable conservation status of Natura 2000 sites and meeting the nature protection requirements of the EU INSPIRE Directive by creating common standards, transparency and collection and availability of spatial data for sharing locally and across Europe borders through online Geoportals (a requirement for all EU member states). 19. The third sub-objective was to address the multi-stakeholder issue of users and managers of future Natura 2000 sites as well as the lack of economic incentives to undertake conservation measures at the local level. Activities under the third sub-objective were also designed to increase inter-sectoral cooperation of agriculture and nature protection sector through development of Agri-environment schemes for farmers and introducing training and volunteer programs and nationwide public awareness campaign aimed at bringing together wide group of stakeholders involved in Natura 2000 sites management and broadening their participation in ecosystem-based approaches. 16 Volunteers participated in day-to-day management activities such as stonewall reconstruction; species and habitats monitoring, maintaining of habitats, restoring of educational trails, etc. 17 Education for staff managing Natura 2000 sites and protected areas, the scientific community, Ministry of Environment and Energy and CAEN, nature protection inspectors, customs, veterinary and phytosanitary inspectors and border police. Page 11 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 20. The first sub-objective of the project was to support parks and CPIs in raising capacity and investment funds for Natura 2000 compliant projects. Capacity would be built by creating a pipeline of project proposals for ESIF funding and building ecological network investments in line with Natura 2000 objectives. The increase in capital expenditures to be used for these investments was monitored and since only a few parks had little previous success with EU grant funding – the target of a 12% increase in the absolute capital expenditure increase was reflective of the experience at appraisal. PDO Objective 1: Support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in investment programs Outcome Indicator: Progress made in increasing annual capital and other investment expenditure across the Parks estate (baseline: 0%, target: 12%, achieved: 220%) 21. The second sub-objective of the Project was to strengthen capacity and create the baseline data that would help Croatia comply with the reporting requirements in line with the EU Bird and Habitat Directives. As the aim of the Natura 2000 network is to ensure the protection of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats, a much-needed baseline data and IT tools were to be developed as a starting point for conservation actions (no effective management plans can be developed if the managing bodies do not have recent data on area and quality of habitats or presence and abundance of species or if there are no tools through which this data can be made available to managing bodies). PDO Objective 2: Strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring Outcome Indicator: Extent of Croatia covered by an accurate habitat map at 1:25000 scale (baseline: 2.5%, target: 60%, achieved: 60%) 22. The third sub-objective was to build capacity among stakeholders who would be part of Natura 2000’s site management – and to develop incentives to foster greater cooperation. The proposed four broad programs to be developed (Agri-environment, Training, Volunteering and Public Awareness) would integrate stakeholders under the common objective of effective Natura 2000 management. PDO Objective 3: Introduce programs that involve a wider group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management Outcome Indicator: Number of project-promoted programs in operation that actively involve stakeholders with Natura 2000 (baseline: 0, target: 4, achieved: 4 (Training, Public Awareness, Volunteering and Agri-environment) Components 23. Ecological Network Investments (estimated: $US15.11 million IBRD, actual: $US12.2 million IBRD)18: 37 protected area and national ecological site investments helped demonstrate and strengthen the integration of 18 The project was fully disbursed in all components. The project disbursed in Euros and the Euro depreciated 20-30% during the Page 12 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Natura 2000 objectives, consultant services for nature interpretation design, and engineering services. These investments were pre-selected out of 100 initial proposals which followed a two-stage, multi-criteria screening process, for example, the investment had to be consistent with the project’s objectives, would contribute to local development and biodiversity protection.19 Proposals were encouraged from all national and nature parks and all CPIs. Priority technical equipment was provided to park rangers, the Croatian Agency for Environment and Nature, and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, eight firefighting vehicles for eight fire prone coastal Nature and National Parks and four surveillance and monitoring boats delivered. Ecological Network Investments were organized in two phases based upon different levels of readiness and nature institution capacities. These were used to actively engage nature institutions in learning to design and implement investments using requirements similar to those required by EU Structural and Investment Funds. A key outcome target was a more explicit demonstration of how investments, including educational and interpretive materials, can support the goal of maintaining “favorable conservation status” at Natura 2000 sites as defined by the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. In addition to interpretation service, each investment was also accompanied with educational boards that developed “codes of conduct” for visitors to induce behavioral change while visiting protected areas. For example, no littering was promoted under the guise of better preserving nature. Beneficiaries, in parallel, were also supported through consultant services to use newly acquired skills to develop pipeline of project proposals for the ESIF funding. Investment in forest fire protection equipment responded to a gap analysis initially undertaken and revealed the vulnerability of certain Nature Parks in the dry Mediterranean coastal region to forest fire risk. 24. Ecological Network Data Systems (estimated: $US6.38 million IBRD, actual: $US5.0 million IBRD): This component comprised: (i) consulting and technical services to help plan, prioritize, and organize biological inventory and populate data systems to fulfill EU reporting requirements; (ii) field work to perform biological inventory of species and habitat mapping and monitoring services; (iii) consultant services to harmonize data systems with the central geo-portal to meet EU INSPIRE Directive requirements; and (iv) computer hardware and software upgrades. The Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature (CAEN - formerly the State Institute for Nature Protection) was tasked with the primary responsibility for consolidating nature protection data, organizing biological monitoring and inventory work which responded to EU reporting requirements under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Investments helped CAEN strengthen their capacity to better manage, organize, generate habitat maps, and report from common data collection protocols and standards aligned with the European Environment Agency requirements such that a wide group of researchers and scientists can participate in data collection. The activities supported under this component will serve as a solid base for future efficient management of Natura 2000 sites by enabling the CAEN and Natura 2000 managers to set up conservation objectives/targets for species and habitat types concerned. No effective management plan can be developed if the managing bodies do not have recent data on area and quality of habitats or presence and abundance of species which the project enabled. 25. Ecological Network Capacity Building (estimated: $US4.99 million IBRD, actual: $US5.0 million IBRD): This component comprised consultant services to help promote inter-sectoral cooperation and pilot programs to: (i) develop a proposal for agri-environment measures for Natura 2000 sites, (ii) improve protected area boundary delineation, (iii) introduce a park volunteer program, and (iv) help improve systems to track and diversify protected area finance. It also supported training on access to EU grant programs for nature protection and tools to improve project’s life. 19 See Annex 4 for details on the investment screening criteria and process. Page 13 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) park management, learning through study tours and seminars, a public information campaign, and project management and operating costs. In addition, the project supported a variety of activities to: (i) help build capacity for better cohesion and integration of protected areas and the ecological network system; (ii) help attract additional resources and improve the financial sustainability of investments in protected areas; (iii) help improve public awareness, involvement, and education on the need for, and purpose of, protected areas and the ecological network; and (iv) integrated the local community in the management of the ecological network by promoting agri- environment incentive programs and introducing volunteer programs. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 26. None. Revised PDO Indicators 27. The Project underwent Level 2 restructuring at the request of the Ministry of Finance in June 2015 to extend the project closing date from April 30, 2016 to April 30, 2017. Revisions of the Results Framework were made to align the end targets with the new closing date. Additionally, changes to three Intermediate Result Indicators were made under the first component Ecological Network Investments as follows: 28. Intermediate Results Indicator #1, "Number of nature protection project applications made to EU Structural and Investment Funds and accepted in the funding pipeline" was renamed to read, "Number of nature protection projects applied for EU Structural and Investment Funds" and the target was reduced from 30 to 15. 29. Intermediate Results Indicator #2 in PAD, "Number of National/Nature parks actively monitoring their management effectiveness" had already been met in 2013 as all 19 parks were actively using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). A request was made to change the frequency of monitoring from “ annual” to “every two years” based on the experience from expert institutions from around the world noting that completing a METT questionnaire on an annual basis is an unnecessary burden on resources. 30. Intermediate Results Indicator #3 in PAD, “Proportion of visitors to Parks who complete response forms” (Baseline: 0%; Target: 5%). Indicator changed to, "Visitor satisfaction with completed infrastructure" (Baseline: 0; Target: 4; based on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being highly satisfied). Survey forms were sent to park institutions with completed infrastructure investments (more than 1000 valid survey forms were received). 31. In November 2012, Intermediate Results Indicators on, “Number of forest users trained” and “Number of forest users trained – Female” as well as indicator on “Number of forest users trained – ethnic minorities/indigenous people were added as part of the Bank’s core sector indicators requirement. The former two were tracked in the Results Framework, however, the latter on ethnicity was not applicable in the case of Croatia. Page 14 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Revised Components 32. No components were revised. Other Changes 33. The 12-month extension of the closing date from April 30, 2016 to April 30, 2017 was to enable completion of the second component - Ecological Network Data Systems. Field research and laboratory processing of new inventory data for taxonomic groups (i.e. biodiversity inventory/mapping) was delayed because of torrential rains that hit Croatia in the 2014 spring/summer season. Due to the seasonal nature and complexity of the field work, this was conducted in the spring/summer/fall of 2016, followed by the laboratory processing of collected new inventory data thereafter. Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change 34. The Level 2 restructuring, approved in June 2015, was necessary as Croatia was expected to join the EU at the beginning of 2012, however, given delays with EU membership, which took place on July 1, 2013, and late approval of the mainstream operational programme (December 2014), the EU project application process was correspondingly delayed (the first call for applications for Structural Funds for nature protection was in December 2015). The target of EU Structural and Investment Fund applications was reduced from 30 to 15 to reflect these delays – despite these issues being beyond the control of the project. On the other hand, the project still was able to deliver a pipeline of 32 projects, exceeding the original target of 30. II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating 35. The relevance of the PDOs to Croatia’s CPS for the period FY14-17 is rated as high. The project contributed to strengthening the environment and nature protection goal of Croatia and in the CPS. It supported the CPS cross- cutting theme of supporting Croatia’s accession to the European Union by assisting the government of Croatia in its obligation as a member of the EU to implement requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives. It specifically supported the enhancement of Croatia’s capacity to absorb EU funds, especially after accession. The project also supported implementation of Croatia’s Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity and meeting international commitments under a wide range of agreements including the European Landscape Convention and the International Convention on Biological Diversity. 36. The Project was consistent with the CPS’s objectives under Pillar III: EU Membership, Theme 1: Maximizing the Benefits of EU Membership and specifically addressed this by improving Croatia’s capacity to absorb EU Structural and Investment Funds (CPS objective #9 indicator on preparation of EU fund project proposals/applications). The Intermediate Results Indicator #1, "Number of nature protection projects applied for EU Structural and Investment Funds" directly supports the CPS objective with achievement of 32 project proposals in the amount of approximately EUR 213 million. The relevance of the PDOs is also rated as high given its previous and continued importance in the Page 15 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) context of Croatia’s environmental priorities in the nature protection sector and its consistency with former and future strategies as well. B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Page 16 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome Page 17 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 37. Through the ecological network investments and capacity building efforts for additional EU ESIF and EPEEF support, the first sub-objective of supporting Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in their investment programs was achieved. The 37 protected-area investments provided needed infrastructure to improve the visitor’s experience and raise their awareness of the site’s unique habitats, species and the importance of the site to the Natura 2000 network. Parks are now more accessible for tourism with more visits leading to more park revenue, sales of produce and sustainable management of ecological resources and more jobs for the rural poor (see Table 4.1, Annex 4 for increases in visitation). Civil works included visitor or info centers, educational trails, adaptation of caves for visiting, interpretation or information boards and two bridges (see Table 4.7 in Annex 4 for a complete list of projects). Visitor centers, through the interpretation and educational services, offered a common meeting point to learn of the importance of the specific Natura 2000 site, provided space for souvenir and gift shops with specially-made Natura 2000 designed items, collect entrance fees leading to, increased nature-based income, and in some cases, act as a monitoring station for researchers. Projects on education and interpretation also focused on influencing visitor behavior through a “code of conduct” in protected areas, directing visitors, and telling them what they can and cannot do su ch as littering and to not disturb any sensitive habitats. From a survey of 1000 visitors to parks with completed infrastructure, visitors indicated an average score of 4 out of 5 in terms of overall satisfaction with the completed infrastructure (i.e. 5 being the most satisfied; Intermediate Results Indicator #3). Prior to the project, there was very low quality signage in the parks and a lot of resistance from some parks to making any changes to the signage. The improved signage and interpretation and educational services and its impact was a success story in changing old behavior. From an internal park management standpoint, all parks begun to use the Management Effectiveness Training Tool (METT)20 in 2012, and by 2016 results suggest that there has been an improvement in the management of most of the parks in terms of progress on its development outcomes (Intermediate results Indicator (IRI) #2 and Annex 7). 38. In addition to the 37 infrastructure investments, eight coastal parks21 received light fire fighting vehicles equipped with portable firefighting pumps with accompanying water tanks to better respond to forest fire risks. In 2014, three boats were supplied to three marine parks22 for the purposes of monitoring and for ranger service needs. To supplement the civil works investments for County Public Institutions (CPIs), the project also provided goods for nature interpretation, most notably highway signs for the Parks of Croatia. CAEN was also supplied with new equipment to monitor large carnivores and birds which would help Croatia’s compliance reporting to the EU. In total, these projects have enabled managers and rangers to better monitor and comply with the Birds and Habitats Directives, and in the longer-term help maintain favourable conservation status. These investments are considered sustainable since parks have an incentive to maintain infrastructure, and equipment, as it improves their park management and helps ensure their compliance with the Birds and Habitats Directives – a long-term objective. 39. The second area of support to park and County Public Institutions was through capacity building to leverage additional funds through ESIF and EPEEF for further investments in nature protection. This was necessary since in some cases the needs were greater than roject resources, such as interior design and equipping premises, so the PIU helped protected area managers with the application process for ESIF. This resulted in a project pipeline of 32 projects worth over EUR 213 million, as of September 30, 2017, and significantly increased resources that could be mobilized for investments (PDO Indicator #1, an absolute average increase in Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) of 220% across parks; IRI #1, 32 projects in pipeline, original target 15; see also Annex 6 for individual parks CAPEX results and ESIF project proposals). Capacity building efforts were also successful in raising EUR 4 million from the Page 18 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 20 The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool is one of a series of management effectiveness assessment tools built around the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework. The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements: it begins with understanding the context of existing values and threats, progresses through planning, and allocation of resources (inputs), and as a result of management actions (processes), eventually produces products and services (outputs), that result in impacts or outcomes. 21 NP Brijuni, PP Učka, NP Paklenica, PP Telaščica, PP Vransko jezero, NP Mljet, PP Lastovsko otočje and PP Biokovo 22 National Park Kornati, Nature Park Telašćica and Nature Park Lastovsko otočje Page 19 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF), regional and local self-governments as well as from the Ministry of Tourism. This funding was mainly utilized for the preparation of technical documentation for project- supported ecological infrastructure investments and project proposals for EU funded investments. Also, public institutions for nature protection benefitted from an additional EUR 4 million from the EPEEF to procure electric vehicles, vessels and other transport equipment (bicycles, trains, trolleys etc.) with reduced CO2 emissions. The sustainability of this built capacity is evidenced through the growing ESIF pipeline – and will continue to do so as experience increases and is shared across Croatia’s Natura 2000 network. 40. The second sub-objective to strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring was fully met through the support provided to collect baseline data for improved monitoring and compliance with the Birds and Habitats Directives. As the aim of the Natura 2000 network is to ensure the protection of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats the project provided the needed baseline data and tools as a starting point for conservation actions. The project mainly created a solid base for future efficient management of Natura 2000 sites by enabling CAEN and Natura 2000 managers to set up Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tools (SMART) for conservation objectives/targets for species and habitat types concerned. Since Natura 2000 covers more than a third of Croatian land and 15% of territorial marine waters, strong IT tools were needed to enable effective coordination of management actions and exchange of experience and knowledge between managers. 41. The conversion of Natura 2000 border maps from scale 1:25000 to scale 1:5000 improved the accuracy of protected area border delineation and consistency with other land registries (e.g. digital cadastral maps and land parcel identification systems developed for agriculture sector). This enabled a clearer distinction of which areas were within protected areas and that the map was fully compatible and able to be integrated into the State Geodetic Agency’s Portal (IRI #6, fully achieved). Activities under the Identification of Species and Habitats for Inventory and Field Research and Laboratory Processing activities helped to produce a new spatial overview of 60% of terrestrial habitats (non-forest) at a scale of 1:25000 in line with the EU Habitats Directive (PDO #3, fully achieved). A total of 3,371 grid cell visits were undertaken in the entire Croatian territory and 152,730 observations for 9 taxonomic groups were collected and entered in tables compatible with the Crofauna database (IRI #4, 54% of total land territory surveyed, fully met). This also allowed for a reassessment of 40% of Croatia’s Red Book species (IRI #5, fully achieved). Information was made available on the NPIS’s website (www.bioportal.hr) which also contributes to meeting the requirements of the EU INSPIRE Directive. The inventorying and resulting maps is unparalleled in the EU – with few countries having this level of detailed information in complying with the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. Further details on these activities are contained in Annex 1 under Component 2 outputs. 42. The third sub-objective to introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management led to improved and more inclusive ecological management of protected areas. This was fully met through four programs: Agri-environment, Training, Volunteering and Public Awareness. • Agri-environment schemes, directed towards farmers, included the development of eight measures that would incentivize best practices consistent with the Birds and Habitats Directives and Natura 2000 principles. A total of 1000 farmers and agricultural professionals were trained, exceeding the target of 300 (IRI #8). The eight measures related to nature protection are: preservation of high nature value grasslands; pilot measure for the protection of corncrake (Crex crex); pilot measure for the protection of butterflies; Page 20 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) establishment of field strips; maintaining extensive orchards; maintaining extensive olive groves; preservation of landscape features - stone walls and preservation of landscape features – hedges. The Ministry of Agriculture incorporated six measures into the Rural Development Operational Programme (approved by EU in late May 2015). The two proposed measures related to preservation of landscape features will be incorporated into the Program later due to the need for further justification of the measures to EC in its relation to good agricultural practices. These measures will take effect beyond the project’s life through activities aimed at farmers who will benefit from payments for nature conservation measures under the agri-environment scheme (i.e. a form of Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme or PES). Agricultural land covers a substantial portion of Croatian land area and every third hectare of Natura 2000 sites is located on privately-owned agricultural land and grassland which are habitats for numerous endangered species. The EU Birds and Habitat Directives require that habitats and species are maintained in a favorable conservation status. As these areas are owned and managed by farmers, achieving that goal will strongly depend on the continuation of farming activities in these areas. The payments per hectare for nature conservation measures under the Rural Development Programme are among the highest in the EU, ranging from EUR 183 for grassland preservation to EUR 900 for maintaining extensive olive groves. Some 1000 farmers benefitted from 36 training events organized to educate them on the benefits of their participation in agri-environment schemes and six farms were included in implementing demonstration measures. • Training programs included staff managing Natura 2000 sites and protected areas, the scientific community, Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) and CAEN, nature protection inspectors, customs, veterinary and phytosanitary inspectors and border police who benefitted from training on management planning, public participation in management of protected areas, GIS in nature conservation, reporting according to Habitats and Birds Directives, wildlife trade, invasive species, ecological network Natura 2000 impact assessment, and preparing project proposals for EU funds. • The Volunteer program resulted in nearly 30 programs being offered each year, with over 300 volunteers donating over 10,000 hours (1200 working days) to nature protection. Much of this success came from the training of protected area staff who can now better mobilize and manage groups of volunteers for nature protection efforts (IRI # 9, fully achieved). • Public Awareness of Natura 2000 also increased under the efforts of the project. From a recent survey, 31.4% of people living in or around Natura 2000 sites heard of the Natura 2000 Ecological Network, while 29.7% now understand the basic meaning of the Natura 2000 ecological network and its implications (IRI #7: Baseline 3%; target 20%). The “Parks of Croatia” and Natura 2000 was also featured as an insert to several daily newspapers and numerous TV clips were created and posted on the web (see list in Annex 1 under Component 3). 43. From an institutional standpoint, these training programs help ensure the sustainability of knowledge learned and in the future on maintaining parks and habitats in an environmentally sound way (i.e. maintaining favourable conservation status). With over 300 training programs offered each year, this will enhance Croatia’s knowledge of Natura 2000 management. The effectiveness of these trainings is evidenced by the increased scores from the Page 21 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) which measures progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity using criteria on needs, constraints and priority actions to improve the effectiveness of protected area management. Between 2012 and 2016, METT scores rose an average of 4% across the park network. Details are provided in Annex 7. Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating 44. The combination of protected-area investments and capacity building on leveraging EU funds led to the achievement of the first sub-objective in providing support to the parks and CPIs. Absolute park CAPEX rose significantly, mainly through successful ESIF applications, and the current number of project proposals indicates that this will be sustainable in the future based on the current momentum and capacity built. The second sub-objective on creating a more detailed and informed set of baseline data for EU reporting will help ensure improved compliance with the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives and enhanced conservation. The current set of Natura 2000 maps is one of the best in the EU in terms of its level of detail and consistency with other databases. The third sub-objective of involving a wide group of stakeholders in improved and more inclusive Natura 2000 network management was achieved through the four programs that conducted training directed at users (e.g. farmers, agriculture officials), trainers (e.g. MEE, CAEN), volunteers and the general public. Based on the achievement of all three PDO objectives and outcomes – and in some cases exceeding the original targets – the Project’s efficacy is rated as high. C. EFFICIENCY Assessment of Efficiency and Rating Economic and Financial Analysis 45. The following economic and financial analysis compares the Economic Rates of Return (ERR) before and after the Project. The analysis provided here updates the assumptions made at appraisal and uses actual data from each of the beneficiary sites. This includes actual investment costs, park and county visitation rates, park entrance fees and EU Structural and Investment Funds leveraged through the capacity building efforts. The main difference between the analysis provided at appraisal and the one provided here is the use of the willingness to pay (WTP) measure at appraisal and the use of park entrance fees at completion. We use park entrance fees, which were increased during the Project’s life, as they are reflective of the true demand value of the site and from a financial perspective are the revenues that offset investment costs. 46. The EU Natura 2000 Integration Project generated a wide variety of benefits through the support of investments with accompanying educational and interpretation materials, biological inventorying, training and capacity building efforts for ecological network and Natura 2000 network management. The main benefits were the values of conservation and preservation elicited through a willingness to pay survey, watershed protection and erosion control, marine protected areas, non-timber forest products and wildlife. Site-specific estimates for conservation and preservation values were possible at selected parks and Counties, with estimates for the remaining parks and Counties derived using the methods detailed in Annex 4. 47. Ecological Network Investments. Of the 37 protected area-driven investments, 8 were in National Parks, 13 in Nature Parks, and 16 in County Public Institutions (CPIs). They ranged in value from €59,000-800,000 (US$65,000- Page 22 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 885,000) and encompassed a wide array of activities including trails, paths, bridges, caves structures, bird watchtowers and educational and interpretative centers. All investments projects were linked to conservation activities in accordance with the pre-selection criteria outlined in Annex 4. Conservation and preservation benefits were proxied through entrance fees and tourist visitation at each site. Water protection and erosion control benefits were calculated using the area of forest cover where erosion was likely to occur, depending on relative slope and other characteristics associated with high erosion rates. Non-timber forest products and wildlife benefits were calculated using forest area and information on local revenues generated from these activities. The purchase and delivery of light fire-fighting vehicles for eight marine parks were key investments in fighting wildfires – especially during the summer of 2017. The park staff, as first responders, were better equipped to fight these wildfires. 48. Ecological Network Data Systems. Activities under this component generated several types of public benefits. Information collected through biodiversity inventorying efforts led to more informed decision making and management of the current ecological network and Natura 2000 network, while support for the integration of the Nature Protection Information System (NPIS), as part of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and in meeting the EU INSPIRE Directive, resulted in significant time and cost efficiency savings through a one-stop data source that is publicly available (http://www.nipp.hr/?id=30). 49. Ecological Network Capacity Building and EU Structural and Investment Funds. Training and capacity building efforts strengthened many users and stakeholders. For example, the project supported capacity building to parks and counties in their efforts to apply for EU Structural and Investment Funds. At the time of appraisal, several Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) grant proposals were rejected largely due to the lack of staff capacity at the time to absorb EU funds. This loss represented an opportunity cost and alternative sources of funding needed to be identified. Through the training efforts of this component, and constant support of PIU staff and the implementing line Ministry, stakeholders successfully leveraged millions of Euros for infrastructure investments. As of April 30, 2017, the total EU Structural and Investment Fund support was EUR 109 million and on September 30, 2017 it was EUR 213 million. 50. Summary. Aggregating the net present value of benefits and costs under each component, the overall project economic rate of return (ERR) at appraisal was 16 percent in 5 years and at completion it was 41 percent (i.e. a six- year implementation). The ERR in ten years was 33 percent at appraisal without the additional benefit of ESIFs and was 45 percent in year 10 with ESIFs. At completion, the ten-year rate of return was 56 percent without ESIFs and 80 percent with ESIFs. Over 50 percent of the benefits accrue under preservation and conservation benefits, and the sensitivity analysis shows that for a 1 percent change in the entrance fee, this results in a 4 percent change in the ERR (positive or negative). Visitation demand was assumed to be constant at the time of appraisal, however visitation grew at an average rate of 55 percent among National Parks, 21 percent in Nature Parks and 43 percent in CPIs (from 2009 until 2016). This is the major reason for the dramatic increase in the ERRs since appraisal. 51. Distribution of Benefits. The distribution of benefits is closely tied to the category of benefits. Ecological Network Investments yielded substantial public benefits from greater conservation and preservation efforts and private benefits generated through agri-environment schemes, Natura 2000 payments and green jobs. The Ecological Network Data Systems & Capacity Building components have both public and private benefits. Training Page 23 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) was received by both public servants and private individuals such as farmers. Both have resulted in improved management of the ecological network and Natura 2000 network as well as creating employment opportunities within Croatia and among international experts. It has been estimated that 1 permanent job was created per Ecological investment (or 37 jobs) and several more seasonal jobs as a result of these investments. Through the Volunteer program introduced under the third component, over 1200 man-days are donated as well in the protected area system. 52. Administrative Efficiency. One of the main objectives of the capacity building efforts was to increase the efficiency and efficacy of park staff and managers in applying for ESIF funds. At Appraisal, the proposal rejection rate was high, and by project completion there were 32 projects in the pipeline worth over EUR 213 million. The project also generated positive efficiency gains in procurement (some purchases had never been done before, for example by CAEN or the parks themselves), and this will reduce delays in the future. Low staff turnover also led to greater administrative efficiency. Project management costs were approximately 6% of total costs which is in line with what was originally specified in the PAD, and in terms of an absolute value ($US 1.2 million) was equivalent to what was spent under the previous GEF Karst Ecosystem Conservation Project (although $US 1.2 million was 15% of total project costs under that project). The one-year project extension was granted, but many of the indicator targets had already been met, also demonstrating greater efficiency. In terms of cost savings, in 2013 CAEN was successfully able to obtain multispectral satellite imagery maps for their activities from the European Environmental Agency (EEA) free of charge (saving EUR 1 million of project funds). 53. Rating of Efficiency. Given the significant benefits achieved through the nature protection investments, as shown by the level and significant rise in ERRs, and the significant public and private benefits through training and capacity building with greater administrative efficiency, the project’s rating on efficiency is High. D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 54. Satisfactory. Based on the high relevance of objectives, the high efficacy rating with the achievement of all PDO objectives and the significantly positive short and long-term Economic Rates of Return supporting the high rating for efficiency, the Project is rated as Satisfactory. Although a Level 2 restructuring was done and some indicators and targets changed, it does not warrant a split evaluation because the scope of the project remained the same and only included minor changes to intermediate indicators. E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) Institutional Strengthening 55. The project brought together all key government institutions dealing with nature protection and conservation, in addition to other stakeholders who would be part of the management of Natura 2000 protected areas. In fact, the entire third component was devoted to this effort. As a project, which secured the biggest funding that the country ever received for nature protection sector, it was crucial in providing necessary financial assistance and capacity building for national and nature parks, County Public Institutions which contributed to institutional strengthening and improved linkages of all nature protection players benefitting their improved cooperation and Page 24 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) exchanges of experience in managing Natura 2000 sites. The project was instrumental in bringing all civil servants together through organization of many workshops and training events. The same is true for training and workshops organized for farmers, extension service staff and nature protection inspectors on agri-environment measures. Training was also directed towards greater inclusion for women – especially in rural areas. One specific training program aimed at forest users including female participation. The final target was exceeded (IRI #11 – female forest users trained; target: 5, achieved: 20). 56. Inter-sectoral and inter-ministerial cooperation was initially assessed as poor at appraisal and was a significant challenge during project preparation. During implementation, these relationships improved dramatically, particularly between nature protection and the agriculture sector. There was also a significant improvement in the (EU funds) absorption capacity at the national, regional and local level as evidenced by the successful applications made to EU Structural and Investment Funds and the EPEEF. Another example of improved cooperation was with the State Geodetic Agency (SGA) fostered during the pilot border delineation activity. 57. During implementation, the responsible line Ministry changed several times initially from the Ministry of Culture to Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection and recently to the Ministry of Environment and Energy reflecting government-wide reorganization of responsibilities for nature protection. These shifts were implemented smoothly with no disruption to project implementation. In the last year of project implementation, the Project Coordinator accepted an Assistant Minister position within the implementing Ministry which presents testimony to work the PIU staff did in implementing project activities. In addition, three PIU staffs remain working and are fully embedded in the nature protection unit of the Ministry. The Bank considers this as a very favorable transition to a more sustainable management within government decision-making structures. Page 25 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Mobilizing Private Sector Financing 58. The project did not directly support greater financing from the private sector – although many private stakeholders (i.e. farmers) did benefit from the project – and would undertake their own investments in conservation. Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity 59. The project contributed to reducing regional disparities through green investments in rural, lagging areas of Croatia such as the Slavonia region and the coastal hinterland. Given their geographic position, some inland nature parks such as Kopacki Rit, Papuk, Lonjsko Polje and other protected areas that were less visited and lacked visitation infrastructure are now more accessible for nature tourism due to the ecological network investments. With a higher quality of service and improved conservation investments, these sites can now be visited throughout the calendar year, bringing in a steadier flow of revenues. There are also stronger linkages with local communities living in and nearby the parks and protected areas. The promotion and sales of agricultural produce to tourists has generated additional income for rural people (i.e. rural agribusiness tourism is flourishing in the rural protected areas). Additionally, farmers in rural areas will benefit from agri-environment schemes through associated Natura 2000 payments as rural (poor) population benefit from increased opportunities for “green jobs” created in the parks. Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 60. The Project leveraged over 9% of co-financing from local resources for nature protection investments under Component 1, and nearly EUR 4 million was raised from the EPEEF in co-financing. To provide just one example of a successful capacity built in the parks for securing additional financing, Nature Park Kopacki Rit raised over US$488,000 during the project duration for 4 projects and now has another 4 projects in the pipeline worth over US$63 million to be funded from EU Structural and Investment Funds. 61. Several “green jobs” were also created in the respective parks, and in rural areas, as a direct result of the investments made. Some of these jobs were permanent park jobs, while others were mainly for the tourist season. On average, the Borrower estimates that one additional permanent job was created per ecological network investment under Component 1 (i.e. 37 jobs). In implementation of future EU investment projects, it is estimated that at least two permanent jobs will be created per project. III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 62. The PDO was realistic, clear and at the right level of ambition given the current institutional capacity of the Government and within the Ministry of Culture. The objectives were also aligned with the requirements for EU Accession in which the Government of Croatia would have to comply regardless. The set of PDO and Intermediate Page 26 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Results Indicators were appropriately selected to reflect actions that would lead to the achievement of outcomes. The targets were also realistic given that many baselines were zero at the time of appraisal. 63. The project’s design was structured logically among the three complementary components with investments combined with capacity building and the biodiversity inventorying program which helped Croatia in meeting its Accession requirements and compliance with the Habitats Directive. 64. The monitoring plan was well-developed and needed to be in advance of effectiveness due to the process that parks and CPI’s would have to follow in submitting their sub-project fiches (proposals) for investment funding. Many Component 1 investments underwent a prior review and screened with readiness criteria that mimicked the process of EU Structural and Investment Fund applications. This screening process is outlined in Annex 4. 65. National Parks and Nature Parks were the most important stakeholders since they primarily manage Natura 2000 protected areas. However, the inclusion of the CPIs was also important for managing Natura 2000 areas in other areas of Croatia – especially in the interior. Early involvement of the State Geodetic Administration (SGA) was also important in making the link between protected area management and the land cadaster work in SGA. 66. The risks were appropriately identified and calibrated, with mitigation measures in place. As mentioned in the PAD, most of the identified risks were manageable due to the prior experience of the PIU staff in World Bank procedures and projects, and that Croatia’s attention was focused on EU Accession requirements (and since the Project’s objectives were aligned with EU requirements, this only strengthened the case for the Project’s endorsement by Government). 67. The project benefitted from several initial stakeholder consultations which identified priorities and any institutional weaknesses that would be tackled under Component 3 on capacity building. Additionally, the majority of the infrastructure investments were identified during project preparation which enabled their faster realization and project readiness for implementation. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION Factors subject to government and/or implementing entities control include: 68. The Government of Croatia was committed to EU Accession needs, and this increased the profile of the project and its objectives since they were part of Natura 2000 requirements. As tourism was viewed as an important contributor to economic growth, nature protection was similarly prioritized and restructured within the Ministry of Environment and Energy reflecting a government-wide reorganization of responsibilities for nature protection, and the embedding of PIU staff in the nature protection unit of the ministry signaled a more sustainable management within government decision making structures to sustain project outcomes. 69. The PIU staff had worked with World Bank projects in the past and were familiar with its procedures. This led to a smooth project implementation and few fiduciary issues as evidenced in the ISRs and a Satisfactory rating throughout implementation. Also, the close cooperation between the PIU consultants and expert sector staff (civil servants) in the implemented ministry was critical for success. All Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) were completed in a timely manner and all annual audits were found to be unqualified throughout implementation. There were a few instances of delayed procurement – such as in the purchase of firefighting equipment for seven marine parks. This was primarily due to park management being unclear of their specific fire-fighting equipment needs. A uniform Page 27 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) solution was agreed upon and all seven parks expressed a need for light fire-fighting vehicles and surveillance and early detection cameras for two marine parks. There were also some delays in Component 2 activities - Habitat Mapping and Field Research and Laboratory Processing for New Data Collection – due to the complex nature of the work and the methodology that needed to be employed in producing the habitat maps. Due to the project’s transfer to a new Ministry in December 2011, there were delays in nominating new members of the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and several working groups to promote inter-sectoral cooperation, notably for agri-environment measures and the border delineation program. 70. The Project was rated as Category B and Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) and Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11) were triggered and complied with. Overall and individual safeguards were rated as satisfactory throughout implementation. 71. Monitoring and Evaluation was based on both survey and administrative data sources. Baseline indicators were initially developed from several project preparation studies including the social assessment survey, the valuation surveys, Project Preparation Facility (PPF)-financed preparation consultant reports, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Tool at the system- wide level, and the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) at the park level. These tools and instruments were crucial in assessing the progress and effectiveness of the Project’s interventions. Factors subject to World Bank control, such as: 72. The Project benefitted from the continuity of Task Team Leaders (TTLs), the same throughout, from appraisal to completion and any issues that arose were candidly reported, addressed quickly, and well-reflected in the timely ISRs. Supervision missions were undertaken every 6 months. When there was a need for restructuring and extension of the closing date to complete activities, the Bank processed the restructuring in a timely manner. No serious management issues were ever raised. The project also benefitted from the local (Croatian) presence of a Procurement Specialist and Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialist and a Financial Management Specialist based in the Sarajevo country office. Factors outside the control of government and/or implementing entities, such as: 73. Given the delays with EU membership, at the request of the Ministry of Finance, on July 16, 2016, the Bank approved a one-year extension of the project closing date from April 30, 2016 to April 30, 2017. The extension of the project closing date was essential to complete two key activities - Habitat Mapping and Field research and laboratory processing for collecting of new inventory data (Biodiversity Mapping) under the second project component - Ecological Network Data Systems. The main reason for the delay was the seasonal nature and complexity of the field work which could not be carried out as anticipated due to torrential rains in the 2014 spring/summer season. Thus, the required data collection did not progress as planned. Additional field work commenced in the spring/summer/fall season of 2016 and followed by laboratory processing of the newly collected data. This work required an extension of the project closing day for one year. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) Page 28 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) M&E Design 74. The set of PDO and Intermediate Results Indicators used for tracking progress towards the achievement of the three sub-objectives was sufficient. Each PDO sub-objective had an indicator that measured progress and a set of Intermediate indicators that reflected progress. However, since IRI #1 on ESIF applications potentially exposed itself to external risks of delayed EU Accession, this was a minor shortcoming of the indicator’s design – even though the indicator was a very good one to measure the ability of built capacity in successful ESIF applications. The circumstances of delayed Accession were also beyond the project’s control. 75. As mentioned above, the M&E system was designed using both survey and administrative data sources with baselines established through several preparatory studies including the social assessment survey, an economic valuation study and PPF-financed preparation consultant reports. Under the implementing arrangements in Project Appraisal Document (PAD), it was also a requirement for the Government to staff the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) with a full-time specialist in economics and monitoring and evaluation. M&E Implementation 76. The selected set of indicators were tracked regularly and updates provided by the PIU on every implementation support mission. Indicators were also complemented by information collected through the WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Tool at a system-wide level, and the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) at the park level (see Annex 7 for results). All parks are now using the METT to track their management effectiveness. The PIU also maintained a full-time M&E specialist for data collection, tracking and monitoring progress of the Results Framework. Quarterly reports were issued timely and were of high quality. M&E Utilization 77. The PIU and World Bank team regularly used the indicators to manage the Project and track progress towards its objectives. For example, at the Mid-Term Review, a Level 2 restructuring of the IRI #1 was lowered to 15 projects from 30. As mentioned above, delays in Croatia’s Accession trickled down to delaying the Call for ESSIF Proposals. At the time the ESIF pipeline was rather thin, so the team lowered the expected number of projects to what they believed would be achievable by project closing. However, through the training efforts, successful applications grew to exceed the target – even the original of 30. Another example of using M&E for decision making came through the use of economic analysis as criteria for sub-project feasibility assessment. The M&E specialist would assess the economic justification of each sub-project by conducting a benefit-cost analysis and then having another environmental economist, separate from the PIU, independently check and grant “clearance” on the economic feasibility of each sub- project investment. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 78. The rating for the quality of the M&E system is substantial. It is rated as substantial since changes to three IRIs were made at the MTR – and the change to IRI #1 was due to the delay in Croatia’s EU Accession – even though this was beyond the control of the project. Page 29 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 79. The Financial Management rating was Satisfactory throughout project implementation with appropriate control procedures in place. A Financial Management Specialist based in the Sarajevo country office had regularly carried out the financial management (FM) implementation support missions to review project accounting and reporting arrangements, organization and staffing, internal control procedures, planning and budgeting, counterpart funding, funds flow and disbursement and external audits. The quarterly Interim Unaudited Financial Reports were submitted to the Bank for review in the agreed time frame and there were no inconsistencies for follow up. The project had been always in compliance with the audit covenants and there were no overdue audits. The audit was conducted by a private audit firm Ernst and Young which was acceptable to the World Bank. The auditors provided an unqualified (clean) opinion on the project financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2016 and no management recommendations letter was issued. The auditor stated in writing that there were no internal control deficiencies or accounting issues to report on. 80. Procurement was also rated Satisfactory throughout project implementation. Procurement delays were experienced (i.e. firefighting equipment and in Component 2 habitat mapping), but these issues were resolved in a timely manner. A Procurement Specialist was in the Croatia country office and this arrangement allowed for direct and regular interaction with the PIU staff, notably with the full-time Procurement Consultant. Procurement was carried out in accordance with the applicable procurement guidelines of May 1, 2010, provisions in the Loan Agreement and the project procurement plan which was duly updated, reviewed by the Bank and disclosed (last update made in June 2016). Regular supervision missions were carried out and the quality of infrastructure investments under Component 1 were assessed as High with no major delays. The last post review was conducted in November 2016 with a Satisfactory rating and a positive feedback on the PIU procurement performance capacity and professional procurement practice. Based on the professional and excellent management of procurement under the project, the rating for procurement was maintained as Satisfactory throughout the duration of the project. 81. Safeguards compliance was Satisfactory throughout project implementation. The project was classified as environmental category B, and the triggered safeguards policies were Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) and Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11). The Natural Habitats Policy was applicable because the project supported investments within protected areas. The Physical Cultural Resources Policy was also applicable because the project supported the refurbishment of some cultural sites which required issuance of special construction permits. The site-specific Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) were prepared for 37 infrastructure investments in accordance with the overall Environmental Management Framework (EMF) document. All EMPs were duly consulted and disclosed. The Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialist were located in the country office during the entire implementation period. There was a strong collaboration with the PIU staff, especially the civil engineer consultant who coordinated ecological investment construction works with the respective staff in the national and nature parks and staff at the county public institutions for protected areas. Safeguards field visits to the sites were regular to assess the project’s effects related to noise, dust, waste, chance finds, reporting, complaints, potable water and sewage, fire protection, and familiarity with the project EMP and monitoring. Mission findings were reported in the Aide Memoires with photo documentation of the sites visited. No safeguards-related issues or deficiencies in the implementation of the EMPs were reported during project implementation Page 30 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) C. BANK PERFORMANCE Quality at Entry 82. The World Bank team identified a specific need to build Natura 2000 readiness in Croatia where it was necessary to manage its protected areas in a new way that was consistent with the EU Birds and Habitats Directive. There were many examples and lessons learned from other EU countries, where the lack of this type of support led to many countries being out of compliance with the Directives. Croatia, with its economic dependence on tourism, recognized the importance of maintaining its protected areas as a key strategic natural asset. The World Bank team held 6 large stakeholder consultations in preparation of the loan to seek opinions and priorities from parks, CPIs, farmers, entrepreneurs in tourism, artisans, cultural institutions, educational institutions, hunting associations, fishing associations, and NGOs. A Project Preparation Facility (PPF) in amount of US$500,000 was granted to the Borrower to assist in establishing the PIU, the economic analysis of project activities, the environmental impact assessment and delivery of tailored workshops and trainings. The technical readiness of Component 1 investments was ensured through a PPF-financed procurement specialist who focused on ensuring the procurement readiness of first-year contracts. Tasks included screening ecological network investments for project designs, time requirements to obtain construction and building permits, and reviewing of documentation to ensure that no major land ownership or resource access issues were anticipated to emerge. A consultant services contract for investments that incorporated nature interpretive design (which was critical to the project’s educational and public awareness goals) was included to strengthen effective integration in investments. An engineering support contract for construction site supervision across all sites was financed through the project. Terms of reference for first-year consultant contracts and bidding documents for first-year civil works contracts were prepared and submitted to the Bank for review in advance of negotiations. Most project risks were rated as low or medium and appropriate mitigation measures were developed and agreed to by the client. A Project Coordination Committee (PCC) comprised of representatives of different ministries, a representative of civil society, and representatives of the National Parks, Nature Parks, and Country Public Institutions was established to help coordinate project activities and incorporate other stakeholder views into project design. Quality of Supervision 83. Regular implementation support missions were undertaken at least twice a year to review progress and identify any issues. Supervision was enhanced by having two TTLs – one Washington-based and the other country-based which enabled constant and regular interaction with the client. The consistent presence of country office based staff – a TTL, fiduciary and environmental specialists enabled a quick responsiveness to the client’s needs which contributed greatly to successful project implementation. Additionally, the same project leadership and team composition remained unchanged throughout project life. 84. All ISRs provided a candid review the progress made since the last mission and assessed whether the Project was achieving the PDO’s objectives. All ISR’s were completed on time and any management issues raised were addressed promptly by the team and in a candid manner. Safeguards compliance was reviewed regularly and found to be satisfactory throughout implementation. Page 31 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 85. Based on the Quality at Entry and Supervision, overall Bank performance is rated as Satisfactory. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 86. The Government remains committed to the sustainability of the outcomes of the Project – as evidenced by the continued investments (via EU Structural and Investment Funds) in park infrastructure and capacity building. Natura 2000 requires a country to report the status of its protected areas every 6 years to the EU – and an assessment is made whether the network of protected areas is in compliance with the EU Birds and Habitats Directives (maintaining “Favorable Conservation Status” (FCS)). With the capacity building efforts now demonstrated, applications for Structural Fund support will help sustain the outcomes and maintain FCS in the park system. 87. As mentioned earlier, capacity building for national and nature parks, County Public Institutions contributed to institutional strengthening and improved linkages of all nature protection players in managing Natura 2000 sites. The shift of the responsible line ministry to the Ministry of Environment and Energy reflecting government- wide reorganization of responsibilities for nature protection, and the embedding of PIU staff in the nature protection unit of the ministry signals a more sustainable management within government decision making structures to sustain project outcomes. 88. One potential risk is the natural hazard risk posed to the built infrastructure (e.g. flooding). However, sub- projects were specifically required to be designed to be resilient to natural hazard risk. 89. Based on the momentum gained through the project and the Government’s commitment to sustain these outcomes, the risk to development outcomes is rated as low. V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90. An experienced and motivated PIU and a committed line Ministry lead to results . By project effectiveness the PIU was established and staffed by a team with high capacity and previous WB project experience. This readiness allowed the PIU to immediately and effectively begin project implementation. The PIU continued to provide excellent support throughout the duration of the project. The PIU was embedded within the Ministry of Environment and Energy and staffed with specialists that reached out to the parks and CPIs and provided a lot of support with respect to the ESIF process. There was excellent cooperation and coordination of project activities between the civil servants of the Nature Protection Directorate; CAEN and the staff of parks and CPIs. There was also good inter-sectoral cooperation among the working groups established for agri-environment measures for Natura 2000 sites and the boundary delineation pilot program in collaboration with the SGA. 91. Government, parks and CPI’s ownership and staff continuity are critical to project success . In addition to a strong PIU, local ownership and staff continuity at the park, CPI and Government levels proved to be significant success factors in achieving the desired results. The objectives were clear and each stakeholder was committed through a common long term perspective. Additionally, continuity of Bank’s project staff, together with the sustained productive working relationship with the project preparation and implementation team on Borrower’s side also made an important contribution to the project success. Page 32 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 92. Wide stakeholder involvement is crucial for effectively managing protected areas. The capacity building efforts in each component of the project, especially component 3, brought together a wide array of stakeholders who are users and managers of protected areas. Without these efforts, coordination issues would persist with unclear roles and responsibilities leading to the mismanagement of protected areas, and perhaps even competing interests. These programs raised awareness and helped to incentivize improved protected area management. 93. Alignment of project objectives with EU Agenda and membership requirements was important. The requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives helped identify the priority areas of support for Croatia. The project’s activities were specifically designed to close some of the most significant investment and capacity gaps for nature protection – and to get Croatia on the path of managing their Natura 2000 network. 94. Packaging contracts that have a large overlap and building core capacities, with international assistance, proved crucial for expanding knowledge in new areas. Aggregating several project consulting service contracts into three contracts proved to be more efficient and effective. For example, the three contracts for Habitat Mapping, Field Research, Laboratory work and Support to Agri-Environment Schemes created a long-term partnership among a core team of international professionals who sub-contracted local consultants and built local capacity in new areas of expertise. 95. Project Implementation readiness through pre-identification and screening of investments prior to effectiveness helped the Project hit the ground running. Project preparation was extensive with series of public consultations held at the outset of project design and implementation. This included needs assessments at the park level and environmental and social assessments developed which influenced final designs. Ecological network investments were identified and pre-screened at the outset of the Project and contributed to a quick project start. Over 100 projects were initially identified and some were financed through NIP and others through ESIF and EPEEF. Page 33 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: Support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in investment programs Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Progress made in increasing Percentage 0.00 12.00 220.00 annual capital and other investment expenditure 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 across the Parks estate Comments (achievements against targets): Target surpassed. The indicator is calculated as the percentage increase/decrease in the annual capital expenditures (CAPEX) across all parks, except NP Plitvice Lakes as the Project did not finance any infrastructure investments in that park. The absolute value of capital expenditures across all national and nature parks was 18,433,701 HRK in 2010 and 65,960,615 HRK in 2016. The increase of 220% reflects 2016's expenditure relative to 2015 (53,974,040 HRK). Data were monitored on an annual basis and supplied by the parks. Details on the annual figures and calculations for each park is provided in Annex 6. The project built park capacity to develop proposals for new projects and investments. The PIU supported parks by providing conceptual (and N2k- compliant) ideas for new investments, helped develop co-financing proposals and supporting documentation. The PIU also provided the needed administrative support and operational assistance (e.g. reviews of engineering plans). This built capacity was internalized and park management is more successful in raising new funds for investments. This is evidenced by the approved amount for financing the nature protection sector through EU Structural Funds (213 mil. EUR) for the current programming period (2014-2020). This exceeded initial expectations at preparation since the pipeline of proposals was thin and most were being rejected - hence the modest initial target value. Page 34 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Objective/Outcome: Introduce programs that involve a wider group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of project-promoted Number 0.00 4.00 4.00 programs in operation that actively involve stakeholders 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 with Natura 2000 Comments (achievements against targets): Target fully met in 2016. The four project-promoted programs included: Agri-environment, Training, Volunteering and Public Awareness. The group of stakeholders included in this support were nature protection staff (CAEN, PIs and CPIs), farmers, foresters, people living in Natura 2000 areas, volunteers in nature protected areas, local municipalities and counties. These are the main stakeholders who will continue to manage Natura 2000 sites. Stakeholders were mainly reached through workshops, trainings, presentation events or working groups. The effectiveness of these trainings is evidenced by the numbers presented below, but also through the increased scores from the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) which measures progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity using criteria on needs, constraints and priority actions to improve the effectiveness of protected area management. Between 2012 and 2016, METT scores rose an average of 4% across the park network. Further details on the METT are contained in Annex 7. Training numbers: Agri-environment: six operations were developed from the Agri-Environment measures incorporated into the Rural Development Operational Programme (approved by EU in late May, 2015). In 2016, agri-environment incentives covered 3,294.16 ha of land by 376 farmers. All parks and CPIs now use the system-wide interpretation system and standards for purposes of interpreting natural values. This was not the case in the past. In 2016, 295 people were recorded as volunteering in National and Nature Parks with more than 9600 hours or 1200 working days of service to nature protection. According to training reports, around 3,600 participants attended 91 trainings organized by NIP to date: 1,830 nature protection employees, 250 nature protection management staff, more than 503 state inspectors and border police staff, more than 250 European Ranger service professionals together with more than 835 farmers from the protected areas. Page 35 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Training for EU projects resulted in improved project proposals for EU funding which is again visible in more projects being accepted for financing. Objective/Outcome: Strengthen capacity for EU-compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Extent of Croatia covered by Percentage 2.40 60.00 60.00 an accurate habitat map at 1:25,000 scale 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Fully met. The new habitat map is fully verified by the Croatian Agency for Environment and Nature. It covers 60% of Croatian territory and is also available for public use on the BIOPORTAL website (www.bioportal.hr). These maps were crucial in providing a spatial overview of natural and semi-natural habitats’ distribution in Croatia – and were instrumental in fulfilling Croatia’s EU biodiversity reporting requirements in nature protection (Croatia’s first report is due in 2019). A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: Ecological Network Investments Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of nature protection Number 0.00 30.00 15.00 32.00 projects that have applied for EU Structural Funds 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 17-Jul-2015 30-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Target surpassed. Projects can be grouped into two categories: large infrastructure projects for parks and Page 36 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) CPIs and projects related to improving knowledge on biodiversity status and development of a management framework that includes the elaboration of Natura 2000 management plans. The indicator was revised from "projects applied and approved” to “projects applied” due the delay of Croatia's entrance to the EU by a year and which further delayed the process of absorbing EU funds (i.e. Calls for Projects was delayed as well as setting up of the legal framework). There was concern that projects will not be approved since the approval process can take 6 or more months. All of these factors were beyond the control of the Ministry of Environment and Energy thus no steps could have been taken to speed up this process. Overall, 32 projects have applied, of which 5 are completed, 17 are approved for funding, and 10 are in the process of approval. 7 projects fall under Specific Objectives 6c2 (increasing attractiveness, educational capacity and sustainable management of natural heritage sites) and 20 under Specific Objectives 6iii (Protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure). The 27 projects in the pipeline are expected to be approved by the end of 2017 and completed by the end of 2022. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of National/Nature Number 0.00 19.00 0.00 19.00 parks actively monitoring their management 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 17-Apr-2017 effectiveness Comments (achievements against targets): Fully met as all national and nature parks are using the new tool. The Management Effectiveness Training Tool (METT) was introduced as a part of standard bi-annual reporting obligation by parks starting from 2013 onwards. METT is one of the tools which was accepted in the Croatian nature protection sector as the first management effectiveness tool for protected areas. In 2012, the tool was adjusted for use in Croatia and has been in use since then (it will be used also after the project lifetime). The Borrower confirms that the management has improved since 2012 as evidenced by the results from 2016 which show an average increase in the METT scores of 4% across all parks. METT serves as a gap analysis tool and basis for planning of future capital investments related to protected area management. Results for individual parks is contained in Annex 7. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Page 37 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Visitors satisfaction with Number 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 completed infrastructure (revised) 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 17-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Indicator changed to "Visitor satisfaction with completed infrastructure" (Baseline: 0; Target: 4). The scale of this indicator is 1-5 with 1 being "not satisfied" and 5 being "highly satisfied" with the completed infrastructure. The measurement of this project target was conducted via comprehensive visitor survey form developed in cooperation with the Nature Interpretation and Design consultants. Survey forms were sent to park institutions with completed infrastructure investments (more than 1000 valid survey forms were received). Component: Ecological Network Data Systems Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of 50 x 50 km grids Number 0.00 54.00 54.00 surveyed for nationally threatened (CR, EN, VU) 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 species Comments (achievements against targets): The target was fully met. The indicator was incorrectly labeled as number in the PAD, when it should have been percent. One of the primary objectives in the project was to strengthen capacity of the public institutions in the nature protection sector in Croatia for EU- compliant biodiversity monitoring and reporting. Implementation of project activities resulted in a collection of new data on biodiversity (both species occurrence data and data about habitat distribution) which will help to determine the initial state and, therefore, a starting point for the monitoring of conservation status of species and habitats, as an obligation arising from the EU Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. All 54% of the 50x50km cell grids covering the whole Republic of Croatia were surveyed for nationally threatened species (CR, EN, VU - IUCN Red List Categories). CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable species. The target was achieved by the end of December 2016 as the Consortium submitted final reports for all contracted taxonomic groups. Page 38 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) The number of recorded species per nine taxonomic groups surveyed during this project is as follows: Actinopterygii and Cephalaspidomorphi (freshwater fish) 92 species, Amphibia and Reptilia 52 species, Aves (birds) 290 species, Chiroptera (bats) 26 species, Decapoda (decapods) 10 species, Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) 1157 species, Odonata (dragonflies and the damselflies) 62 species, Plecoptera (stoneflies) 80 species, Trichoptera (caddisflies) 157 species. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Percent of Croatian Red Book Percentage 0.00 40.00 40.00 species re-assessed based on new field survey data 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): The target was fully met by the end of December 2016. Based on the data collected, five taxonomic groups were re-assessed and 40% of Croatian Red Book species were re-assessed based on new field survey and literature data. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Integration of existing Text Scoping Full Data Exchange Completed biodiversity databases to with SGA Portal communicate & exchange data with SGA Portal in line 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 with EU INSPIRE Directive Comments (achievements against targets): Fully met in May 2015. Public and internal versions of the portal were delivered. The integration of existing biodiversity databases to communicate & exchange data with SGA portal is available via www.bioportal.hr. Component: Ecological Network Capacity Building Page 39 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Awareness of Natura 2000 Percentage 3.00 20.00 29.70 Ecological Network among people living in and around 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 designated sites Comments (achievements against targets): The target was fully met. According to the research of the Natura 2000 public awareness survey in Nov 2016, 31.4% of respondents "heard" of the Natura 2000 Ecological Network, while 29.7% of respondents are "aware" of the Natura 2000 ecological network. “Heard” is whether the respondents have in any way come across the term “Natura 2000” (i.e. they have heard the term in media , news or some other way), while 29.7% of respondents who are "aware" understand the basic meaning of the Natura 2000 ecological network and its implications. Questions included (translated from Croatian): o What is the highest value in Croatia? o What is your perception of nature protection? o What is the purpose of protected areas? o Have you heard of the term “Natura 2000”? (This question answers whether you "heard" of Natura 2000) o What do you think the term “Natura 2000" means? (Answers to this question define whether you know what Natura 2000 means, and its implications) o What do you think, in your opinion, best describes the term "Natura 2000"? (Answers to this question also help define Natura 2000 "awareness") o Do you know what is the name of a brand that gathers all Croatian national parks and nature parks? o Do you know how many parks there are in Croatia? Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Farmers trained in agri- Number 0.00 300.00 1000.00 environment measures relevant to Natura 2000 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 Page 40 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) purposes Comments (achievements against targets): This activity was successfully completed. The number 1000 was confirmed from Avalon - the consulting firm that developed the agri-environment measures. More than 30 workshops for farmers and other agriculture professionals and stakeholders were conducted. Additionally, six agricultural holdings have been selected as demo sites for agri-environment measures. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Number of protected area Number 0.00 40.00 43.00 staff trained to work with volunteers 19-May-2011 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Fully met. Altogether 43 attendants from the parks, MENP and SINP have developed capabilities, skills, knowledge and attitudes that will enable them to manage volunteers and volunteering programs in their public institutions. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Forest users trained Number 0.00 15.00 70.00 26-Oct-2012 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 Forest users trained - Number 0.00 5.00 20.00 Female 26-Oct-2012 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 Forest users trained - Ethnic Number 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 41 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) minority/indigenous people 26-Oct-2012 30-Apr-2016 30-Apr-2017 10-Dec-2014 Comments (achievements against targets): Fully met. Through various training events, numerous forest users (rangers and expert service staff form protected areas) were trained, 70 of which are foresters by vocation. Page 42 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) A. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT Objective/Outcome 1: Ecological Network Investments 1. Progress made in increasing annual capital and other investment Outcome Indicators expenditure across the Parks estate 1. Number of nature protection projects that have applied for EU Intermediate Results Indicators Structural and Investment Funds 2. Visitors satisfaction with completed infrastructure 1. Thirty-seven investment programs with educational and interpretation services in protected areas nationwide to maintain “favorable conservation status” at Natura 2000 sites 2. Eight light fire-fighting vehicles purchased for the national and nature parks prone to fires Key Outputs by Component 3. Generated and leveraged an additional EUR 213 million from EU (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 1) Structural and Investment Funds 4. Three boats purchased for three marine parks for surveillance, monitoring and ranger services 5. Purchased three vehicles for the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) and the Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature (CAEN) Page 43 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Objective/Outcome 2: Ecological Network Data Systems 1. Extent of Croatia covered by an accurate habitat map at 1:25,000 Outcome Indicators scale 1. Number of 50 x 50 km grids surveyed for nationally threatened (CR, EN, VU) species 2. Percent of Croatian Red Book species re-assessed based on new field survey data Intermediate Results Indicators 3. Integration of existing biodiversity databases to communicate & exchange data with SGA Portal in line with EU INSPIRE Directive 4. Number of National/Nature parks actively monitoring their management effectiveness 1. A spatial overview of 60% of terrestrial habitats (non-forest) covered in the new map at a scale of 1:25000 in line with the EU Habitats Directive 2. Conversion of Natura 2000 border maps from scale 1:25000 to scale Key Outputs by Component 1:5000 (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 2) 3. Web/Geo Portal (one for the public and one internal) 4. Identification of Species and Habitats for Inventory 5. Introduction of METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool) in all nature and national parks Objective/Outcome 3: Ecological Network Capacity Building 1. Number of project-promoted programs in operation that actively Outcome Indicators involve stakeholders with Natura 2000 1. Awareness of Natura 2000 Ecological Network among people living in and around designated sites Intermediate Results Indicators 2. Farmers trained in agri-environment measures relevant to Natura 2000 purposes Page 44 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 3. Number of protected area staff trained to work with volunteers 4. Forest users trained 5. Forest users trained - Female 1. Eight agri-environment measures for Natura 2000 sites developed and incorporated in the Rural Development Operational Programme (see below) 2. PP Papuk border delineation pilot completed 3. Thirty-one volunteer programs developed (including program Key Outputs by Component budget) for all 19 parks (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 3) 4. Thirty-two regional workshops and 4 national workshops were held benefitting 1000 participants (e.g. farmers, nature protection inspectors, staff of the Paying Agency and Extension Service) 5. System to track and diversify protected area finance developed with UNDP Consulting services for Identification of species and habitats – The main objective of this activity was to gather and georeference all literature and other distributional data about concerned taxonomic groups in Croatia in order to gain insight into the state of research of all components of biodiversity and to perform detailed gap analysis required for efficient planning of further inventory activities, which are planned for the second phase of this project. In total 13 contracts for Further details on Component 2 outputs services of identification of species and habitats for inventory for the following taxonomic groups: Actinopterygii + Cephalaspidomorphi; Decapoda; Calanoidea; Plecoptera; Odonata; Araneae; Pseudoscorpiones + Opiliones + Scorpiones + Palpigradi + Diplura; Lichenes; Julida + Polydesmida; Gastropoda terrestria; Ephemeroptera; Bryophyta and Collembola were signed with experts for individual group. Activities included collecting literature data, data from museum Page 45 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) collections and from other sources; georeferencing of collected data using web Application for georeferencing (http://georef.iszp.hr/) developed for this purpose by Croatian agency for the environment and nature (CAEN); entering the data into the standardized form and creating checklist of the concerned taxonomic groups. All 13 contracts were completed in 2015 and all data gathered through this activity were reviewed by CAEN. Around 4,500 literature references have been processed and more than 132,000 records from the literature references were processed and entered in tables compatible with Crofauna database. During 2016, collected data were analyzed and tables were prepared for integration in NPIS databases. Development of integrated NPIS web portal –Two portals - public and internal - were presented to the public in May 2015. The aim of the public portal is to provide open access to information on biodiversity, habitat mapping, protected areas, species distribution, etc. The internal one provides access to all institutions to maintain and update their data and information sharing. Conversion of Natura 2000 border maps from scale 1:25000 to scale 1:5000 – Detailing of Natura 2000 boundaries into scale 1:5000 was undertaken using convenient base maps (primarily Digital Ortophoto Map 1:5000 and Croatian base map 1:5000) to enable overlapping with other registries of the same or similar scale (i.e. Digital cadastral maps and Land Parcel Identification System – LPIS for agricultural land parcels, also defined in scale 1:5000) with the aim of determining whether specific land parcel is inside of Natura 2000 in order to implement mandatory, but also voluntary conservation measures. The Page 46 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 1:25000 scale was too rough to determine whether specific land parcel in border parts of sites was inside of Natura 2000 site or not. Therefore, detailing of Natura 2000 boundaries into scale 1:5000 was needed to enable overlapping with other registries of the same or similar scale (i.e. digital cadastral maps and land parcel identification system developed for agriculture sector). Obligation of transferring Natura 2000 boundaries into scale 1:5000 by the end of December 2016 was legally binding by Regulation on Ecological Network (OG 124/13). Also, additional value of having detailed boundaries of Natura 2000 sites relates to Appropriate Assessment (nature impact assessment) procedures required for development projects. Having detailed boundaries of Natura 2000 sites will enable easier planning and implementation of obligatory nature conservation measures. New boundaries of Natura 2000 sites, detailed through this project and evaluated by the European Commission in the scope of biogeographic seminar, were officially proclaimed by the Regulation amending the Regulation on Ecological Network (Official Gazette 105/15), which entered into force on 10 October 2015 (http://narodne- novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2015_10_105_2052.html) the database on the ecological network was complemented with new map, including the new physical layer of Natura 2000 network in the scale of 1:5000. The application to view Natura 2000 network on the web portal Nature Protection Information System (www.bioportal.hr) was also updated. Updated information on the Natura 2000 network was uploaded also on the EU server (EIONET CDR - The Central Data Repository - http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/en/eu/N2000/envvi35sg/) and sent to the European Commission. In 2016 European Commission updated its Page 47 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Natura 2000 network viewer (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/) and included new boundaries into the Natura 2000 database for the entire EU. Field research and laboratory processing for collecting new inventory data – The main objective of this activity was to gather new distributional data about concerned taxonomic groups in Croatia, according to the specified methodology. A total of 3.371 grid cell visits were undertaken on the entire territory of the Republic of Croatia and 152 730 observations for 9 taxonomic groups were collected and entered in tables compatible with Crofauna database. Based on the data collected through preparation for field inventarisation and field survey, threat categories for five taxonomic groups were revised (Lepidoptera, Trichoptera, Amphibia, Reptilia and Actinoptrygii). Project target indicators connected with this activity were successfully achieved, notably 54 percent of the 50x50km cell grids covering the whole Republic of Croatia have been surveyed and 40% of Croatian Red Book species were re-assessed based on new field survey and literature data. All gathered data (literature and inventory) are publicly available on the web portal Nature Protection Information System (www.bioportal.hr). Red list assessment data is very important as they show where efforts should be put in order to avoid losing endangered species. Development of 1:25000 scale Habitat Map - Spatial overview of natural and semi-natural habitats’ distribution on the territory of Croatia is a crucial data needed by nature protection sector in Croatia for planning and conducting conservation activities and monitoring the conservation status of wild species and habitats. Besides these state Page 48 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) institutions, a large number of stakeholders (NGO-sector, scientists, private entities etc.) rely on the information about the habitats’ distribution for their everyday work, obligations and projects. The first habitat map of Croatia (created in 2004) described the habitats in the entire territory of the Republic of Croatia in a scale of 1:100,000. Its minimum mapping unit was 9 hectares (ha), meaning that all habitat types whose surface at the moment of mapping was at least 9 ha are shown as separate surfaces. Therefore, new habitat map was developed in the cartographic scale of 1:25000, with minimum mapping unit of only 1,56 ha and describing the habitats in the higher detail, in order to be compatible to the habitat classification used in the EU Habitat Directive. The produced Habitat map contains 333.488 polygons and 1980 punctual habitats and provides the most informative and accurate data about habitat distribution around the territory of Croatia that ever existed in this area. The habitat map is available on the web portal Nature Protection Information System (www.bioportal.hr). Agri-environment scheme for Natura 2000 areas targeted at farmers. Eight measures related to nature protection are: 1) preservation of high nature value grasslands; 2) pilot measure for the protection of corncrake (Crex crex); 3) pilot measure for the protection of butterflies; 4) establishment of field strips; 5) maintaining extensive orchards; 6) Further details on Component 3 outputs maintaining extensive olive groves; 7) preservation of landscape features - stone walls and 8) preservation of landscape features – hedges. Ministry of Agriculture incorporated measures six measures into the Rural Development Operational Programme (approved by EU in late May 2015). The two proposed measures related to preservation of landscape features will be incorporated into the Program later due Page 49 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) to the need for further justification of the measures to EC in its relation to good agriculture practice. Volunteer programs in protected areas is the first of its kind developed in Croatia for nature protection sector in 2015. Almost 300 volunteers donated over 10,000 working hours (1200 working days) to nature protection. Approximately thirty programs are offered each year, and activities available to volunteers include polling and providing information to visitors; data collection and conservation of species and habitats; removal of invasive species; maintenance of botanical gardens, olive groves, dry stone walls and trails; preservation of traditional activities; cleaning of trails and the environment; care for domestic animals; waste collection; support in organizing various events; nature photography. Over 40 trained coordinators and their deputies from public institutions are involved in the development and management of volunteer programs, and all such programs are harmonized with Parks management plans. A comprehensive list of open volunteer programs and online application form are available at: http://volonteri.parkovihrvatske.hr/hr/. Training programs for staff managing Natura 2000 sites and protected areas, scientific community, MENP and CAEN, nature protection inspectors, customs, veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and border police who benefitted from the training delivered on management planning, public participation in management of protected areas, GIS in nature conservation, reporting according to Habitats and Birds Directives, wildlife trade, invasive species, ecological network Natura 2000 impact assessment, preparing project proposals Page 50 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) for EU funds, etc. Each of the stakeholder groups that were trained have their specific place in Natura 2000 sites management. Farmers implement agri-environment schemes such as late mowing thus contributing to the habitats and species’ conservation (e.g. corncrake), scientific community participates in defining the needed conservation measures specifically tailored according to ecological requirements of habitats and species, customs and border police participate in the control of species that are imported into the country as a part of the national system of ecological risk assessments and invasive species control. Public Awareness Campaign was successfully implemented nationwide in 2015. TV clips were filmed in three national parks and one nature park. One million copies of glossy brochure “Parks of Croatia“ was distributed in major Croatian dailies “Slobodna Dalmacija” and “Jutarnji list” in October 2015 to sensitize and inform the public at large on Croatia’s protected areas and Natura 2000 sites’ importance. The campaign TV clips were broadcasted during October and November 2015. YouTube links for TV clips (42 sec): PP Kopački rit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoT5LHlvrKw NP Sjeverni Velebit – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is_Y6to_bsw NP Krka - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LkgcobOAng NP Kornati - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL3dvXOjmzs YouTube links of longer versions of the clips (2-3 min) Page 51 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) PP Kopački rit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJPXtGB1o-U NP Sjeverni Velebit – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2RrNvqhhQ4 NP Krka - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWi_dM3LGH0 NP Kornati - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj4SCb3XNdY Page 52 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Preparation Karin Shepardson Lead Operations Officer, Co-TTL Vera Dugandzic Operations Officer, Co-TTL Nathalie Johnson Sr. Environmental Specialist Lamija Marijanovic Financial Management Specialist Antonia G. Viyachka Procurement Specialist Ahmad Slaibi Young Professional Craig Meisner Environmental Economist Stefano P. Pagiola Sr. Environmental Economist Agnes I. Kiss Lead Biodiversity Specialist and Safeguards Ljiljana Boranic Team Assistant Vanja Frajtic Junior Communications Associate Emanuela Montanari-Stephens FAO Consultant - Nature Interpretation Ana Marija Frankic Consultant- Coastal and Marine Specialist Natasa Vetma Operations Officer Paul Goriup Nature Protection Consultant-EU Funds Anneliese Viorella Voinea Financial Management Consultant Paula Lytle Senior Social Development Specialist Ruxandra Costache Counsel Hannah Koipillai Sr. Finance Officer Peter Dewees Peer Reviewer Claudia Sobrevilla Peer Reviewer Glen-Marie Lange Peer Reviewer Irina Ramniceanu Peer Reviewer Page 53 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Supervision/ICR Vera Dugandzic Task Team Leader Antonia G. Viyachka Procurement Specialist Lamija Marijanovic Financial Management Specialist Nathalie Weier Johnson Sr. Environmental Specialist Blaga Djourdjin Program Assistant Craig M. Meisner Sr. Environmental Economist Bogdanka Krtinic Program Assistant Ljiljana Boranic Team Assistant Natasa Vetma Sr. Environmental Specialist A. STAFF TIME AND COST Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY10 0 321,633.93 FY11 0 116,523.98 Total 0.00 438,157.91 Supervision/ICR FY11 0 23,433.20 FY12 0 71,544.98 FY13 0 64,632.34 FY14 23.463 79,867.39 FY15 21.173 100,088.71 FY16 17.813 55,002.62 FY17 17.963 71,149.41 FY18 6.275 28,159.37 Total 86.69 493,878.02 Page 54 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Percentage Amount at Approval Actual at Project Closing of Approval (million (million (million (million (million Components EUR) US$) EUR) US$) EUR) 1.0 Ecological Network Investments 10.9 15.2 11.2 13.7 103% 1.1 Protected Area-Driven Investments (works) 9.9 13.7 10.1 12.3 102% 1.2 Equipment (goods) 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.4 108% 2.0 Ecological Network Data Systems 4.6 6.4 4.6 5.6 100% 2.1 Biodiversity Inventory and Monitoring 4.0 5.6 4.2 5.1 104% 2.2 INSPIRE Harmonization 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 71% 3.0 Ecological Network Capacity Building 3.6 5.0 4.6 5.5 125% 3.1 Inter-Sectoral Cooperation & Pilot Programs 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.4 93% 3.2 Training & Public Outreach 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.7 186% 3.3 Project Management and Operating Costs 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.4 97% PPF/PPA 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 85% Front-end Fee 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 100% Total 20.8 28.8 20.8 25.3 100% Notes: Disbursements may not exactly match due to exchange rate differences at the time of withdrawal. Note that the Euro depreciated 20-30% against the USD over the life of the project. Exchange rate at Appraisal (October 31, 2010): €1 = $US 1.3861 Exchange rate at Completion (April 30, 2017): €1 = $US 1.0896 Page 55 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS Ecological Network Benefits Provided by Protected Areas 96. This Annex presents the results from the economic analysis for the Croatia EU Natura 2000 Integration Project. While the analysis presented below is largely repetitive to that presented in the PAD – the main idea here is to set up the basis of recalculating the Economic Rates of Return (ERRs) estimated at Appraisal, and then update the assumptions and data to current information at the end of the project and re-estimate the ERRs. The presentation repeats some of the work done initially to show that protected areas hold significant value to tourists and visitors (elicited through a willingness to pay survey, WTP). The survey was not repeated at the end of the project since the WTP likely has not changed significantly – as evidenced by the increasing number of tourists to Croatia’s parks. 97. The overall development objective of the project was to support Park and County Public Institutions to implement Natura 2000 objectives in investment programs; strengthen capacity for EU- compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring; and introduce programs to involve a wider group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management. 98. Protected areas in Croatia provide many benefits. Tourism provides the largest ‘visible’ direct benefit in Croatia owing to its diverse system of National and Nature Parks and increasingly in other more remote areas that traditionally were not part of the visitation circuit (e.g. unique sites off the beaten path). In 2010, tourism revenue represented over 14.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product, and by 2016 was over 18 percent although the contribution is likely higher once indirect effects are considered.23 The conservation and preservation of these areas for future, sustainable, tourism and recreation is necessary for both public and private benefits. 99. Preservation and Conservation Values. Croatia’s system of parks, cultural heritage and geographical sites are an important tourism asset for Croatia as is witnessed by the millions of tourists who visit Croatia on an annual basis. The protection of these resources is necessary to ensure the sustainable flow of benefits in the long-term and that the generated revenues are invested back into greater conservation. To quantify the benefits of protected areas and the services they provide, several contingent valuation surveys of tourists’ willingness to pay (WTP) for protected area preservation and conservation were conducted during the summer/fall of 2009. In the survey, information on trip costs was also elicited in order to estimate Travel Cost Models (TCM) for comparison with estimated WTP. 24 Contingent Valuation (CV) is a commonly used technique to elicit the monetary value of goods and services for which markets do not exist. Respondents are asked for their willingness to pay or for their willingness to accept compensation (WTA) for specified increases or decreases in the level of the service.25 23 Indirect effects are created when income derived by direct flows are spent elsewhere in the economy on goods and services. This creates the so-called ‘multiplier effect’ of a dollar as it is re-spent in an economy. 24 As opposed to stated preference techniques such as Contingent Valuation, the Travel Cost Model (TCM) is a revealed preference technique that uses observable behavior on trip costs to estimate consumers’ surplus. TCMs assume that the cost of travel to, and at, the site is a proxy for the value of the recreational experience. TCM estimates are also viewed as a lower bound on recreation value since they are based on actual behavior. In the survey travel costs and time were collected in order to estimate TCM models. 25 There are specific ‘guidelines’ one can follow to avoid truly hypothetical answers, such as reminding respondents to take into Page 56 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 100. An experienced international consultant conducted the contingent valuation survey of tourists’ willingness to pay for protected area conservation and preservation. Tourists were provided a brief description of the park/area and its main features. Tourists were then asked a series of questions on their activities while in the park/area and whether they would be willing to pay to support improvements in these services. They were then asked what they would be willing to pay, in addition to the entrance fee, to ensure that the many plants, animals, geological, cultural and landscape features within it are fully protected for people to enjoy without being damaged or extracted. The survey was conducted among 1,206 Croatians and 1,293 foreign visitors in a sample of four National Parks (Paklenica, Brijuni, Risnjak and Kornati), two Nature Parks (Lonjsko Polje and Papuk) and two County Public Institutions (Sibensko- Kninska and Varaždinska). Results of the survey show that Croatians have strong preferences for the preservation and conservation of protected areas, and are willing to pay about 9 €/tourist/visit (US$9.81/tourist/visit) for National Parks, 6 €/tourist/visit for Nature Parks and over 22 €/tourist/visit (US$24/tourist/visit) for County Public Institutions, as shown in Figure 4.1. Foreign tourists place even higher values on the National Parks (10-35 €/tourist/visit) and County Public Institutions (11-27 €/tourist/visit), as shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.1 Estimates of Willingness to Pay (WTP) for the Conservation of National Parks, Nature Parks and County Public Institutions by Croatian Visitors Mean willingness-to-pay and 95 percent confidence interval - Croatians (Euros/visit) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Lower bound 10 5 Mean 0 Upper Bound Source: Visitor survey, World Bank, 2009. 101. Variation in WTP estimates is quite small among the National and Nature Parks for Croatians, while the larger variation in the Counties is most likely due to differences in knowledge about park account their budget constraint, what they’ve spent thus far on the trip (and the current entrance fee in this case) and also reminders of substitute sites (such as other parks in Croatia). Surveys were also pretested to set WTP bid ranges so that plausible fees would be presented to the respondent. Page 57 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) attributes. Foreigners have a higher absolute WTP for National Parks and relatively few visit Nature Parks, hence the sample was not able to elicit a WTP estimate for CPI Lonjsko Polje and PP Papuk. Figure 4.2 Estimates of Willingness to Pay (WTP) for the Conservation of National Parks, Nature Parks and County Public Institutions by Foreign Visitors Mean willingness-to-pay and 95 percent confidence interval - All foreigners (Euros/visit) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Lower bound 10 5 Mean 0 Upper Bound Source: Visitor survey, World Bank, 2009. 102. Comparison of estimated WTP values with other studies is difficult in this case since others present their results on a per-hectare basis, which is perhaps more appropriate when you are concerned about managing a certain square area however tourism is more predicated on the number and length of a visit. As an internal check, comparing the WTP values with TCM estimates reveals that they are within the confidence interval of one other, which confirms that stated and actual behavior are not statistically different from one another (Figure 4.3). Comparing the results from this survey with the most recent National and Nature Park survey conducted by the Institute of Tourism, respondents to Krka National Park recorded the highest expenditure of €26/visit (US$28.30/visit), followed by Brijuni National Park with €24/visit (US$26.15/visit) and Plitvice Lakes National Park with €17/visit (US$18.52/visit).26 Thus the results from either the CV or TCM technique are comparably within these ranges. 26Tomas - National Parks and Parks of Nature Survey 2006. Institute for Tourism. Zagreb, Croatia, 2007. Summary available at: http://www.iztzg.hr/en/institute/projects/research/. Page 58 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Figure 4.3 Estimate Comparisons between Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Travel Cost Models (TCM) for the Conservation of National Parks and Nature Parks Comparison of mean willingness-to-pay and travel cost estimates (Euros/visit) 45 40 35 30 25 Lower bound 20 Mean 15 Upper Bound 10 5 0 Source: Visitor survey, World Bank, 2009. 103. The total benefits from tourism are predicated on the total number of visitors to Croatia. Figure 4.4 shows that in 2009, tourist arrivals and overnights largely recovered to their pre-war levels and were growing at about 3 percent in the previous past five years and 8 percent in the last ten years. Surprisingly, the financial crisis had a relatively short-lived impact on visitation - arrivals fell by 2.9 percent in 2009, and overnight stays fell by 1.3 percent. However, from 2010-2016 tourist arrivals rose by 76 percent to over 19 million. Page 59 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Figure 4.4 Trends in Tourism Arrivals and Overnight Stays Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, various years. 104. Similar trends are found with visitation to the National and Nature Parks. As Figure 4.5 shows, National Parks have averaged over 3 percent in terms of annual visitation growth over the past five years and 14 percent in the past ten – owing to the recovery of tourism ex-post the war. Although accurate data on all parks before the war is relatively difficult to come by, data from large National Parks suggest that visitor numbers recovered to pre-war levels. Historically, Nature Parks represented little in terms of park visitation before 1999, but now constitute 16-17 percent of all park visits – a trend which continued as these relatively un-marketed areas were developed, integrated into the local tourism circuit and more actively promoted to the international crowd. Although starting from a very low level of visitation, Nature Parks experienced an average growth rate of 50 percent in the past ten years. For the purposes of this economic analysis we use the rates of annual visitation growth from 2009-2016 for National Parks (9.0 percent), Nature Parks (7.3 percent) and Counties (7.3 percent). Page 60 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Figure 4.5 Trends in Annual Visitation to National and Nature Parks Annual visitation to National and Nature Parks 1997-2016 (thousands) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1997 1998 2006 2007 2008 2015 2016 Year National parks Nature parks Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, various years. 105. To calculate the benefits of preservation and conservation the mean willingness to pay was multiplied by the most recent official number of tourists for each site. For sites that were not part of the original sample of parks or Counties, we use the benefits transfer method27 where the average WTP is calculated by park-type or County (in US$/tourist/visit) and this is multiplied by the visitor statistics for each park or County. While the ideal would be to conduct surveys at every site, so that individual estimates could be derived – this is part of a longer-term monitoring effort by the parks and Counties in measuring visitor satisfaction. It is also important to point out that the derived values are annual flows – so the computation is a function of the park-type and annual visitation demand. Table 4.1 shows the assumed visitation growth and the resulting preservation and conservation benefits per park and County. 27 The benefits transfer (BT) method is used to estimate economic values for ecosystem services by transferring available information from studies already completed in another location and/or context. For example, values for recreational fishing in a particular state may be estimated by applying measures of recreational fishing values from a study conducted in another state. The basic goal of benefit transfer is to estimate benefits for one context by adapting an estimate of benefits from some other context. Benefit transfer is often used when it is too expensive and/or there is too little time available to conduct an original valuation study, yet some measure of benefits is needed. It is important to note that benefit transfers can only be as accurate as the initial study. One limitation of using the BT method is that values are typically non-linear at the margin – meaning that they are highly sensitive to changes in site attributes across sites. To the extent that the sample of Croatian parks and Counties are representative of other policy sites, the degree of non-linear benefits is less than using study site estimates from outside Croatia. Conditions that ensure a quality transfer include: the goods (or services) across sites should have roughly similar characteristics; the population in both areas should be similar; and values in the first study should have been estimated recently since preferences may change over time. Page 61 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Page 62 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Table 4.1 Conservation and Preservation Benefits of Protected Areas Discounted conservation and Demand Visitation ('000) preservation benefits ('000 US$) growth Year Year Area % 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NPV National/Nature Park NP Brijuni 9.0 181.6 197.9 215.7 235.1 256.3 279.4 3,969.5 4,491.6 5,082.4 5,750.8 6,507.2 7,363.0 33,164.5 NP Kornati 9.0 220.1 239.9 261.4 285.0 310.6 338.6 8,410.3 9,516.4 10,768.1 12,184.3 13,786.9 15,600.2 70,266.2 NP Krka 9.0 1,071.6 1,168.0 1,273.1 1,387.7 1,512.6 1,648.7 22,123.2 25,032.9 28,325.3 32,050.7 36,266.2 41,036.0 184,834.3 NP Mljet 9.0 126.7 138.1 150.5 164.1 178.8 194.9 2,615.8 2,959.8 3,349.1 3,789.6 4,288.0 4,852.0 21,854.4 NP Paklenica 9.0 127.8 139.4 151.9 165.6 180.5 196.7 1,566.5 1,772.5 2,005.7 2,269.5 2,567.9 2,905.7 13,087.8 NP Plitvice Lakes 9.0 1,429.2 1,557.9 1,698.1 1,850.9 2,017.5 2,199.0 29,507.4 33,388.4 37,779.7 42,748.7 48,371.2 54,733.1 246,528.5 NP Risnjak 9.0 14.3 15.6 17.0 18.6 20.3 22.1 147.0 166.4 188.2 213.0 241.0 272.7 1,228.3 NP Sj. Velebit 9.0 20.3 22.1 24.1 26.3 28.7 31.2 419.1 474.2 536.6 607.1 687.0 777.4 3,501.4 PP Biokovo 3.9 54.8 56.9 59.1 61.4 63.8 66.2 357.2 366.9 376.8 387.1 397.6 408.4 2,293.9 PP Kopački rit 3.9 38.7 40.2 41.7 43.3 45.0 46.7 252.0 258.9 265.9 273.1 280.5 288.1 1,618.5 PP Lastovo 3.9 17.0 17.7 18.3 19.0 19.8 20.5 110.8 113.8 116.9 120.0 123.3 126.6 711.4 PP Lonjsko polje 3.9 16.5 17.1 17.8 18.5 19.2 19.9 107.5 110.4 113.4 116.5 119.7 122.9 690.4 PP Medvednica 3.9 32.6 33.8 35.1 36.5 37.9 39.4 212.4 218.1 224.0 230.1 236.4 242.8 1,363.8 PP Papuk 3.9 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.9 37.0 38.0 39.1 40.1 41.2 42.3 237.9 PP Telašćica 3.9 116.4 120.9 125.5 130.3 135.4 140.6 758.3 778.9 800.0 821.7 844.0 866.9 4,869.8 PP Učka 3.9 30.0 31.2 32.4 33.6 34.9 36.2 195.5 200.8 206.2 211.8 217.6 223.5 1,255.3 PP Velebit 3.9 43.1 44.8 46.5 48.3 50.1 52.0 280.8 288.4 296.2 304.3 312.5 321.0 1,803.1 PP Vransko jezero 3.9 24.4 25.3 26.3 27.3 28.4 29.5 158.9 163.2 167.6 172.2 176.8 181.6 1,020.4 PP Žumberak SG 3.9 44.3 46.0 47.7 49.6 51.5 53.5 288.4 296.2 304.2 312.5 320.9 329.6 1,851.8 Central Croatia Bjelovarsko-bilogorska 7.3 20.5 22.0 23.6 25.3 27.2 29.1 422.2 462.9 507.6 556.6 610.3 669.2 3,228.9 Karlovacka 7.3 279.0 299.3 321.2 344.6 369.8 396.8 5,748.0 6,302.7 6,911.0 7,577.9 8,309.2 9,111.1 43,960.0 Koprivnicko-križevacka 7.3 18.9 20.2 21.7 23.3 25.0 26.8 388.7 426.2 467.3 512.4 561.9 616.1 2,972.6 Krapinsko-zagorska 7.3 124.6 133.7 143.4 153.9 165.1 177.2 2,567.1 2,814.8 3,086.4 3,384.3 3,710.9 4,069.0 19,632.4 Medimurska 7.3 45.9 49.2 52.8 56.7 60.8 65.3 945.4 1,036.6 1,136.6 1,246.3 1,366.6 1,498.5 7,229.9 Sisacko-moslavacka 7.3 29.6 31.7 34.1 36.5 39.2 42.1 609.5 668.3 732.8 803.5 881.0 966.1 4,661.1 Varaždinska 7.3 52.0 55.8 59.9 64.2 68.9 74.0 1,521.0 1,667.8 1,828.7 2,005.2 2,198.7 2,410.9 11,632.4 Zagrebacka 7.3 75.5 81.0 87.0 93.3 100.1 107.4 1,556.2 1,706.4 1,871.1 2,051.6 2,249.6 2,466.7 11,901.7 Grad Zagreb 7.3 1,152.6 1,236.7 1,327.0 1,423.9 1,527.8 1,639.4 23,749.1 26,041.0 28,554.1 31,309.6 34,331.1 37,644.2 181,629.2 Littoral (Adriatic coast) Page 63 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Discounted conservation and Demand Visitation ('000) preservation benefits ('000 US$) growth Year Year Dubrovacko-neretvanska 7.3 1,598.8 1,715.5 1,840.7 1,975.1 2,119.3 2,274.0 32,942.4 36,121.4 39,607.3 43,429.6 47,620.7 52,216.2 251,937.6 Istarska 7.3 3,763.2 4,037.9 4,332.7 4,648.9 4,988.3 5,352.5 77,539.7 85,022.6 93,227.6 102,224.4 112,089.4 122,906.5 593,010.1 Licko-senjska 7.3 621.1 666.5 715.1 767.3 823.3 883.4 12,798.3 14,033.4 15,387.6 16,872.6 18,500.9 20,286.3 97,879.0 Primorsko-goranska 7.3 2,685.4 2,881.5 3,091.8 3,317.5 3,559.7 3,819.6 55,333.0 60,672.9 66,528.1 72,948.3 79,988.1 87,707.2 423,177.5 Splitsko-dalmatinska 7.3 2,737.3 2,937.1 3,151.5 3,381.6 3,628.5 3,893.3 56,401.8 61,844.8 67,813.0 74,357.2 81,533.0 89,401.2 431,351.0 Šibensko-kninska 7.3 817.8 877.5 941.5 1,010.2 1,084.0 1,163.1 9,783.7 10,727.9 11,763.2 12,898.4 14,143.1 15,508.0 74,824.2 Zadarska 7.3 1,362.2 1,461.6 1,568.3 1,682.8 1,805.7 1,937.5 28,068.1 30,776.7 33,746.8 37,003.5 40,574.5 44,490.1 214,659.7 Slavonia Brodsko-posavska 7.3 26.6 28.5 30.6 32.8 35.2 37.8 547.5 600.3 658.2 721.7 791.4 867.8 4,186.8 Osjecko-baranjska 7.3 89.1 95.6 102.5 110.0 118.1 126.7 1,835.1 2,012.2 2,206.3 2,419.3 2,652.7 2,908.7 14,034.3 Požeško-slavonska 7.3 11.7 12.5 13.4 14.4 15.4 16.6 240.1 263.3 288.7 316.6 347.1 380.6 1,836.5 Viroviticko-podravska 7.3 12.8 13.7 14.7 15.8 17.0 18.2 263.5 288.9 316.8 347.4 380.9 417.7 2,015.3 Vukovarsko-srijemska 7.3 69.8 74.9 80.4 86.3 92.5 99.3 1,438.6 1,577.4 1,729.6 1,896.6 2,079.6 2,280.3 11,002.1 Total 19,209.1 20,651.1 22,202.6 23,872.1 25,668.6 27,602.0 386,216.4 425,704.3 469,314.5 517,486.2 570,706.6 629,516.2 2,998,944.2 Notes: Discount rate: 5%; NP – National Park; PP – Nature Park. Page 64 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 106. Watershed Protection and Erosion Control. Forests within protected areas also provide important benefits in terms of ecological service functions, such as habitats for flora and fauna and water protection and erosion control. Watershed benefits accrue through stabilizing soils and decreasing the probability of erosion from rainfall. Approximately 55 percent of Croatia’s forests are located on soils which would be exposed to heavy erosion if no forest cover was available. However, even modest erosion can have serious impacts such as flooding, sedimentation of rivers affecting hydroelectric plants and clogging irrigation and drainage channels. Forests also act to regulate hydrological cycles important for water quantity and quality for human consumption and inland and coastal fisheries. Watershed protection is difficult to ascertain since the benefits are site-specific and dependent on factors such as precipitation and the slope of the terrain. Studies from other European countries suggest that the value of these functions could be in the order of 42 DM/ha/year (US$27/ha/year).28 A recent study of Mediterranean forest functions in Croatia concluded that the value of water protection and erosion control is likely to be much more modest and would be no greater than 10.39 €/ha/year (US$11.32).29 Greater protected area management includes the maintenance of forest cover for water protection and erosion control – and as such will yield substantial economic benefits. Forest cover at the County and park-level are provided in Table 4.2. We assume that greater forest protection would result in an approximate 10 percent increase in watershed protection and erosion control benefits in the National and Nature Parks and Counties. This is analogous to saying that benefits are approximately US$1.13/ha/year. Benefits are presented in Table 4.2 by multiplying forest area and this approximate damage aversion estimate. Table 4.2 Watershed Protection and Erosion Control Benefits in Protected Areas Discounted annual flow of benefits ('000 US$) Year Area Forest Area (ha) * 0 1 2 3 4 5 NPV National/Nature Park NP Brijuni 489 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.9 NP Kornati 50 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 NP Krka 4,419 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 26.7 NP Mljet 2,591 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 15.6 NP Paklenica 5,637 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.2 5.0 34.0 NP Plitvice Lakes 25,161 28.5 27.1 25.8 24.6 23.4 22.3 151.8 NP Risnjak 6,181 7.0 6.7 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.5 37.3 NP Sj. Velebit 9,247 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.6 8.2 55.8 PP Biokovo 10,534 11.9 11.4 10.8 10.3 9.8 9.3 63.6 PP Kopački rit 8,176 9.3 8.8 8.4 8.0 7.6 7.3 49.3 PP Lastovo 2,735 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 16.5 PP Lonjsko polje 35,335 40.0 38.1 36.3 34.6 32.9 31.3 213.2 PP Medvednica 15,140 17.1 16.3 15.5 14.8 14.1 13.4 91.4 PP Papuk 33,262 38.5 36.6 34.9 33.2 31.6 30.1 205.0 PP Telašćica 223 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.3 PP Učka 14,771 16.7 15.9 15.2 14.4 13.8 13.1 89.1 PP Velebit 115,782 131.1 124.8 118.9 113.2 107.8 102.7 698.6 PP Vransko jezero 654 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.9 PP Žumberak SG 26,685 30.2 28.8 27.4 26.1 24.9 23.7 161.0 28 Sabadi, R., D. Vuletić, and J. Gračan (2005) Croatia. In Merlo, M., Croitoru, L. (Eds.), Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, pp. 105–122. 29 Ibid. Page 65 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Discounted annual flow of benefits ('000 US$) Year Area Forest Area (ha) * 0 1 2 3 4 5 NPV Central Croatia Bjelovarsko-bilogorska 108,540 122.9 117.0 111.5 106.1 101.1 96.3 654.9 Karlovacka 226,478 256.4 244.2 232.6 221.5 210.9 200.9 1,366.5 Koprivnicko-križevacka 63,903 72.3 68.9 65.6 62.5 59.5 56.7 385.6 Krapinsko-zagorska 46,689 52.9 50.3 47.9 45.7 43.5 41.4 281.7 Medimurska 13,857 15.7 14.9 14.2 13.6 12.9 12.3 83.6 Sisacko-moslavacka 204,023 231.0 220.0 209.5 199.5 190.0 181.0 1,231.0 Varaždinska 46,955 53.2 50.6 48.2 45.9 43.7 41.7 283.3 Zagrebacka 96,294 109.0 103.8 98.9 94.2 89.7 85.4 581.0 Grad Zagreb 12,999 14.7 14.0 13.3 12.7 12.1 11.5 78.4 Littoral (Adriatic coast) Dubrovacko-neretvanska 71,879 81.4 77.5 73.8 70.3 66.9 63.8 433.7 Istarska 147,519 167.0 159.1 151.5 144.3 137.4 130.9 890.1 Licko-senjska 234,679 265.7 253.0 241.0 229.5 218.6 208.2 1,416.0 Primorsko-goranska 251,391 284.6 271.1 258.1 245.9 234.1 223.0 1,516.8 Splitsko-dalmatinska 212,746 240.9 229.4 218.5 208.1 198.2 188.7 1,283.6 Šibensko-kninska 89,317 101.1 96.3 91.7 87.3 83.2 79.2 538.9 Zadarska 112,845 127.8 121.7 115.9 110.4 105.1 100.1 680.9 Slavonia Brodsko-posavska 72,748 82.4 78.4 74.7 71.1 67.8 64.5 438.9 Osjecko-baranjska 100,992 114.3 108.9 103.7 98.8 94.1 89.6 609.4 Požeško-slavonska 79,187 89.6 85.4 81.3 77.4 73.8 70.2 477.8 Viroviticko-podravska 64,325 72.8 69.4 66.1 62.9 59.9 57.1 388.1 Vukovarsko-srijemska 73,424 83.1 79.2 75.4 71.8 68.4 65.1 443.0 Total 2,647,861 2,998.5 2,855.7 2,719.7 2,590.2 2,466.9 2,349.4 15,980.5 Notes: Discount rate: 5%; NP – National Park; PP – Nature Park * Forest cover in Counties does not include forest cover in the park. Shaded parks have areas in multiple Counties, thus forest cover is proportioned to the area of the park within the County. Data source: Agency for Environment Protection - Corine Land Cover (2006). 107. Non-timber Forest Products and Wildlife. Forested areas also supply a number of harvestable products and are home to a rich diversity of wildlife. Improved conservation management of these areas is likely to yield more sustainable harvests of certain non-timber forest products such as forest fruits (chestnuts, walnuts, and berries), mushrooms, truffles, medicinal herbs and plants, fibrous materials, or honey. In some instances, resources within protected areas may be off limits and their harvesting either restricted or outlawed. Studies have shown that specific NTFPs can be an important source of rural income and across Croatia’s total forested area amount to €23/ha (US$25.06/ha) in total economic value.30 Greater conservation efforts in protected areas will also benefit the wildlife population that forms an important part of recreation in Croatia. Although wildlife benefits can be difficult to quantify, one nearly inappropriate and lower bound measure is the amount spent by recreational hunters – which has averaged €29/ha (US$31.05/ha) in the past. To calculate the benefits we assume that greater forest protection will result in, at least, a 1 percent increase in NTFP and wildlife values, or €0.23/ha (US$0.25/ha) and €0.29/ha (US$0.31/ha), respectively. Forest area was multiplied by these factors and the resulting benefits per area are provided in Table 4.3. 30 Croitoru, L., 2007. Valuing the non-timber forest products in the Mediterranean region. Ecological Economics. 63: 768-775. Page 66 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Table 4.3 Non-timber Forest Product and Wildlife Benefits in Protected Areas Discounted annual flow of benefits ('000 US$) Year Area Forest Area (ha) * 0 1 2 3 4 5 NPV National/Nature Park NP Brijuni 489 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 NP Kornati 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 NP Krka 4,419 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 13.2 NP Mljet 2,591 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 7.7 NP Paklenica 5,637 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 16.9 NP Plitvice Lakes 25,161 14.1 13.4 12.8 12.2 11.6 11.1 75.2 NP Risnjak 6,181 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7 18.5 NP Sj. Velebit 9,247 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 27.7 PP Biokovo 10,534 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.6 31.5 PP Kopački rit 8,176 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 24.5 PP Lastovo 2,735 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 8.2 PP Lonjsko polje 35,335 19.8 18.9 18.0 17.1 16.3 15.5 105.7 PP Medvednica 15,140 8.5 8.1 7.7 7.3 7.0 6.7 45.3 PP Papuk 33,262 18.7 17.8 16.9 16.1 15.4 14.6 99.5 PP Telašćica 223 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 PP Učka 14,771 8.3 7.9 7.5 7.2 6.8 6.5 44.2 PP Velebit 115,782 65.0 61.9 58.9 56.1 53.5 50.9 346.3 PP Vransko jezero 654 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.0 PP Žumberak SG 26,685 15.0 14.3 13.6 12.9 12.3 11.7 79.8 - - - - - - Central Croatia - - - - - - Bjelovarsko-bilogorska 108,540 60.9 58.0 55.2 52.6 50.1 47.7 324.6 Karlovacka 226,478 127.1 121.0 115.3 109.8 104.6 99.6 677.3 Koprivnicko-križevacka 63,903 35.9 34.2 32.5 31.0 29.5 28.1 191.1 Krapinsko-zagorska 46,689 26.2 25.0 23.8 22.6 21.6 20.5 139.6 Medimurska 13,857 7.8 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.4 6.1 41.4 Sisacko-moslavacka 204,023 114.5 109.0 103.8 98.9 94.2 89.7 610.2 Varaždinska 46,955 26.3 25.1 23.9 22.8 21.7 20.6 140.4 Zagrebacka 96,294 54.0 51.5 49.0 46.7 44.5 42.3 288.0 Grad Zagreb 12,999 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 17.4 - - - - - - Littoral (Adriatic coast) - - - - - - Dubrovacko-neretvanska 71,879 40.3 38.4 36.6 34.8 33.2 31.6 215.0 Istarska 147,519 82.8 78.8 75.1 71.5 68.1 64.9 441.2 Licko-senjska 234,679 131.7 125.4 119.4 113.8 108.3 103.2 701.8 Primorsko-goranska 251,391 141.1 134.4 128.0 121.9 116.1 110.5 751.8 Splitsko-dalmatinska 212,746 119.4 113.7 108.3 103.1 98.2 93.5 636.3 Šibensko-kninska 89,317 50.1 47.7 45.5 43.3 41.2 39.3 267.1 Zadarska 112,845 63.3 60.3 57.4 54.7 52.1 49.6 337.5 - - - - - - Slavonia - - - - - - Brodsko-posavska 72,748 40.8 38.9 37.0 35.3 33.6 32.0 217.6 Osjecko-baranjska 100,992 56.7 54.0 51.4 49.0 46.6 44.4 302.0 Požeško-slavonska 79,187 44.4 42.3 40.3 38.4 36.6 34.8 236.8 Viroviticko-podravska 64,325 36.1 34.4 32.7 31.2 29.7 28.3 192.4 Vukovarsko-srijemska 73,424 41.2 39.2 37.4 35.6 33.9 32.3 219.6 Total 2,647,861 1,481.8 1,411.3 1,344.1 1,280.1 1,219.1 1,161.1 7,897.4 Notes: Discount rate: 5%; NP – National Park; PP – Nature Park Page 67 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) * Forest cover in Counties does not include forest cover in the park. Shaded parks have areas in multiple Counties, thus forest cover is proportioned to the area of the park within the County. Data source: Agency for Environment Protection - Corine Land Cover (2006). 108. Marine Protected Areas. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Croatia are host to a rich diversity of marine life, with more than 750 species of marine flora and fauna and 4 species of sea grass – some now extinct in other parts of the Mediterranean. This rich diversity provides valuable productive, cultural and regulatory ecosystem services such as the production of food resources, support for recreational activities, climate regulation, mitigation of natural hazards (coastal erosion) and waste processing. Recent studies suggest that the total economic value of these functions is on the order of €389 million/year (US$424 million) – with the value of food production in the range of €23/ha/year (US$25.06/ha).31 Many of Croatia’s MPAs are also home to endangered species of sea grasses – such as Posidonia oceanica. P. oceanica are identified as a priority habitat for conservation under the EU Habitats Directive (Dir 92/43/CEE).32 Conservation measures in these areas focus on protection from physical damage through the installation of artificial reefs and see-grass friendly moorings for boats, which reduce the erosive pressure of trawling and free anchoring in shallow meadows. Taking into consideration that approximately 20 percent of the marine protected area in Kornati National Park is home to P. oceanica, this would represent an annual benefit of €78,900/year (US$86,000/year) from food production alone.33 While the other benefits of climate regulation, coastal erosion, and waste processing are recognized, we take this value as a conservative measure of total benefit. 109. Other Benefits. In addition to the main benefits mentioned above, the project had a positive impact on the following: a. Biodiversity Inventorying. The project supported specific biodiversity inventorying efforts that formed an integrated knowledge system across the whole Croatian Territory. Information generated under this component fostered more informed decision-making for Ecological Network Impact Assessments (ENIA), development decisions and provided support for development of NPIS. While the costs of these activities are included in the economic analysis, the benefits are not quantified. b. Ecological Network Capacity Building. Capacity building and training are an integral part of this project to develop skills and promote exchange and collaboration across agencies. Targeted support was provided to the Ministry of Environment and Energy, Nature Protection Directorate and Nature Protection Inspection Directorate, the State Institute for Nature Protection, county institutions, and protected area staff at national and county levels. The focus was on strengthening management capacity, sustainable finance, monitoring and evaluation, and interpretation. One important goal of the training is in building skill sets for developing proposals for ESIF and other grant funds, one of the primary sources of future funding for nature protection activities. Successful applications result in 31 Mangos, A., J-P. Bassino, D. Sauzade, 2010. The Economic Value of Sustainable Benefits from the Mediterranean Marine Ecosystems: Study report, Blue Plan: Regional Activity Centre, UNDP, Sophia. 32 The undersea area of Kornati National Park and Telascica Nature Park is characterized by rich sea-bottom (benthic) biocenoses. The most frequent are the well-developed and widespread sea-flowering plant species Posidonia oceanica. P. oceanica’s significance is reflected in many aspects: preservation of biodiversity (meadows of posidonia are biologically the richest community in the Mediterranean Sea), oxygen production, prevention of sea-bottom and coastal erosion, CO2 sequestration and others. Posidonia meadows have, on account of their significance, been included in the EU Natura 2000 network. 33 The marine area of Kornati National Park is approximately 16,600 ha, and 20 percent would be 3,320 ha (personal communication with Kornati National Park Manager). Page 68 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) substantial financial resources that would be integral to the sustainable financing of nature protection activities. The current ESIF application pipeline for nature protection investments totals over €213 million and this represents a substantial benefit that accrues under greater training in project development. For the purposes of this analysis only those ESIF funds that accrued to the parks and CPI is counted – and as of project closing – April 30, 2017 (i.e. EUR 109 million). The economic analysis was performed with and without ESIF, assuming that successful applications would become available in the sixth year – or after project completion. c. Fire Management. Forest fires damage landscape values, wood production, hunting, and recreation and affect other ecological services such as watershed protection and erosion control mentioned above. A previous World Bank reforestation project estimated the loss of these values due to fire, well in excess of US$2,000/ha/year. The current project supported first responders in coastal parks with fire prevention equipment, however the benefits are not included in the economic analysis. d. Improved Livelihoods. Protected areas provide important ecological services to communities and greater conservation of these resources serves to ensure a stable source of income. Under the project, several types of programs were piloted to create local economic opportunities that are consistent with nearby protected area management objectives. These included incentive payments for conservation-oriented land use. Beneficiaries take part in programs or start business initiatives and this resulted in an improvement in welfare. The aim of this program is to support economic activities (e.g., farming) whilst maintaining or restoring the species and habitats present in a favorable conservation status. The benefits of these programs are substantial however not directly included in the economic analysis. e. Health Benefits. It is well known that there are substantial health benefits from recreational hiking, walking and outdoor activities in general – in the form of avoided health costs in the future. Although the quantification of these benefits is quite difficult to ascertain, it is clear that the development of more trails and interpretive paths within the parks fosters this healthy lifestyle. However, health benefits are not included in the economic analysis. f. Education and Public Awareness. The project, and the entirety of Component 3, supported a variety of education and awareness initiatives aimed to increase knowledge, participation and education on protected areas and promote a more inclusive role of communities in managing local protected area resources. Information was integrated into the education system’s curriculum and a volunteer program was initiated with the nature protection institutions. Although the benefits of such outreach activities are clear, these benefits are not quantified here. Ecological Network Investment Costs 110. Protected Area and Natura 2000 Site-Driven Investments. The project supported priority investments which help implement Action Plans for National Parks and Nature Parks and County-level Public Institutions responsible for Nature Protection to promote a clearer public understanding of the role and importance of the ecological network and help maintain “favorable ecological status” of targeted Special Protected Areas (SPAs) for birds, and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for specific Habitats of Page 69 of 104 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) European importance. Hands-on support provided throughout the investment processing cycle helped public institutions develop in parallel, a pipeline of next stage investments for future EU ESIF. Examples of investments include refurbishment of cultural buildings into multi-purpose visitor centers; educational walking and bicycle trails, special infrastructure to protect fragile ecosystems and visitor services such as parking, toilets, and trash receptacles to reduce impacts to habitats. Support was provided for fire prevention equipment to parks in their roles as first responders and as public educators - focusing on the most vulnerable coastal and island protected areas. 111. Protected Area-driven investment proposals at the time of Appraisal followed a two-stage, multi- criteria screening process to prepare a short-list of investments that would be included in the loan. Park and County area managers submitted project proposals to the World Bank Project Preparation Unit and were evaluated according to the following first-stage criteria: a. Consistency with the goals of the project, justification, cost effectiveness, financial and organizational sustainability (25%). Project proposal fits with the development objectives of the project; is a well- defined investment that fully justifies its need and describes how this investment will benefit the receiving nature protection organization or unit; significantly enhances financial and organizational self-sustainability of the receiving organization or unit; and is of appropriate size for the intended project as benchmarked against other projects in terms of volume (e.g. Structural Funds pipeline); b. Contribution to socio-economic and local development in the park areas and protected areas (25%). Project proposal that clearly has a realistically achievable broader socio-economic benefit or contribution to the local developmental agenda and local community; c. Correspondence with the management plan or annual plan (20%). Project proposal that fits into a developed management plan or a specific strategy of the receiving nature protection organization or unit; d. Contribution to the development of public institutions of smaller capacities (15%). Project proposal that comes from a smaller, less known, decentralized, and potentially marginalized nature protection organization or unit; this is to counter any potential bias towards mainstream organizations or related projects; e. Direct contribution to biodiversity protection (15%). Project proposal that directly enhances or preserves biodiversity. 112. A second screen was also performed using a checklist used for Structural Fund applications: 1) measuring the applicant’s competence and capability to implement the project, 2) that the project falls within the scope of the Birds and Habitats Directives concerning the conservation status of habitats and species of European and/or national interest, and 3) the overall readiness of the project in terms approvals, plans and budgets. 113. Over 100 projects were received following several preparation workshops and evaluated according to the screening criteria above. This produced a short-list of 37 investments totaling over €9.8 million, with all 37 of the projects passing the screening criteria. These projects were then considered in the economic analysis. The final list of projects included at the end of this Annex. 114. Ecological Network Data Systems. The project supported biological inventorying focusing on a prioritized and systematic field work program to increase Croatia’s readiness to present and defend its Natura 2000 network at EU Bio-geographic Seminars. Outputs developed distribution maps for species 70 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) and detailed habitat map for Croatia, and created national factsheets to help increase the efficiency of fieldwork. The program helped to strengthen the Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature (CAEN) (former State Institute of Nature Protection’s (SINP)) capacity to continue to conduct this work into the future and it will help develop proposals for ongoing support under the future Structural Funds. Specific investments include field surveys and digitization and conversion of research and field data into electronic formats. Actions under this component also supported consulting services to help integrate data systems that help Croatia in meeting the requirements of the EU INSPIRE Directive (NPIS, NSDI). For the purposes of the economic analysis component costs are divided equally among the parks and Counties and presented in Table 4.4. 115. Ecological Network Capacity Building. The project also supported a variety of needs to help build capacity for better cohesion and integration of the protected areas system; help attract additional resources and improve financial sustainability of investments in protected areas; help improve public awareness, involvement, and education on the need for and purpose of protected areas; and better integrate the public and local community in the management of the ecological network. It also introduced volunteers across the nature protection institutions. For the purposes of the economic analysis component costs are divided equally among the parks and Counties and presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Project Component Costs Ecological Ecological Protected Area- Network Network Driven Investments Data Systems Capacity Bldg Area (US$) (US$) (US$) NP Brijuni 471,553 147,822 145,897 NP Kornati 1,278,979 147,822 145,897 NP Krka 885,010 147,822 145,897 NP Mljet 322,753 147,822 145,897 NP Paklenica 149,214 147,822 145,897 NP Plitvice Lakes - - - NP Risnjak 446,346 147,822 145,897 NP Sj. Velebit 642,142 147,822 145,897 PP Biokovo 400,661 147,822 145,897 PP Kopački rit 641,526 147,822 145,897 PP Lastovo 94,961 147,822 145,897 PP Lonjsko polje 342,632 147,822 145,897 PP Medvednica 292,848 147,822 145,897 PP Papuk 376,602 147,822 145,897 PP Telašćica 181,689 147,822 145,897 PP Učka 92,612 147,822 145,897 PP Velebit 350,923 147,822 145,897 PP Vransko jezero 297,082 147,822 145,897 PP Žumberak SG 177,288 147,822 145,897 Central Croatia Bjelovarsko-bilogorska 97,417 147,822 145,897 Karlovacka 256,665 147,822 145,897 Koprivnicko-križevacka - - - Krapinsko-zagorska 235,343 147,822 145,897 Medimurska 270,189 147,822 145,897 Sisacko-moslavacka 549,922 147,822 145,897 71 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Ecological Ecological Protected Area- Network Network Driven Investments Data Systems Capacity Bldg Area (US$) (US$) (US$) Varaždinska 137,260 147,822 145,897 Zagrebacka - - - Grad Zagreb - - - Littoral (Adriatic coast) Dubrovacko-neretvanska 160,431 147,822 145,897 Istarska - - - Licko-senjska 215,679 147,822 145,897 Primorsko-goranska 244,449 147,822 145,897 Splitsko-dalmatinska 223,091 147,822 145,897 Šibensko-kninska 143,559 147,822 145,897 Zadarska 65,009 147,822 145,897 Slavonia Brodsko-posavska 108,656 147,822 145,897 Osjecko-baranjska 114,925 147,822 145,897 Požeško-slavonska - - - Viroviticko-podravska 322,857 147,822 145,897 Vukovarsko-srijemska 137,292 147,822 145,897 National Parks Nature Parks 4,195,998 1,034,755 1,021,279 Counties 3,248,825 1,626,043 1,604,866 Total 3,282,743 2,365,154 2,334,351 Notes: NP – National Park; PP – Nature Park; "-" no investment Results 116. All of the above benefits and costs were aggregated with several simulations run to calculate the net present value (NPV) and economic rate of return (ERR) of each investment. Ultimately it was found that using the stated maximum WTP for each park or County resulted in individual project ERRs well in excess of 100 percent. While it is tempting to use the maximum WTP, this indicator should actually be viewed as the total potential revenue (consumer’s surplus) that could be captured. Alternatively, the WTP measure could be used as a proxy for adjusting entrance fees to a level that would help in financing any proposed investment. What this implies is that parks and Counties need not raise their entrance fees by the full potential WTP – rather only to the point that justifies the investment (i.e. an ‘optimal’ entrance fee that attains a given ERR). In this economic analysis we assume that National Parks devote 10 percent of their entrance fee revenues to investment, Nature Parks 70 percent, and zero for Counties as they currently do not charge any entrance fees. This results in entrance fees ranging from under one dollar to just over US$5/visit (Table 4.5). Table 4.5 below summarizes the current and proposed entrance fee structure.34 34Current entrance fee information was collected from individual park and County websites (although Counties do not currently charge any fee). Some parks offer a multitude of activities each with differentiated fees. For the purposes of the economic analysis, only the base entrance fee was used for comparison. 72 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Table 4.5 Current and Estimated Entrance Fee Schedule Current Current % of current entrance entrance Stated entrance fee for New New fee fee 1 WTP 2,3 investments entrance fee entrance fee Area (HRK/visit) (US$/visit) (US$/visit) (%) (US$/visit) (HRK/visit) NP Brijuni * 125.00 18.31 21.86 10 1.83 13.62 NP Kornati * 150.00 21.97 38.22 10 2.20 16.34 NP Krka * 30.00 4.39 20.65 10 0.44 3.27 NP Mljet * 100.00 14.65 20.65 10 1.46 10.90 NP Paklenica 40.00 5.86 12.25 10 0.59 4.36 NP Plitvice Lakes * 55.00 8.06 20.65 10 0.81 5.99 NP Risnjak * 45.00 6.59 10.25 10 0.66 4.90 NP Sj. Velebit 25.00 3.66 20.65 10 0.37 2.72 PP Biokovo * 50.00 7.32 6.52 70 5.13 38.14 PP Kopački rit * 10.00 1.46 6.52 70 1.03 7.63 PP Lastovo * 30.00 4.39 6.52 70 3.08 22.88 PP Lonjsko polje * 35.00 5.13 6.52 70 3.59 26.70 PP Medvednica * 30.00 4.39 6.52 70 3.08 22.88 PP Papuk * 25.00 3.66 6.52 70 2.56 19.07 PP Telašćica * 25.00 3.66 6.52 70 2.56 19.07 PP Učka * 0.00 0.00 6.52 70 0.00 0.00 PP Velebit * 45.00 6.59 6.52 70 4.61 34.32 PP Vransko jezero * 20.00 2.93 6.52 70 2.05 15.25 PP Žumberak SG * 40.00 5.86 6.52 70 4.10 30.51 Central Croatia Bjelovarsko-bilogorska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Karlovacka 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Koprivnicko-križevacka 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Krapinsko-zagorska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Medimurska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Sisacko-moslavacka 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Varaždinska 29.25 0 0.00 0.00 Zagrebacka 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Grad Zagreb 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Littoral (Adriatic coast) 0 0.00 0.00 Dubrovacko-neretvanska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Istarska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Licko-senjska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Primorsko-goranska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Splitsko-dalmatinska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Šibensko-kninska 11.96 0 0.00 0.00 Zadarska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Slavonia 0 0.00 0.00 Brodsko-posavska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Osjecko-baranjska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Požeško-slavonska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Viroviticko-podravska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 73 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Current Current % of current entrance entrance Stated entrance fee for New New fee fee 1 WTP 2,3 investments entrance fee entrance fee Area (HRK/visit) (US$/visit) (US$/visit) (%) (US$/visit) (HRK/visit) Vukovarsko-srijemska 20.60 0 0.00 0.00 Notes: NP – National Park; PP – Nature Park; * - Areas that have Structural Funds; 1 – Exchange rate: 1€ = 7.44 HRK; 2 – Stated WTP by foreigners; 3 – WTP for some areas calculated using the benefits transfer approach. 117. Table 4.6 below summarizes all discounted benefits and costs along with the economic rates of return at appraisal and at completion – with and without SF benefits. Over half of the benefits accrue under the WTP (which is dictated by revenues from entrance fees) and over 16 percent from NTFPs and wildlife. The ERR for Nature parks is lower than National parks since visitation is only about 12 percent of that in National parks. The ERR for Counties is quite large since the average NIP investment cost was relatively low and visitation rose dramatically – especially on the Adriatic Coast. The effect of Structural Funds is felt in year 6 and increases the ERR to over 70 percent in the National and Nature parks – since the bulk of SF applications are from those sites. Comparing the ERR before and after the project, the differences are pronounced mostly due to the conservative assumption on visitation growth at appraisal, however, actual (realized) visitation was much higher. This resulted in much higher ERRs in the National Parks and Counties. Nature Parks also experienced higher visitation, however, the absolute level is still low. Overall the project yielded a 41 percent ERR across the protected area system and from the 10-, 15- and 20-year rates of return these investments appear to be sustainable from a financial perspective. 74 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 75 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Table 4.6 Economic Rates of Return for Ecological Network Investments, Data Systems and Capacity Building (with and without Structural Fund benefits) Discounted costs (mil. US$) @ Discounted benefits (mil. US$) @ 5% discount rate At Appraisal At Completion 5% discount rate WTP Ecological Ecological for Water Marine Protected Area Network Network conservation Protection and Protected NTFPs/ Structural Total Driven Data Capacity ERR ERR ERR ERR Period/Area & preservation erosion control Areas Wildlife Funds 1 benefits Investments Systems 2 Bldg 2 wo/SFs w/SFs wo/SFs w/SFs 5-years National Parks 14.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 - 15.5 4.6 0.9 0.9 12% 12% 28% 28% Nature Parks 6.2 1.4 0.0 0.7 - 8.3 3.6 1.5 1.5 14% 14% 16% 16% Counties 0.0 12.0 0.0 5.9 - 17.9 3.8 2.2 2.1 23% 23% 86% 86% Total 20.9 13.6 0.4 6.7 - 41.7 12.0 4.6 4.5 16% 16% 41% 41% Benefit share 50.2 32.7 0.9 16.2 10-years National Parks 32.3 0.5 0.7 0.2 46.4 80.1 5.6 - - 31% 48% 47% 77% Nature Parks 12.1 2.4 0.0 1.2 62.7 78.5 4.7 - - 31% 46% 35% 77% Counties 0.0 21.4 0.0 10.6 0.0 32.0 4.9 - - 39% 39% 95% 95% Total 44.5 24.3 0.7 12.0 109.1 190.6 15.2 - - 33% 45% 56% 80% Benefit share 23.3 12.8 0.4 6.3 57.2 15-years National Parks 53.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 - 55.5 6.4 - - 33% 49% 49% 77% Nature Parks 17.7 3.3 0.0 1.6 - 22.6 5.5 - - 33% 47% 37% 77% Counties 0.0 28.8 0.0 14.2 - 43.0 5.8 - - 40% 40% 95% 95% Total 71.4 32.7 0.9 16.1 - 121.1 17.7 - - 35% 46% 57% 80% Benefit share 58.9 27.0 0.8 13.3 20-years National Parks 79.3 0.8 1.1 0.4 - 81.6 7.1 - - 33% 49% 49% 77% Nature Parks 23.0 3.9 0.0 1.9 - 28.9 6.2 - - 34% 47% 38% 77% Counties 0.0 34.5 0.0 17.1 - 51.6 6.4 - - 40% 41% 95% 95% Total 102.3 39.2 1.1 19.4 - 162.1 19.7 - - 36% 46% 57% 80% 76 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Benefit share 63.1 24.2 0.7 12.0 Notes: 1 – ESIF funds included in this analysis only take into account those in parks and CPIs – and as of April 30, 2017. The actual ESIF pipeline is approximately EUR 213 million as of September 30, 2017. Note that ESIF funds are a one-time benefit in the 6th year; 2 – Ecological Network data systems and capacity building occurs within the loan period of 6 years. 77 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) 118. Sensitivity Analysis. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the most important assumptions. Since entrance fees play a key role in defining the majority of benefits several further simulations are run with alternative fee structures and visitation rates. A 1 percent change in the entrance fee results in a 4 percent change in the ERR (up or down) in the 5-year ERR and about 3 percent in the 10-, 15- and 20-year ERRs. Most Counties do not charge an entrance fee at this time, however, even if a nominal entrance fee of 1 HRK/visit (US$0.15/visit) is charged, the project’s ERR is in excess of 100 percent for the 5-, 10-, 15- and 20-year ERRs. 119. Distribution of Benefits. The distribution of benefits is closely tied to the category of benefits – but the majority of benefits remained within Croatia. Ecological Network Investments yielded substantial public benefits from greater conservation and preservation efforts and private benefits were generated through contracts, employment (“green jobs”) and income. The Ecological Network Data Systems and Capacity Building components also provided both public and private benefits since most of the inventorying and training activities were in the public sector, however many other stakeholders also participated and benefitted from the capacity building. 120. Alternatives. The set of Ecological Network Investments was an evolving list of park- and County- specific works that went through several rounds of screening according to technical criteria – including the mock SF filter described above. Several large proposals, in excess of €1 million, were not considered and were to be included in the future SF pipeline. Originally fire protection and demining activities were included, however were later dropped since they were to be integrated into other State budget initiatives or projects (and SF applications). Another alternative was for the project to focus only on one region such as marine areas – however given the level of institutional preparedness for aligning nature protection to the Birds and Habitats Directives for EU Accession, a much more comprehensive effort was warranted. Under a ‘no project’ alternative, Croatia would have still have undertaken activities under the loan, however given the economic crisis and consequent budget constraints, it was likely that Nature Protection and other initiatives directed towards the management of Natura 2000 network would not have been fully ready to take on all of the obligations after Croatia’s Accession. This would have resulted in a much more delayed SF pipeline and less capacity to absorb those funds. 121. Risks. The main project risk for benefit realization was that visitation numbers were to stagnate. However, as the economic analysis has shown visitation growth over the loan period rose resulting in higher ERRs than originally forecasted. It is anticipated that the popularity of Croatia’s sites will continue to draw international interest. In Croatia 89 percent of tourist revenues are from international tourism which has been relatively stable over the past ten years. Also, as shown from the sensitivity analysis fluctuations in visitation can have fairly significant effects on benefit realization, but the sustainable commitments to nature protection appear to be long-lived, so the overall risk to the sustainability of the Project is rated as low. 78 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Table 4.7 Infrastructure investments financed from the EU Natura 2000 Integration Project – NIP No Institution Project Name Project Purpose and Description The landmark building in the most visited island of the Brijuni archipelago was in a dire need of reconstruction. It is now a first point for tourists as the visitor’s center has the most advanced 1 NP "Brijuni" Rehabilitation of the Boat House interpretation informing visitors about the unique natural and cultural values of protected areas in the park; and education on the protection of those areas, through the example of sustainable development. The project’s purpose was to improve nature conservation efforts through: improving knowledge about natural and cultural values of the marine park area, recognizing trends of these values and taking decisions and actions to protect these values; improving Kornati NP visitor management affairs; improving public knowledge and sensibility related to natural 2 Visitor center Vrulje values; and improving the partnership with local community and different organizations (NGOs, schools, universities etc.). The project reconstructed and renovated the existing building in Vrulje which represents the first visitor center in Kornati National Park. In addition to serving as a visitor and education center during summer season it also serves as a scientific NP "Kornati" research station mainly out of summer season. This is a unique, joint center for the two marine parks - Kornati NP and Vransko jezero Nature Park aimed at increasing visitor outreach and management affairs and improving the partnership and communication between the two parks. The project reconstructed and 3 Joint Presentation Centre, PP "Vransko jezero" and NP "Kornati" renovated the existing building in the town of Betina to serve as a first point for tourists to learn about the natural values of the two parks The visitor center will meet the following functions: visitor center mainly during summer season and an educational center mainly out of summer season. In terms of visitation, NP Krka is the second highest with about 1 million visitors annually. With its seven waterfalls, most visitors go to the famous Skradinski buk waterfall however the 4 NP "Krka" Walking trail "Ozidana pecina" cave - Stinice – Roski slap carrying capacity has become problematic. In order to attract and spread visitors to the other less visited waterfalls’ locations, the project financed a 8km long walking trail to the location of the Roski waterfall - famous for its old water mills and rural architecture. The purpose of the project is to maintain or restore traditional agriculture and grasslands maintenance and increase the local population’s and visitor’s knowledge about species and habitats on the island of Mljet. The project built a stone bridge creating a circuit around the 5 NP “Mljet” Bridge at the Veliki Most locality lake for the tourists and enabling the local population to access and cultivate. The bridge also improved fire protection response as it shortens the intervention time of firefighters in that area, and attracts visitors with its charm. It now creates conditions for setting a circular (round) learning trail around the Big lake. The project developed educational and interpretative programs and facilities for different age Classroom in nature and educational trail alongside the left side of the groups particularly children and young people to educate them on the importance of nature in 6 NP "Paklenica" creek of Velika Paklenica the park and Natura 2000 species and habitats with info boards adapted to their age and knowledge. The trail also serves as the main recreational site for local people. This investment was planned in the park’s Management Plan to educate and better regulate Reconstruction and adaptation of visitor center Kupari and reception 7 NP "Risnjak" visitation. The visitor center through new interpretation informs visitors of the major threats and Education Center in Razloge to conservation of habitats and species, and measures to reduce these threats. 79 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) No Institution Project Name Project Purpose and Description This project was one of the action plans of the park’s Management Plan. Its main purpose is implementation of preservation measures for high grassland biological diversity and cultural Establishment of basic infrastructure for park management (shepherd heritage as well as improved services for visitors – interpretation, education and first-hand 8 NP "Sjeverni Velebit" cottages) on Alan and Lubenovac experience of spending time in unspoiled nature. Additional purpose of the project is to increase the management capacity of the Public Institution through improved supervision of the area, improved conditions for scientific and expert research. The trail with interpretation services provides a new walking area in the park to acquaint visitors with natural and cultural values of the nature park but also to encourage nearby local 9 Educational trail around "Mir" lake communities to practice sustainable agriculture. The trail system also has improved fire protection access and response to the park’s forest area. NP "Telašćica" An additional interpretation and signaling system in the Nature Park “Telašćica was supported to raise visitor’s awareness on growing environmental protection needs, as well as to 10 Interpretation and signaling system (I&S) introduce natural and cultural values of the park through educational boards placed throughout the park area. This is a less visited park located in Eastern Slavonia, a lagging region of Croatia. The visitor center and trails built are seeing an increasing number of visitors as the new services are fulfilling the needs of visitors in nature friendly way (Natura 2000 and eco-tourism). Visitors 11 NP "Kopački Rit" Visitor center Mali Sakadaš can observe nature, explore, ride a bicycle and flow with a smaller or larger boat and not endanger habitats or species. Cultural and educational facilities are offered with the aim to promote natural values. The multimedia center represents a great partnership through three funding sources of the project, NP Biokovo and the Environment Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund. Located in the center of the town of Makarska, the multimedia center with its high-quality interpretation 12 PP "Biokovo" Multimedia Center and presentation services is the first point for tourists to learn about the natural values of the park. The center also serves as point of excellence for scientific community and researchers alike. The purpose of the project is to set up an info center and two information boards for the 13 PP Lastovsko otočje Improving park visibility through new visitor infrastructure marine nature park area in the most frequented spots and to inform visitors on the importance of its natural values and improve visibility of the protected area. The main purpose of the project is to increase knowledge of a typical visitor of the Park about Nature Park Medvednica and its role as a part of National Ecological Network and Natura 14 Info desk Bliznec 2000. Info kiosk serves as a guides’ shelter, for distribution of promotional materials, ticket sales, storing helmets for visitors, first aid, and provides information for visitors and passers-by PP "Medvednica" who use the hiking trail. Improved cave infrastructure with LED lighting provides better maintenance of favorable habitat status. Improved visitor signalization and the reconstructed hiking path near the cave 15 Veternica cave provides a better and safer orientation and visitor’s flows. A children playground, wooden tables and benches are also available to visitors. This nature park is less visited and located in Eastern Slavonia, a lagging region. It lacked any infrastructure for visitors so the project built a visitors’ center with interpretation services, a 16 PP "Papuk" Eco-point Jankovac gift shop and toilet facilities to improve visitation to the park and maintaining the designated natural habitats at a favorable conservation status. 80 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) No Institution Project Name Project Purpose and Description Education in Učka Nature Park represents one of the main ways of nature protection. It also promotes awareness of natural and cultural values and emphasizes the importance of preserving natural and cultural heritage as the basis for human existence and action. Supporting infrastructure for the educational park "The Eye of Ucka" Education in Učka Nature Park is oriented at all users of the park area (visitors, school children 17 PP “Učka” (infrastructure and services) of all ages, local people, small businesses within the park etc.) with the aim of providing information about the reasons for protection, about the local area's cultural and biological assets, about the need to preserve the natural landscape, and also about the problems regarding sustainable development of this area. The project reconstructed Premuzic trail that passes along important Natura 2000 sites. It Renovation and maintenance of Premužić trail and web and mobile reinforces and increases public knowledge and awareness of the importance of preserving the 18 PP "Velebit" application specific flora and fauna natural habitats, and the trail itself, which presents valuable cultural heritage as one of the oldest trails in protected areas of Croatia. The project purpose is to improve infrastructure in the Vransko Lake Nature Park and thus increase the Public Institution’s educational, promotional and visitor capacities in order to 19 PP "Vransko jezero" Wooden educational trail Crkvine raise public awareness, educate schoolchildren and other visitors and help to maintain high level of conservation and effective protection (research and monitoring) of the protected area (NATURA 2000 site). Improved visitation infrastructure through a visitor center at the entrance of Krapje location 20 PP "Lonjsko polje" Visitor Center Krapje that was previous lacking. The project also supported interpretation and educational services of park’s natural capital as there exists a famous wetland area – Ramsar site. The renovation and adaptation of two educational centers to make them able to receive a significantly higher number of school children, other visitors and local residents. The main aim of their education would be on the protection of Nature Park's natural values with an 21 PP "Žumberak i Samoborsko gorje" Educational - Visitor center Budinjak emphasis on the importance of the ecological network of protected areas and future areas of NATURA 2000. This work included providing enough room and equipment for creating new educational programs which involve exploring protected wild species and habitat types. To raise visitor capacity on fish pond Blatnica with purpose to inform, educate, and motivate 22 CPI of Bjelovar-Bilogora County Info-education point Blatnica the local community to participate in conservation measures of Natura 2000 site (e.g. ornitofauna (birds)) with sustainable activities. To raise visitor capacity on the protected landscape Gajna with purpose to inform, educate, and motivate local community participation in the conservation of Natura 2000 sites with sustainable activities. The local population benefits as the project supported preventive 23 CPI of Brod-Posavina County Info center ''Stan na Gajni'' with educational trail "The Arc"' construction works to prevent flooding of high-value grasslands for uninterrupted grazing and a safe area for livestock which proved to be highly relevant during major flooding that hit the area in 2014. Preservation and restoration of favorable conservation status of natural habitats and target species of birds in the Natura 2000 site in the Neretva Delta (wetland area – Ramsar site). A 24 CPI of Dubrovnik-Neretva County Birdwatching towers in Neretva Delta bird observatory was built for bird watchers and tourists. A video surveillance system was also set up and information boards with defined rules of conduct. The protection of the cave Vrlovka was ensured through the implementation of conservation measures of species (mainly bat colonies) by educating visitors. A visitors’ reception and 25 CPI of Karlovac County Vrlovka cave resting infrastructure area also supported the enabling conditions for more sustainable management. 81 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) No Institution Project Name Project Purpose and Description The educational and promotional center in Radoboj was established and which serves as a 26 CPI of Krapina-Zagorje County Educational Center in Radoboj central place for the promotion of natural values and NATURA 2000 sites of the County. One of the most famous olive groves and Natura 2000 site on the coast. A presentation/ dissemination/ education program in Lun’s center was supported. In addition, the old 27 CPI of Lika Senj County Lun visitor center amphitheater and water wells in the olive groves were renovated enabling the preservation of cultural heritage in Natura 2000 site and for its sustainable management. A more efficient way of educating visitors within nature protection system of Medjimurje County was established and provides benefits for the local communities and improved services 28 CPI of Međimurska County Partial adaptation of the Križovec visitor center with educational trail for visitors. In particular, it provides guidelines on feasible activities on nature and wildlife protection in the Mura-Drava regional park and Natura 2000 area. The project is aimed to draw attention and educate school children, visitors and strengthen 29 CPI of Osjek-Baranja County Educational trail and info tables in the significant landscape Erdut public awareness in the Osijek – Baranja county to the importance of Natura 2000 sites of Erdut Municipality and its conservational, ecological, historical and horticultural values. The project reconstructed the cave’s infrastructure to enhance the safety and security of 30 CPI of Primorsko-goranska County Adaptation of Lokvarka cave visitors and to protect, improve and monitor the cave as a NATURA 2000 site. The project’s purpose is to promote the whole Island of Murter as a protected area and Natura 31 CPI of Šibenik-Knin County Educational trail on the Island of Murter from Jezero to Tisno 2000 (SAC) site in Šibenik – Knin County and improve the safety, preservation and promotion of the site. The project supported and re-established the traditional way of farming and grassland maintenance, and increased the knowledge of visitors and locals about the importance of species and habitats in the Natura 2000 site as a high value grassland. Construction of the 32 CPI of Sisak-Moslavina County Reconstruction of the bridge over river Odra bridge on the site of old, demolished wooden bridge enabled connection of the left and right bank of the river Odra, allowing easy access to farmers (and livestock) by road between the villages Greda and Ljubljanica. The project supported raising public awareness and enforcing conservation guidelines for target features in this area. An educational trail also promotes the natural and cultural values 33 CPI of Split-Dalmatia County Educational Trail “Imotska jezera – Gaj” of the lakes in Imotski to both locals and visitors. The purpose was to raise awareness of the necessity for more efficient protection of unique natural values of the Natura 2000 site. The supported Info desk and educational trail around Trakoscan Lake (Trakoscan castle is a famous cultural heritage site in Croatia) is aimed to increase awareness and education of 34 CPI of Varaždin County Info-desk and educational trail Trakoscan visitors, users and local inhabitants on the needs and reasons for the protection of species and habitats around the Trakoscan Lake and its park-forest as a Natura 2000 site. The project purpose is to revive and provide information about the necessity of preserving natural biodiversity for this part of Virovitica-Podravina county through the rehabilitation of an old school building (summer residence of count Drašković). This includes programs to 35 CPI of Virovitica-Podravina County Info-Educational Center in Noskovacka Dubrava introduce children with natural values of this region, increase their knowledge about species of wild flora and fauna, and that will contribute to conservation this part of NEN (HR 2000577) and provide better behavior of all stakeholders (children, local habitats, visitors and other institution) for preservation and protection of nature. The project is to strengthen the capacity for monitoring the state of biodiversity and landscapes, and the protection, management and raising the educational significance of the 36 CPI of Vukovar Srijem County Virovi educational trail area (development and raising awareness of the wealth and importance of preserving ecosystems and to stimulate observation, comparison, characterization, collection of data and 82 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) No Institution Project Name Project Purpose and Description learn from a close range about the flora and fauna and the need to care about endangered species and habitats. The project supported construction of an educational trail in the Significant Landscape Virovi, 2,778 meters from the departure / arrival point and three characteristic points, and the educational trail of special Forest Reserve Lože, a distance of 2,786 meters. The project supported the presentation and education center in the Tower to raise awareness of Natura 2000 sites in the broader area of Zadar County. Special attention was given to the 37 CPI of Zadar County Novigrad info center submerged karst phenomena – from a geological, geomorphological to ecological and biological point of view. Setting up of park signs for tourists on integral intersections on Croatian highways and border 38 Parks of Croatia Touristic signs on Croatian highways crossings. The signs for “Parks of Croatia” represented a new, and more consistent, visual identity for the parks. 83 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS The following Project description was provided by the PIU at the end of the Project. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 122. Following successful completion of the Karst Ecosystem Conservation (KEC) Project, closed in December 2007, the Government of Croatia requested continued support from the World Bank for a follow-up loan to help expand and support Croatia’s preparations for EU integration in the Nature Protection Sector. The Bank proposed that a Project Preparation Advance (PPA) be paid to the Republic of Croatia and the EU Natura 2000 Integration Project (NIP) was prepared during the period from 2009 until 2011 (described in the Project Appraisal Document dated December 29, 2010). The NIP has been designed as a development project with a goal to: (i) help support Park and County Public Institutions (PI and CPI) to implement Natura 2000 objectives in investment programs; (ii) strengthen capacity for EU- compliant reporting and biodiversity monitoring; and (iii) introduce programs that involve a wide group of stakeholders in Natura 2000 network management. 123. On February 22, 2011 the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (WB) and the Republic of Croatia signed the Loan Agreement No. 8021-HR for the EU Natura 2000 Integration Project (NIP). The Loan covered 100% of project expenditures and the closing date was April 30, 2017 (initially April 30 2016 but was extended due to Project restructuring). Project Preparation 124. The Project’s preparation was financed through a Project Preparation Advance in the amount of USD 500,000, which greatly contributed to the readiness of major project activities for implementation at the time when Loan Agreement was signed. This included setting up the core Project Implementation Unit, provision of consultants’ services for preparing various studies (including a social study), detailed plans and analysis for investments, environmental impact assessment and delivery of workshops and trainings with PIs and CPIs. All these activities had a positive impact during the project start i.e. several civil works procurement procedures could be initiated and some selection processes for major consultancy activities. 125. During the PPA the core Project Team – the PIU – was also actively involved in designing the Project and in facilitating administrative and legal procedures during the project negotiations, signing of the Loan Agreement and its ratification. Project Components The Project consisted of activities divided into 3 components: 1. Ecological Network Investments (EUR 11.2 million) (US$12.2 million) 2. Ecological Network Data Systems (EUR 4.6 million) (US$5.0 million) 3. Ecological Network Capacity Building (EUR 4.6 million) (US$ 5.0 million) COMPONENT 1 - Ecological Network Investments 126. This component financed protected area and national ecological network site investments to help demonstrate and strengthen integration of Natura 2000 objectives. In total 37 investments (civil works) were realized and successfully put into use by the PIs and CPIs. If, in some cases, the infrastructure was 84 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) not put into use, for example due to needed investments in interior design and equipping the premises/facilities, further financing of facilities was ensured through EU structural funds or the funds from the Energy Efficiency and Environmental Protection Fund. The project, i.e. the PIU, supported these follow up activities by helping PIs and CPIs obtain these additional funds. It can be stated that NIP was extensively used to leverage more funds from these other new sources (other than the Loan or Ministry’s budget) which was often done with high success. The MEE also reported that due to these investments, a much better collaboration and understanding was established between the core stakeholders (PIs, CPIs, CAEN and some NGOs) in the nature protection sector. 127. To supplement the civil works investments for PIs and CPIs the NIP also provided goods for nature interpretation, most notably a highway signs for the Parks of Croatia. 128. Besides infrastructure investments, various priority equipment was provided for park rangers, CAEN, MEE, and fire protection equipment for three coastal protected areas. The equipment for park rangers included boats for supervision and monitoring purposes, and equipment for CAEN included monitoring equipment for birds and large carnivores. COMPONENT 2 - Ecological Network Data Systems 129. The second component focused on consulting services to help plan, prioritize, and organize the biological inventory as well as populate data systems to meet EU reporting requirements. In order to achieve these objectives, large scale field work was performed for the biological inventory and habitat mapping. All field data was followed by laboratory work and/or desk analysis aimed to structure the data and harmonize data systems with the EU INSPIRE Directive requirements. Apart from these two main activities a lot of effort was put into determining better quality of Natura 2000 borders and upgrading of the Nature Protection Information System (i.e. Inter-sectoral GIS Data exchange solution and web GIS portal). As a prequel to the large-scale field work, extensive research of existing literature or museum biological inventory data was conducted. 130. Besides consultant services, the procurement of necessary computer hardware and software upgrades for the Nature Protection Information System was also conducted. COMPONENT 3 - Ecological Network Capacity Building 131. Consultant services aimed to help promote inter-sectoral cooperation was the main focus of the third component. This included the development of agri-Environment measures for Natura 2000 sites (which was incorporated into the Rural Development Program), improving protected area boundary delineation and introducing a park volunteer program. The component also supported various training activities such as expert workshops, seminars and training programs for EU funds relevant for nature protection and tools to improve park management. In the latter phase of the project a public information campaign was also conducted. 132. All project management related activities and costs (PIU and other core consultants) and operating costs were also part of this component. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements 133. The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) which has primary responsibility for Nature Protection in Croatia, had overall responsibility for the Project. The Assistant Minister/State Secretary for 85 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Nature Protection held primary responsibility for the Loan on behalf of the MEE and helped with strategic guidance during project implementation. 134. For the purpose of direct implementation Project Implementation Unit (PIU) was established in the Nature Protection Directorate (NPD). The PIU was managed by the Loan Manager who was also the Assistant Minister for the NPD. A PIU hired under consultant contracts was established and located within office premises of the NPD. The project funded full time dedicated consultant staff to complement the work of existing government staff, namely to supervise project management, fiduciary requirements for financial management and procurement, and support project monitoring and evaluation, training and office management. 135. Other key institutions with implementation roles included among other, the Croatian Agency for Environment and Nature (formerly State Institute for Nature Protection - SINP), responsible for preparation of the proposal of Natura 2000 network, the staff of Croatia’s 19 protected areas and 20 county level nature protection institutions. 136. The NPD, as part of MEE, was engaged intensively in the implementation of project activities especially in the third project component where inter-sectoral cooperation was important. Almost all departments of the NPD were at some point active in NIP implementation and their contribution was crucial for some pre-activities that were prerequisite for all civil works activities. Moreover NPD`s involvement in the management of development of agri-environment measures was significant. 137. CAEN as an expert state agency was also actively engaged in the project as they were one of the direct beneficiaries of the project. They assigned expert staff to specific project activities and formed a Project Support Unit (PSU) inside of CAEN. The role of the PSU was to provide the PIU with expertise knowledge and information in planning, procurement and contract management of project activities. CAEN`s biggest contribution was in the 2nd NIP component as almost all activities were related to their domain of work. In other two components CAEN was also actively involved whenever their expertise was needed i.e. their employees were members of a working group responsible for development of agri- environment measures, the NIP expert training activities were mostly organized by CAEN, they collaborated in the protected areas border delineation activity and actively contributed to the creation of park volunteer program etc. 138. One of the biggest challenges was managing activities of the first NIP component as for each civil works the relevant PI or CPI had to be fully involved in the preparation of civil works and subsequently in the implementation of the works itself. MEE requested that the PIs and CPIs appoint contract managers from their institutions. These contract managers were responsible for proper performance of the works on site. They could always get support from the PIU as the PIU was still responsible for procurement, financial matters and monitoring or contract execution. These types of arrangements greatly increased collaboration between MEE and the PIs and CPIs. In addition the PIU engaged a civil engineer which was closely working with MEE and supported all PIs and CPIs in any phase of the civil works. This support also included advising the PIs and CPIs during project preparation, controlling the civil works documentation during the works and regular field/site visits. If there were some changes to the originally proposed protected-area driven investments enlisted in the PAD an Evaluation Committee was established to review and evaluate new/changed investment proposals with respect to the objectives of the Project, compliance with laws and regulations and general benefit from the investment with respect to the 86 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) estimated value of the investment in line with selection criteria stated in the PAD. 139. For the purpose of the overall Project supervision a Project Coordination Committee (PCC) was formed. PCC consisted of representatives from relevant Ministries and institutions. The PCC was responsible for providing supervision of project activities, inter-institutional coordination and assistance in resolving issues associated with project implementation. 140. For purposes of inter-sectoral activities two working groups were established agri-environment working group and the working group for PA border delineation and registration. Both working groups functioned efficiently and delivered satisfying results. 141. Although there were many changes in MEE management personnel during the NIP implementation due to state elections or due to other political reasons, as well as other institutional changes (e.g. transfer of NPD from Ministry of Culture to Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection (later Ministry of Environment and Energy), changes in internal organization of the MEE), the described structure proved to be sufficiently robust and sustainable and in fact it represented a stable environment for NIP implementation throughout the NIP life cycle. Project Results Below are the most important project results and shortly described: 142. COMPONENT 1 - Ecological Network Investments • During the project, in total 37 civil works projects were finished in all 7 National Parks (NP Krka, NP Brijuni, NP Risnjak, NP Paklenica, NP Sj. Velebit, NP Kornati and NP Mljet), all 11 Nature Parks (PP Lastovsko otočje, PP Učka, PP Medvednica - two projects, PP Telašćica - two projects, PP Lonjsko polje, PP Žumberak- Samoborsko gorje, PP Kopački rit, PP Papuk, PP Velebit and PP Vransko jezero) and 16 CPIs (Primorje - Gorski Kotar, Virovitica-Podravina, Međimurje, Krapina-Zagorje, Osijek-Baranja, Brod-Posavina, Varaždin, Zadar, Šibenik-Knin, Split-Dalmatia, Bjelovar-Bilogora, Karlovac, Lika-Senj, Dubrovnik-Neretva, Sisak- Moslavina and Vukovar-Srijem counties). The civil works projects were works on establishing new park infrastructure such as visitor or info centers, educational trails, adaptation of caves for visiting, interpretation or information boards and two bridges. • For all investments, appropriate Environment Management Plans (EMP) were developed by contracted consultants. For some sites EMPs were already completed in the PPA phase. • In 2017, tourist signs for some Croatian national parks and nature parks were installed on integral intersections of Croatian highways and border crossings. This was not done for all parks, but only for parks who had low budgets. • 8 coastal parks (NP Brijuni, PP Učka, NP Paklenica, PP Telaščica, PP Vransko jezero, NP Mljet, PP Lastovsko otočje and PP Biokovo) received light fire fighting vehicles in 2016. The light firefighting vehicles are equipped with portable firefighting pumps with accompanying water tanks. • During 2014 for the purposes of monitoring and for ranger service needs, three boats were bought for some marine parks (National Park Kornati, Nature Park Telašćica and Nature Park Lastovsko otočje). The boats have appropriate range and speed considering the areas the parks have to monitor and supervise. • New updated uniforms for park rangers were designed by hired consultants, however the work is still to be continued after the project as the new uniform design has to be applied to all park services. This will be done through MEE`s own projects. 87 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) • Interpretation equipment was ensured for Nature Park Velebit (mobile application for the interpretation of the Premužić trail) and complete interpretation arrangements were procured for Natura Park Biokovo (for their visitor center “Adrion Heart of Mountain”). • In later phases of the NIP, monitoring equipment for CAEN was supplied. The equipment is targeted at monitoring large carnivores (photo traps, GPS collar), birds (various types of large birds such as golden eagles, gulls, spoonbills and griffon vultures). Also some basic field equipment was supplied to cover needs of CAEN during their field work (equipment such as field cameras, camera photo lens, underwater housings, etc.). • In the beginning of the project, three vehicles were procured for MENP and CAEN and some information technology equipment. 143. COMPONENT 2 - Ecological Network Data Systems • Early in the project, in 2012, some urgently needed IT equipment was purchased for CAEN. The equipment (servers, server software, workstations and backup devices) was crucial for the efficient functioning of the Nature Protection Information System (NPIS). In 2015 some additional equipment was purchased. • For the purposes of identifying species and habitats for future inventory field work, an extensive research of existing data was conducted. Literature and other distributional data about concerned taxonomic groups in Croatia were gathered and georeferenced. Around 4,500 literature references were processed and more than 132,000 records from the literature references were processed and entered in tables compatible with CAEN Crofauna database. • The integrated NPIS web portal was developed and put into operation. The web portal has an internal and public module. The aim of the public portal is to provide open access to information on biodiversity, habitat mapping, protected areas, and species distribution, while the internal one provides access to all institutions to maintain and update their data and information sharing. • One of new activities that emerged after NIP started was an issue related to Natura 2000 borders. Namely the current scale of maps that contained the Natura border was too rough to determine whether specific land parcels on the borders of sites was inside of a Natura 2000 site or not. Therefore, detailing of Natura 2000 boundaries into a scale of 1:5000 was needed to enable consistency with other registries of the same or similar scale (i.e. digital cadastral maps and land parcel identification systems developed for the agriculture sector). The NIP financed the conversion of all Natura 2000 site borders to the appropriate scale. • Introduction of METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool) methodology in all nature and national parks for self-evaluation began at the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013. The self-evaluation is conducted yearly and NIP financed the Web application for METT as well as support to CAEN for filling and gathering data from parks. • One of the most important and financially largest NIP activity, was conducting of field research and laboratory processing of newly collected inventory data. The main objective of this activity was to gather new distributional data about concerned taxonomic groups in Croatia, according to the specified methodology determined by CAEN and in accordance with high expert standards. The results of the activity are new large data sets for a total of nine taxonomic groups across all Croatia. A total of 3,371 grid cell visits were undertaken and 152,730 observations were collected and entered in tables compatible with CAEN’s Crofauna database. Such large scale field work has never been conducted in Croatia before. • Development of 1:25,000 scale Habitat Map was the second largest NIP activity and equally important as the field research for inventory data. Spatial overviews of natural and semi-natural habitats’ distribution on the territory of Croatia was crucial data needed by nature protection sector in Croatia for planning and conducting conservation activities and monitoring the conservation status of wild species and habitats. 88 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) The first habitat map of Croatia (created in 2004) described the habitats in the entire territory of the Republic of Croatia at a scale of 1:100,000. Its minimum mapping unit was 9 hectares (ha), meaning that all habitat types whose surface at the moment of mapping was at least 9 ha are shown as separate surfaces. Therefore, the new habitat map for non-forest habitats made under this activity is in the cartographic scale of 1:25,000, with minimum mapping unit of only 1.56 ha and describing the habitats in higher detail, in order to be compatible to the habitat classification used in the EU Habitat Directive. The new habitat map contains 333,488 polygons and 1,980 punctual habitats which describe the small areas covered with particularly important or rare habitats covering small surfaces. 144. COMPONENT 3 - Ecological Network Capacity Building • The development of a proposal for agri-Environment measures for Natura 2000 sites was one of the longest NIP activities, lasting from 2012 to 2016. In terms of complexity this was one of the most challenging tasks to achieve. The work involved the cooperation of several other ministries and agencies as well as some NGOs. The main results were eleven measures related to nature protection prepared while six of them were incorporated in the Rural Development Operational Programme. The other proposed measures could also be incorporated in the Programme at a later time. The activity also increased the capacity of relevant stakeholders to access and utilize EU nature conservation/rural development funds, and raised awareness about the significance of agri-environment schemes for nature conservation. The project addressed all major target groups i.e. farmers, nature protection and agricultural administrations, employees from Park and County institutions for nature protection, and agricultural extension officers. • The improvement of protected area border delineation was completed in cooperation with the State Geodetic Administration (SGA). NIP focused on a pilot project for border delineation and registration of accurate PA borders for NP Papuk. The activity resulted in a final version of border representation, Special Geodetic Base for entering the legal regime in the cadastre, request for registration of the borders of the protected areas in cadastral records and a data model in GIS format. In early 2016, MEE submitted the request for registration of the borders to be processed in cadastral records and the registration ended later in 2016 with 98% of the PP Papuk legal regime recorded in 9,687 cadastral plots. After NIP, this activity will be used as a methodology for further registration of protected areas in the cadastral records. • In 2015 and 2016 the project introduced a park volunteer program in parks, provided skills and established a structure and platform (web site) for managing volunteers. A comprehensive training program for representatives from the parks and CAEN enabled to build capabilities, skills, knowledge and attitudes of employees of public institutions for developing volunteering programs in their institutions and managing volunteers was conducted. So far, more than 1,000 applications for volunteering were collected for all volunteering programs since the web site’s launch. • NIP was not directly involved in improving systems to track and diversify protected area finance, but rather provided support to the UNDP GEF project, “Strengthening the Institutional and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System” (PARCS). From finance-related tasks, PARCS developed or is still developing a common accounting and reporting with an IT solution, a market-based pricing strategy for national parks and nature parks together with a ticketing system, a web-shop as the integral part of the Parks of Croatia web portal and a system of tracking and diversifying protected area finance. • Under a Public Awareness Campaign during 2015 four TV clips were broadcasted. A brochure, “Parks of Croatia“ was printed and distributed with major daily newspapers across Croatia. A NIP documentary video was also produced and designs, prepress, technical specifications and procurement documentation for 23 types of souvenirs were prepared. 89 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) • Nature Interpretation and Communication Services were delivered through three years of the NIP. The activity was highly successful and it ended with 30 conceptual and final interpretation plans and designs of interpretation for PIs and CPIs. The visual identity for all parks and rangers was developed as well as a concept design for interactive applications "Parks of Croatia" and a web application “Create a Panel” for any future use of established visual design. • Training for the development and implementation of projects financed from EU funds was performed twice during NIP as the demand among nature protection sector for this topic was high. • According to training reports around 3,600 participants attended 91 trainings organized by NIP to date: 1,830 nature protection employees, 250 nature protection management staff, more than 503 state inspectors and border police staff, more than 250 European Ranger service professionals together with more than 1,000 farmers from the protected areas. 43 protected area staff were specifically trained on how to coordinate volunteer programs and manage volunteers. Project Impact 145. As the Borrower, we find that the Project has achieved all of its main objectives and some among them have been achieved much higher than initial expectations. The Project began with reasonable expectations; it was a project dealing with many stakeholders in a complex system and it touched many important topics of the nature protection system. 146. During the lifetime of the project, the infusion of NIP capital investments leveraged substantial funding to protected areas, financed mostly from the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF) and subsequently relevant regional or local self-government or the Ministry of Tourism. This funding was mainly utilized for the preparation of technical documentation for NIP and proposals for future EU-funded infrastructure investments as well as for implementation of the interior interpretation designs delivered from NIP Nature Interpretation contract. Up to now more than EUR 4 million was invested from EPEEF directly connected to NIP investment. Also with NIP facilitation PI’s were able to get almost EUR 4 million from EPEEF to procure electric vehicles, vessels and other transport equipment and vehicles (bicycles, trains, trolleys etc.) with reduced CO2 emissions. 147. In the future, under the EU 2014-2020 Operational Programme Competitiveness and Cohesion (OPCC), nature protection will be financed under two investment priorities for a total of approximately EUR 213 million. Many new projects that are already approved or are being prepared for EU financing could not be realized without NIP activities. 148. Almost all PIs and CPIs have prepared projects for financing from upcoming EU funds. We believe the experience gained through NIP investments and through training organized under NIP all PIs and CPIs will be able to successfully realize their investments. Concerning CAEN and MEE several large EU projects are also in preparation. In addition to the mentioned new projects it should also be mentioned that the developed agri-environment measures have provided a substantial amount of funds through the Rural Development Operational Programme. 149. Overall NIP has opened up new opportunities for financing, provided many tools, equipment, research data and infrastructure for future use for all stakeholders in the nature protection sector. 150. In the end we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the World Bank, especially to the WB team and team leaders working with us on this Project. Without their support, professionalism, 90 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) persistence, understanding and sometimes much needed flexibility, the successful implementation of this Project would have not been possible. 91 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 6. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND ESIF PIPELINE IN NATIONAL AND NATURE PARKS By each NP Krka Plitvička jezera Brijuni Sj. Velebit Risnjak Mljet Paklenica Kornati OPEX 80,789,102 192,698,718 40,735,287 5,501,081 3,859,852 10,591,950 6,126,174 6,246,180 CAPEX 19,473,732 14,408,709 2,787,065 12,637,568 3,528,065 8,216,167 8,453,432 221,046 2016 TOTAL 100,262,834 207,107,427 43,522,352 18,138,649 7,387,917 18,808,117 14,579,606 6,467,226 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 97% 112% 30% 954% 657% 223% 169% 30% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 59,248,269 178,582,877 39,404,395 3,265,880 3,827,934 12,202,384 5,700,817 6,928,905 CAPEX 20,115,369 13,136,590 9,213,014 1,324,287 537,381 3,688,707 5,007,552 741,547 2015 TOTAL 79,363,638 191,719,467 48,617,409 4,590,167 4,365,315 15,891,091 10,708,369 7,670,452 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 294% 102% 736% 503% 54% 2510% 333% 87% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 49,119,839 163,469,951 43,642,279 2,476,824 4,064,582 12,904,362 6,255,707 6,256,502 CAPEX 6,835,531 19,672,794 1,252,245 263,027 992,281 146,958 1,504,344 847,934 2014 TOTAL 55,955,370 183,142,745 44,894,524 2,739,851 5,056,863 13,051,320 7,760,051 7,104,436 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 145% 153% 59% 236% 426% 26% 74% 424% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 39,067,098 164,082,676 43,505,193 2,587,067 4,234,408 8,607,030 5,855,995 6,036,882 CAPEX 4,708,931 11,678,546 2,120,059 111,660 232,894 571,769 367,345 200,172 TOTAL 43,776,029 175,761,222 45,625,252 2,698,727 4,467,302 9,178,799 6,223,340 6,237,054 2013 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 34% 91% 23% 23% 297% 29% 10% 175% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 44,316,506 163,731,956 45,114,179 2,857,747 4,260,839 8,509,487 5,527,689 8,483,760 CAPEX 13,667,307 15,386,664 9,130,672 143,558 78,420 1,948,937 3,822,504 114,138 2012 TOTAL 57,983,813 179,118,620 54,244,851 3,001,305 4,339,259 10,458,424 9,350,193 8,597,898 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 154% 120% 246% 30% 23% 54% 380% 11% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 42,654,355 154,623,398 41,204,565 2,800,903 4,448,447 8,408,772 6,005,608 7,772,361 CAPEX 8,885,708 14,050,982 3,714,152 486,508 346,247 3,587,710 1,005,835 1,035,362 2011 TOTAL 51,540,063 168,674,380 44,918,717 3,287,411 4,794,694 11,996,482 7,011,443 8,807,723 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 127% 109% 211% 221% 94% 295% 50% 142% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 37,692,823 140,475,353 40,616,901 2,746,910 4,343,604 8,040,226 5,880,822 5,890,479 CAPEX 7,018,821 12,871,037 1,756,762 219,800 367,452 1,217,094 2,029,504 728,374 2010 TOTAL 44,711,644 153,346,390 42,373,663 2,966,710 4,711,056 9,257,320 7,910,326 6,618,853 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) TOTAL ratio vs 2010 93 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) By each PP Medvednica Samobor - Žumberak Lonjsko polje Papuk Kopački Rit Učka Velebit Telašćica Lastovsko otočje Vransko jezero Biokovo OPEX 2,965,179 2,119,001 3,374,138 2,830,688 2,788,604 2,015,260 2,887,887 6,318,828 1,720,013 3,493,375 2,900,977 CAPEX 217,126 412,102 329,349 981,046 3,588,177 843,454 682,550 1,304,743 304,528 661,572 1,318,893 2016 TOTAL 3,182,305 2,531,103 3,703,487 3,811,734 6,376,781 2,858,714 3,570,437 7,623,571 2,024,541 4,154,947 4,219,870 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 40% 62% 22% 45% 66% 439% 2375% 143% 182% 54% 260% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 3,801,786 1,984,675 3,012,248 2,805,161 5,465,057 1,896,558 2,525,140 6,308,803 1,570,007 2,931,077 2,478,040 CAPEX 539,290 667,213 1,521,741 2,164,104 5,425,252 192,066 28,733 913,864 167,178 1,220,394 506,348 2015 TOTAL 4,341,076 2,651,888 4,533,989 4,969,265 10,890,309 2,088,624 2,553,873 7,222,667 1,737,185 4,151,471 2,984,388 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 308% 255% 753% 236% 118% 124% 183% 128% 156% 701% 164% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 2,710,552 2,040,233 2,678,160 2,618,266 4,457,938 2,016,329 2,246,262 5,936,165 1,618,516 2,421,846 2,758,930 CAPEX 175,337 261,813 202,138 916,030 4,612,301 154,401 15,708 714,180 107,000 174,011 308,955 2014 TOTAL 2,885,889 2,302,046 2,880,298 3,534,296 9,070,239 2,170,730 2,261,970 6,650,345 1,725,516 2,595,857 3,067,885 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 72% 138% 491% 244% 644% 210% 224% 69% 176% 47% 89% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 2,780,011 2,239,944 2,780,980 2,073,517 4,071,983 1,995,437 2,265,386 6,206,861 1,983,425 2,134,789 2,257,526 CAPEX 244,900 189,309 41,172 376,065 715,814 73,608 6,998 1,030,612 60,940 374,106 348,954 2013 TOTAL 3,024,911 2,429,253 2,822,152 2,449,582 4,787,797 2,069,045 2,272,384 7,237,473 2,044,365 2,508,895 2,606,480 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 48% 54% 9% 271% 132% 21% 68% 156% 181% 76% 146% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 3,319,067 2,650,213 3,014,808 1,945,803 3,921,187 2,153,464 2,601,235 5,826,341 2,026,372 2,235,248 2,636,255 CAPEX 515,495 350,830 475,541 139,013 542,326 344,395 10,286 662,570 33,624 490,921 239,153 2012 TOTAL 3,834,562 3,001,043 3,490,349 2,084,816 4,463,513 2,497,859 2,611,521 6,488,911 2,059,996 2,726,169 2,875,408 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 83% 32% 257% 33% 37% 232% 25% 67% 9% 81% 78% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 94 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) By each PP Medvednica Samobor - Žumberak Lonjsko polje Papuk Kopački Rit Učka Velebit Telašćica Lastovsko otočje Vransko jezero Biokovo OPEX 2,901,044 3,006,814 3,384,033 1,861,132 3,903,429 2,252,719 2,634,630 5,353,486 2,432,530 2,222,142 2,794,770 CAPEX 620,148 1,088,171 184,757 427,041 1,478,613 148,357 40,485 992,004 366,683 604,507 305,009 2011 TOTAL 3,521,192 4,094,985 3,568,790 2,288,173 5,382,042 2,401,076 2,675,115 6,345,490 2,799,213 2,826,649 3,099,779 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 113% 140% 66% 99% 172% 59% 115% 147% 301% 106% 56% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 OPEX 2,904,604 2,765,278 2,893,179 1,855,881 3,867,332 2,418,167 2,709,025 4,947,426 1,785,189 2,136,174 2,524,373 CAPEX 549,525 777,666 280,034 433,036 860,279 250,107 35,149 674,438 121,670 570,469 543,521 2010 TOTAL 3,454,129 3,542,944 3,173,213 2,288,917 4,727,611 2,668,274 2,744,174 5,621,864 1,906,859 2,706,643 3,067,894 OPEX ratio CAPEX ratio 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% TOTAL ratio vs 2010 ESIF PIPELINE IN NATIONAL AND NATURE PARKS Value of Total Value of non- Specific Total project non- project refundable Status Status Br. objectives Project Proposal Name Beneficiary Value refundable Value EU funds 30.09.2017 30.04.2017 (SO) HRK EU funds EUR (HRK) (EUR) TA, OP Preparation of the "Mapping of Completed Completed 1. Environment marine habitats under national CAEN 412,500 kn 54,276 € 350,625 kn 46,135 € project project 2007-2013 jurisdiction" project TA, OP Preparation of the "Establishment Completed Completed 2. Environment of management framework for CAEN 617,844 kn 81,295 € 525,167 kn 0€ project project 2007-2013 Natura 2000 network" Preparation of the "Establishment TA, OP and implementation of monitoring Completed Completed 3. Environment in accordance with the CAEN 416,425 kn 54,793 € 353,961 kn 0€ project project 2007-2013 obligations of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive)" 95 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Value of Total Value of non- Specific Total project non- project refundable Status Status Br. objectives Project Proposal Name Beneficiary Value refundable Value EU funds 30.09.2017 30.04.2017 (SO) HRK EU funds EUR (HRK) (EUR) Technical Assistance for the preparation of projects under programming period 2014 -2020” project worth HRK 1.8 million TA, OP was successfully completed. Completed Completed 4. Environment MEE 1,880,000 kn 247,368 € 1,598,000 kn 210,263 € Project aimed at increasing the project project 2007-2013 capacities of the NPD related to the efficient usage of EU grants from programming period 2014 - 2020. MRDEUF’s Business Related Infrastructure Krasno Visitor Center „House of NP Sjeverni 26,073,221 Completed Implementation 5. 3,430,687 € 17,000,000 kn 2,236,842 € Grant Scheme Velebit“ Velebit kn project phase from Financial framework 2007 - 2013 Implementation of management 6. SO 6.iii.2 plans for strictly protected HAOP 8,397,155 kn 1,104,889 € 7,108,979 kn 935,392 € Approved Planned call species (with action plans) Establishment of a national system for monitoring and 15,196,123 7. SO 6.iii.1 HAOP 1,999,490 € 12,916,705 kn 1,699,566 € Approved Planned call information system for invasive kn alien species Development of Action plans and MZOE 11,000,000 8. SO 6.iii.2 management plans for Invasive 1,447,368 € 9,357,144 kn 1,231,203 € Approved Planned call (UZP) kn Alien species Establishment of Natura 2000 MZOE 186,000,000 9. SO 6.iii.2 24,473,684 € 158,503,453 kn 20,855,717 € Approved Planned call management framework (UZP) kn 96 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Value of Total Value of non- Specific Total project non- project refundable Status Status Br. objectives Project Proposal Name Beneficiary Value refundable Value EU funds 30.09.2017 30.04.2017 (SO) HRK EU funds EUR (HRK) (EUR) In the Identification and mapping of 90,223,369 10. SO 6.iii.1 HAOP 11,871,496 € 76,689,864 kn 10,090,772 € approval Planned call marine habitats and species kn process Development of the system for monitoring the conservation 11. SO 6.iii.1 status of species and habitat HAOP 164,900,000 21,697,368 140,600,000 kn 18,500,000 € Planned call Planned call types and reporting to the EU Birds Directive and the Habitats Croatian Forests (partners: HCR, ARR, Government 373,920,000 12. SO 6.iii.3 NATURAVITA 49,200,000 € 304,000,000 kn 40,000,000 € Planned call Planned call Mine Action € Office, PP Kopački rit, Croatian Waters) Increasing attractiveness and educational capacity of the JU PP In the 15,816,937 13. SO 6c2 Lonjsko Polje Nature Park by Lonjsko 2,081,176 € 12,826,999 kn 1,687,763 € Approved approval kn building the Visitor Center "Crna polje process Roda" Osekovo In the JU PP 77,238,120 14. SO 6c2 Geo stories of UNESCO geopark 10,162,911 € 65,652,402 kn 8,638,474 € Approved approval Papuk kn process Unknown Krka: hidden treasures In the 78,620,719 15. SO 6c2 of the upper and middle river JU NP Krka 10,344,831 € 66,200,193 kn 8,710,552 € Approved approval kn Krka River process 97 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Value of Total Value of non- Specific Total project non- project refundable Status Status Br. objectives Project Proposal Name Beneficiary Value refundable Value EU funds 30.09.2017 30.04.2017 (SO) HRK EU funds EUR (HRK) (EUR) Volunteer Center with In the JU NP 16. SO 6c2 accommodation capacities of the 6,012,900 kn 791,171 € 5,110,965 kn 672,495 € Approved approval Risnjak host type process In the 38,541,982 17. SO 6c2 Učka 360* JU PP Učka 5,071,313 € 32,760,685 kn 4,310,616 € Approved approval kn process In the Interpretation Educational Center JU PP 15,474,850 18. SO 6c2 2,036,164 € 13,153,623 kn 1,730,740 € Approved approval Grpascak Telašćica kn process In the JU NP 32,100,534 19. SO 6c2 New cargo of Brijuna 4,223,754 € 27,285,454 kn 3,590,191 € Approved approval Brijuni kn process Project for the construction of the In the JU PP 11,014,407 20. SO 6c2 Sakadaš tourist pier at Kopački 1,449,264 € 9,362,246 kn 1,231,874 € Approved approval Kopački rit kn Rit Nature Park process In the Tikveš Presentation Training JU PP 51,585,554 21. SO 6c2 6,787,573 € 43,847,721 kn 5,769,437 € Approved approval Center Kopački rit kn process Redevelopment of Kornati: In the Promoting the sustainable use of JU NP 49,155,864 22. SO 6c2 6,467,877 € 41,782,484 kn 5,497,695 € Approved approval natural heritage in the National Kornati kn process Park Kornati Improving the Visitor Capacity for In the JU PP 29,695,352 23. SO 6c2 Sustainable Management of the 3,907,283 € 24,223,502 kn 3,187,303 € Approved approval Medvednica kn Medvednica Nature Park process Revitalizing and connecting the JU PP In the 22,310,047 24. SO 6c2 attractions of the Vransko Lake Vransko 2,935,532 € 18,963,540 kn 2,495,203 € Approved approval kn Nature Park jezero process 98 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Value of Total Value of non- Specific Total project non- project refundable Status Status Br. objectives Project Proposal Name Beneficiary Value refundable Value EU funds 30.09.2017 30.04.2017 (SO) HRK EU funds EUR (HRK) (EUR) Center of excellence Cerovačka In the caves - sustainable management JU PP 62,627,803 25. SO 6c2 8,240,500 € 53,233,633 kn 7,004,425 € Approved approval of natural heritage and karst Velebit kn process subterranean Underground city in the heart of Velebit: development of all-year In the In the JU NP 25,750,419 26. SO 6c2 sustainable and safe active 3,388,213 € 24,507,875 kn 3,224,720 € approval approval Paklenica kn tourism in NP Paklenica and process process wider Velebit area JU PP In the In the Žumberak- 28,672,167 27. SO 6c2 Sošice Visitor Center 3,772,654 € 24,371,342 kn 3,206,755 € approval approval samoborsko kn process process gorje New Adrion - Promotion of In the In the JU PP 34,183,407 28. SO 6c2 sustainable use of natural 4,497,817 € 9,055,896 kn 1,191,565 € approval approval Biokovo kn heritage PP Biokovo process process In the In the National Park Krk - Lozovac 84,979,618 29. SO 6c2 JU NP Krka 11,181,529 € 72,232,676 kn 9,504,299 € approval approval Visiting Center kn process process Investing in Visitor Infrastructure JU PP In the In the 22,948,072 30. SO 6c2 Public Institution "Nature Park Lastovsko 3,019,483 € 19,505,861 kn 2,566,561 € approval approval kn Lastovo Islands" otočje process process JU park In the In the Center for Sustainable Active prirdoe 18,153,331 31. SO 6c2 2,388,596 € 15,430,331 kn 2,030,307 € approval approval Tourism BioSfera Biograd Vransko kn process process jezero 99 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Value of Total Value of non- Specific Total project non- project refundable Status Status Br. objectives Project Proposal Name Beneficiary Value refundable Value EU funds 30.09.2017 30.04.2017 (SO) HRK EU funds EUR (HRK) (EUR) "Improvement of sustainable management, tourism In the In the valorisation and interpretation of 39,996,297 32. SO 6c2 JU NP Mljet 5,262,671 € 9,272,027 kn 1,220,004 € approval approval natural heritage in the area of NP kn process process Mljet, MLJET - ODISE (J) AND MEDITERRANEAN" 100 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 7. MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOL (METT) To maximise the potential of protected areas, and to improve management processes, we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their management and the threats that they face. The World Commission on Protected Areas provides an overarching framework for assessing management effectiveness of both protected areas and protected area systems, to give guidance to managers and others and to help harmonise assessment around the world. The below table contains a very brief summary of the elements of the WCPA Framework and the criteria that can be assessed. The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool has been designed to fulfil the elements of evaluation included in the Framework. Questions in the Tracking Tool have been ordered to make completion as easy as possible. 101 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) Results of the METT application in Croatia’s Protected Areas Plitvička Sjeverni Assessment of management Brijuni Kornati Krka Mljet Paklenica Risnjak Biokovo Kopački rit jezera Velebit from the METT questionnaire 2012 63 60 54 60 67 62 62 65 63 73 2014 64 68 66 56 69 64 66 62 63 73 2016 64 70 74 62 72 54 67 58 65 67 Žumberak - Lonjsko Vransko Lastovsko otočje Medvednica Papuk Telašćica Učka Velebit Samoborsko polje jezero gorje 2012 64 68 62 62 65 70 61 59 48 2014 58 70 59 63 66 59 62 56 52 2016 59 64 59 73 63 66 63 64 60 Note: The total possible number of points is 99. 102 The World Bank EU Natura 2000 Integration Project ( P111205 ) ANNEX 8. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Porej, D. & Rajković, Ž. (2009), Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) Methodology, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia 2. Agri-Environment Programme for Zumbarak Samoborrsko Gorje Nature Park (2004) 3. Implementation Completion Report from the Karts Ecosystem Conservation Project 4. Impact Evaluation of Small Grants Program from the Karst Ecosystem Conservation Project 5. Project Economic Analysis Final Version, September, 2010, World Bank 6. Interim Report on Preparation of a Croatia Nature Protection Investment Project, Institute for International Relations (IMO) Zagreb, February 2010 7. Final Report on Preparation of EU Natura 2000 Integration Project, IMO, August, 2010 8. EU Natura 2000 Integration Project Environmental Assessment - General Environmental Management Plan for EU Natura 2000 Integration Project, Oikon, September, 2010 9. Social Assessment and Social Survey, IMO, June 2010 10. Sustainable Financing Review for Croatia’s Protected Areas, March 2010, prepared with financial support from a PROFOR Grant 11. Croatia Draft Sector Operation Program for Energy and Environment for Structural Funds for 2012/2013 12. Croatia Operational Programme Competitiveness and Cohesion 2014 - 2020 (investment priority 6iii and specific objective 6c2 are related to NIP activities). Available at: http://www.strukturnifondovi.hr/UserDocsImages/Novosti/Programme_2014HR16M1OP001_1 _2_en.pdf 13. Consultative and Participatory Elements in the Protected Areas and Land Surveying Laws of Croatia, Oikon, September, 2010 103