MEDWETCOAST PROJECT

Urban Planning Instruments and Territorial Governance Orikumi Lagoon; National Park of Llogara and Karaburun; Narta Lagoon and Zverneci area; Vjosa River Delta and Pishe-Poro

Written on behalf of GTZ by: Sotir Dhamo – Co-PLAN Tirana, November 20th, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PART I SUMARY OF PLANS APPROVED OR IN PROGRESS 1. Study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon Summary of the proposal development 2. Study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” Summary of the study 3. Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZM)

PART II PLANNING INSTRUMENTS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS 1. MWC Environmental Plan versus the study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon 2. Recommendations 3. MWC Environmental Plan versus the study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” 4. Recommendations 5. Industrial park near Vlora

PART III GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Establishing planning units 2. Territorial and administrative arrangements: “special purpose planning authorities” 3. Institutional arrangements: Establishment of “Coastal Region Planning Task Force” 4. Summary of the main steps

1

LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURS Fig. 1, Two main development areas Study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon (Authors: Meksi, Xhaxho, Ismaili) Fig. 2, Ecological Zoning Study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” National Planning Institute (Authors: Theodhosi, Dishnica, Jani). Fig. 3, Zoning Study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” National Planning Institute (Authors: Theodhosi, Dishnica, Jani). Fig. 4, Proposal development for area 2, within A1 zone (core zone) Study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon (Authors: Meksi, Xhaxho, Ismaili) Fig. 5, The location of Development area 2 and the MWC zoning proposal (MWC, Author: Bino) Fig. 6, Tourist development areas Study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” National Planning Institute (Authors: Theodhosi, Dishnica, Jani). Fig. 7, Zoning for the area of Llogora-Rreza e Kanalit-Dukat -Orikum-TragjasRadhime—Karaburun, MWC zoning proposal (Author: Bego) Fig. 8, North, Central and South Coastal Region Albania Coastal Zone Management Plan, PAP RAC Fig. 9, South Coastal Region; Northern Planning Zone; Planning Area 1: Sazani island and marine environment; Planning Area 2: Pasha Limani and Orikumi Llogara. Albania Coastal Zone Management Plan, PAP, MAP- UNEP, METAP Scheme 1: Institutional Structure and Decision-Making Process

ABBREVIATIONS ACTA CZM ESA JPA MWC NPI

Albanian Council of Territorial Adjustment Coastal Zone Management Environmentally Sensitive Area Joint Power Authority Med Wet Coast National Planning Institute 2

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the project areas from the urban planning and territorial administration perspective, and to comment on the existing situation and steps to be taken in this regard. The report is structured in three parts: first, a summary of the most important approved physical plans affecting the project areas is presented; next, potential conflicts between the development concept of the above mentioned plans and the regulations of environmental planning recommended by MWC (Med Wet Coast) Project is described; finally, particular attention is given to steps and actions to be undertaken in regard to planning and territorial governance which aim to avoid confusion and increase the synergy in the project areas. It is important to analyze and understand what values these plans bring to MWC Project, to what extent they could be modified and according to which procedures, in order to be in synchrony with MWC Project. Recommendations in regard to formalization of the environmental regulations proposed by MWC Project are summarized at the conclusion of the report.

PART I SUMARY OF PLANS APPROVED OR IN PROGRESS 1. Study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon Summary of the proposal development The study states that environmental considerations have been taken in account in the proposed plan for the development of the area Vjose River Delta and Narta Lagoon. The following protection categories are specified: 1. Zverneci – III category, natural monument 2. Vjose-Pish Poro – IV category, habitat management area 3. Vjose, Laguna e Nartes – VI category, managed protected area of marine and terrestrial habitat. However, the development proposals lack real analyses, which result in various degrees of protection. Two are the proposed development options which do not change substantially as far as the location of the development areas is concerned. According to the study, the “nuclear” spatial pattern and extensive - low density - housing typology should be the main development characteristics of the area. However, no density norms are attached to the study in order to guarantee the described development concept. The shore line will be protected by a 300 m large green belt. Similarly, the study proposes protective belts about 100-150 m large around archeological areas, lagoon, and Vjosa river delta. The areas

3

outside the protective boundaries are designed as agricultural, residential, tourist and handicraft uses. The study proposes: • Two tourist resorts of about 10 ha each which will be the most significant intervention in the area (see fig. 1). The villas will be 1-2 stories high and the hotels 2-3 stories high. Other activities that will be included in the area are the following: bars, restaurants, night club, swimming pools, sports grounds, etc. – marked in figure 1 as the development area 1; • Wooden houses / residential areas (1-2 stories high) – marked in figure 1 as the development area 2; • Hotels located in dominant landscape areas (2-3 stories high); • Service structures in the beach areas (temporary buildings near the seashore sand area); • Sport and recreation area (horse riding, etc.) near Vjosa River; • Agro-tourist centers near the agricultural land; • Observation stations; • Reception centers for visitors, picnic areas, etc. • Anchoring for aquatic sports and tour boats. • Potential airports in Vlora and Pishe-Poro The study states that tourist development in the coastal area complies with the following four categories: A, areas where concentrated capacities are allowed; B, less concentrated capacities; C, massive recreation areas; D, tourist protected areas. The proposed development in the project area is in accordance with type B and D above. However, no reference is made to the source and legal status of these four categories; either is shown in the map the areas belonging to each category. In addition, the study states that the tourist development of Treport area is done in accordance with the carrying capacity (type B); however, no further details are provided by the study. A summary of the main potential issues and risks rising from the development concept proposed by this study in regard to the environmental protection and conflicts with the MWC Project proposals is described in the second part of this report. Fig. 1 Two main development areas (Authors: Meksi, Xhaxho, Ismaili)

Development area 1 Near Treporti area

Development area 2 Near Vjosa River

4

2. Study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” area Summary of the study Approved by the National Council of Territorial Adjustment. Decree No 4, date 11.01.1996 This study is based on the Government Decision No 88 (101.03.1993) on the tourist priority development areas, and the decision No 96 (21.11.1966) on the National Forestry Parks. The aim of the study is twofold: (i) the preservation of natural resources; and (ii) tourist development. The study covers an area of about 8536 ha and proposes an ecological zoning based on IUCN criteria (see fig. 2). The following are the proposed zones and the respective percentages: • Scientific area – 19, 34%: forests representing values for scientific research. Any kind of intervention is not allowed in this area. • Buffer zone – 54, 1%: interventions are limited up to 30% of the area. • Pre-park area – 26, 56%: interventions are limited up to 70% of the area.

Fig. 2 Ecological Zoning Author: National Planning Institute (Auhtors: Theodhosi, Dishnica, Jani).

Scientific Area 15% Buffer Zone

Pre-park area 27%

Based on the above criteria the study proposed the following functional zones (see fig. 3): • “Scientific area”, about 335 ha, considered by the study as park-forest. This area is proposed to be under strict preservation and only technical interventions aiming forest upgrading are allowed. • “Floristic area”, about 404 ha. The variety of species in this area is high, but special attention is given to floristic ones.

5

• “Arboretum”, about 330 ha. This area will house the exhibition of the most special forest and herbal species, specifically pinus heldreiti. • “Protective forest”, about 625 ha. This area is proposed to be artificially planted. • “Biological and administrative area”, about 26 ha. Given the favorable climatic conditions in this sub-area, a large variety of Albanian species will be exposed here. In addition, this area will house a “reception center” where the park administration will be located. • “Fauna area”, about 306 ha preserved as natural habitat for selvatic animals and birds. • “Fauna reserves”, about 3589 ha. Slight interventions may be needed here to upgrade the natural habitat. However, any interventions that alter the natural structure of the territory are not allowed within this area. • “Natural Reserve”, about 394 ha preserved as natural area for scientific research and natural growth of species in extinction (flora and fauna). • “Akrokeraune1”, about 260 ha preserved as natural monument. • “Tourist” area consisting in tourist structures and facilities. • “Urbanized area”, about 272 ha. This includes Dukat village and a “linear development” in both sides of the national road where hotels, restaurants, villas and commercial structures will be located.

Fig. 3 Author: National Planning Institute (Theodhosi, Dishnica, Jani).

Natural Reserve

Fauna Area

Urbanized area Tourist areas

Fauna Reserve Coastal Tourism Floristic area

As far as tourism development is concerned the following areas are defined (see fig 4): • “Mountain tourism”, about 650 ha. The area is planned to accommodate a maximum of 800 beds in tourist villages integrated within the forest. In addition, the existing

1

This is part of Cika Mountain.

6

obsolete tourist structures are proposed to be transformed in camping area. The study proposes an “extensive development” typology. • “Sub-alpine tourism”, about 440 ha. The area is planed to accommodate a maximal capacity of 100 beds in hotels. This area is extended on the top of the mountain ranges (Thanasi 1352; Gjipali 1446; Bredhi 1464; Shendelliu 1500) and is mostly covered by pastures. A large scenic and spectacular landscape can be viewed from these areas. • “Coastal tourism”, about 905 ha including the shoreline of Gjinbitri, Llovizi, Grama, Shen Ndreu, and Palasa. The study proposes a “low-density” and “extensive development” typology consisting in 1-2 stories villas and hotels. The area is planed to accommodate a maximal capacity of 400 beds (mostly in Palasa).

3. Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZM) CZM focused on the Albanian central coast, in Durresi – Vlora Region (see fig 8). The final version of the study was prepared during 1996; however the study could not be approved by the government before the year 2003. Although CZM need to be updated according to the recent developments in Durres Vlora Region its strategic objectives and recommendations are still valid and need to be seriously considered by the Albanian institutions at the central and local level. This becomes especially important for the institutions dealing with territorial planning and development control in the region, such as municipalities, communes and counties. However, the lack of administrative capacities to understand and implement the CZM plan is the main problem in this case. MWC Project is a further development of the CZM project and there are no potential conflicts between these two planning instruments. It was this plan that identified the MWC Project areas as priority sites for biodiversity conservation and Orikumi lagoon as Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

PART II PLANNING INSTRUMENTS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS 1. MWC Environmental Plan versus the study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon The plan has been approved by the Council of Territorial Adjustment of Vlora, Decision Nr 6/2 on 10/10/2003. The plan has been forwarded to the Albanian Council of Territorial Adjustment (ACTA) for approval; however according to the approval procedure, before the plan is submitted to the ACTA several institution, amongst which the Ministry of Environment and the National Planning Institute, should express their opinion in regard to this plan.

7

Some of the most important concerns are summarized below: 1. One of the two tourist resorts, shown as development area 2 in fig. 1, about 10 ha is located in a high sensitive area – A1, see fig. 4 and 5 (according to MWC management plans). As the management regulation defines, the territories which fall under A1 zone should be preserved under strict protective measures. No intervention or economic activity is allowed within this area. The study merely describes the environment of the area, but lacks sounded analyses which could identify potential impacts of the tourist and other related activities to the larger environment. 2. The study lacks an evaluation of the planned tourist capacities that could be accommodated within the entire studied area and how they can be distributed in each of the proposed specific development zones and hotels. In addition, no density norms and limitations related to the percentages of the build up area within each development zone and building site are designated by the study. This may create “space for abuse” and deviations may happen from the originally planed “extensive development” typology. 3. The road network serving tourist resorts in development area 2 crosses through the same sensitive area as mentioned in point 1 above (see fig. 4 and 5). Under the lack of information related to the planed tourist capacities, no projections can be made about the expected tourist fluxes and the respective number of cars that can enter the area. Consequently it is difficult to deduct the road dimensions and other technicalities as well as the protective measures needed.

2. Recommendations In conclusion, the proposed development (fig. 1, area 2) could seriously endanger the biodiversity of the entire area. Any development within the A1 zone should not be approved by the Albanian Council of Territorial Adjustment. Most importantly, a recently approved Government Decree gives a special protected status to the entire area under the MWC Project. Urgent actions should be taken from the Ministry of the Environment in order to reject the study already submitted to the ACTA. A revised version of the study for this area should pay attention to the following: 1. Location of the development areas and other activities in accordance to the recommendations of the MWC management plans; 2. Redesign the road network serving tourist structures as well as other secondary tourist activities in the area; 3. Provide more fundamental analyses in regard to the planned tourist capacities to

8

be accommodated in the entire area and how they will be distributed within each sub zone. 4. Provide clear implementation regulations, especially in regard to the population density (within each tourist area, net and brut density), maximum percentages of the build–up area, building intensity within each tourist resort and minimum distances to be respected; 5. The proposed airport should be seen in the framework of a national and regional study.

Fig. 4 Proposal development for area 2, within A1 zone (core zone) Author: Meksi, Xhaxho, Ismaili

Detailed design of area 2 Vjosa River Delta

Location area 2

9

Fig. 5 The location of Development area 2 and the MWC zoning proposal (Bino)

Development area 2 CONFLICTING POINT

Boundary of the area A1 under strict protective measures defined by the Environment Zoning Regulation

10

3. MedWet Environment Plan versus the study for the National Park of Llogara and “Rreza e Kanalit” area

As described in the first part of this report the study is approved by the ACTA in 1996. Despite the fact that a relatively long time passed since this study was approved, no actions have been taken by local and central administration to adopt and implement the plan on the ground. It seems that there are little chances that the study will start to be implemented. However, it is important to be aware about the values and limitations of this plan. Below are summarized the most important considerations. The study provides a detailed description and analyses of territorial elements which is reflected in the proposed zoning presented in fig. 2 and 3. The proposed zoning defines not only areas for development, but also areas for preservation, and scientific research and education as important functions to be included in a national park (scientific area, floristic area, arboretum, protected forest, biological and administrative area, fauna area and fauna reserve, natural reserve, akrokeraune). As far as the location of the urban area is concerned there are no potential conflicts between the two studies. Most importantly, the study proposes a “low-density” and “extensive development” typology consisting in 1-2 stories villas and hotels. In conclusion, the consistency between the NPI and MWC studies is relatively high except when tourism development areas are concerned. Two are the main potential conflicts: 1. The proposed coastal tourism especially in the areas of Ginbitri, Llovizi, Grama, and Shen Ndreu (see fig. 7) conflicts with the destination of A1 zone (Core Zone) defined by the management prescription of the MWC Project. According to the regulations of the environmental zoning the emphases in this sub-zone should be on minimum disturbance and no access except for scientific research should be allowed. In addition, the same regulation proposes a 100 m buffer zone around this sub-zone. At this point a decision should be made whether the area should be preserved according to the A1 management prescription2, or the NPI Study. 2. The proposed mountain and sub-mountain tourism which falls under the same area A1 may conflict also for the same reasons mentioned above.

2

Management prescription are included in the Management Plan of the Site (Llogora-Rreza e KanalitDukat -Orikum-Tragjas-Radhime--Karaburun)

11

Fig. 6 Tourist development areas National Planning Institute (Author: Theodhosi, Dishnica, Jani)

Alpine tourism

Sub-alpine tourism Coast tourism

Fig. 7 Zoning for the area of LlogoraRreza e Kanalit-Dukat -OrikumTragjas-Radhime—Karaburun

MWC zoning proposal (Bego)

Boundary of the NPI study for the National Park of Llogara and Rreza e Kanalit

NPI Coastal tourism

12

4. Recommendations There is an evident need to “broaden the view” on the way the territories of the tourist areas are analyzed and managed by the two studies described so far. A revised physical development plan should be formulated for an area larger than that covered by the NPI study. The revised plan should cover at least the same area studied by the MWC Project. This will help to create a clearer picture and evaluate from a regional perspective specific parts of territory and the respective designated functions. This will enable on one hand to protect the environmental sensitive areas and on the other hand to find the most appropriate location for the development areas and the related secondary activities. Finally, the proposed broader approach will result in a higher “social value” of the natural processes and resources. There is more about this issue in the final part of this report.

5. Industrial park near Vlora A proposal for the construction of an Industrial Park was recently approved in ACTA. This includes the construction of numerous large oil deposits in the south of Narta village. Although the industrial park is located outside the MWC Project area, it represents a very high potential risks for both social and natural environment and may jeopardize the ecotourism perspective of the area. However, this project is already approved and the implementation will start very soon. The approval of this plan raises two main issues: (i) Lack of national and regional strategy for the development of economic sectors; (ii) Lack of coherence in the ACTA decisions, i. e conflicting activities are often put together for the same area. This is mainly due to the lack of information exchange.

PART III GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS It becomes clear that most of the problems in the project areas are originated because of the malfunctioning planning system (see the attached scheme). There is a lack of coordination in the process of plan formulation and plan approval. ACTA should not approve studies conflicting with previously approved studies. Given this situation, as far as MWC project is concerned particular attention should be given to steps and actions to be undertaken under the MWC framework in regard to territorial governance, and spatial planning in the area.

13

Below is explained how the entire Albanian Coastal Region could be subdivided for spatial planning purposes3. Although the dimension of this effort exceeds the MWC Project mandate, this project can play an important role to initiate the process for the two areas under discussion in this report. This will avoid similar confusions when other areas of the coastal region will be under discussion.

1. Establishing planning units According to the Albanian Planning Law all the constructions in the territory of Republic of Albania are made on the basis of regional / spatial and environmental plans, master plans, regulatory plans, and detailed plans (article 4). Based on this article, regional / spatial plans should be undertaken in the Albanian coastal area. It is important in this case to identify the most appropriate planning units that better fit to the Albanian planning and administrative system. The designation of the planning boundaries for the tourist development regions should build on the CZM study approved by the Albanian government. This study very clearly defines three levels of planning units (see fig. 8 and 9): 1. Coastal Regions (three in the entire Albania: North, Central and South Coastal Regions) 2. Planning Zones (with each Coastal Region): there are two for the North Coastal Region; 3. Planning Areas (within each Planning Zone): there are seven for the North Coastal Region; eleven for the South Coastal Region, two of which directly concern the MWC project: Sazani island and marine environment; and Pasha Limani and Orikumi Llogara. Any past and future studies should be revised in order to conform with the recommendations designated by CZM Plan, especially related to the protection of the environment sensitive areas and tourist capacities within each planning area; Terms of Reference should be written for new studies that will cover territories according to the “planning areas” or “planning zones” as designated by CZM. These studies should be considered as a further detail of the CZM plan. Terms of Reference should draw on the recommendation and conclusions of CZM for the same areas. Tourist capacities should be defined on a larger scale and not within each small area. Only this way coordinated development could be guaranteed. Most importantly, before “planning areas” or “planning zones” will be approved by local and ACTA, they should pass the test of conformity with CZM Plan. Finally, spatial planning for these areas should draw on a national and regional development strategy. This will avoid mismatches and conflicting policies within the 3

This subdivision draws on the proposal of the CZM approved by the ACTA

14

same area. As far as the two areas of the MWC Project are concerned two are the spatial plans to be undertaken: 1. Sazani island and marine environment, Pasha Limani and Orikumi Llogara 2. Vjose Narta Wetland Complex This means that the two plans analyzed in the first part of this report: (i) “Study for the development and protection of the coastal area of Vjosa River Delta and Narta Lagoon”; and (ii) “Study for the National Park of Llogara (Llogara-Grame-Palase)” should be revised accordingly.

North Coastal Region

Central Coastal Region

South Coastal Region

Fig. 8 North, Central and South Coastal Region PAP RAC

Fig. 9 South Coastal Region Northern Planning Zone Planning Area 1: Sazani island and marine environment Planning Area 2: Pasha Limani and Orikumi Llogara PAP, MAP-UNEP, METAP

15

2. Territorial and administrative arrangements: “special purpose planning authorities” Planning regions, planning zones and planning areas as explained in the previous paragraph should be kept as such independently from the administrative boundaries. Most importantly, special purpose planning authorities should be established within each planning region. The establishment of these planning authorities is in line with the Law on the Organization and Functioning of Local Government. According to this Law (Articles 8(5) and 14), a region is an administrative-territorial entity that comprises several municipalities that have geographical, traditional, economic and social ties and joint interests. Normally the boundaries of each region should comply with the boundaries of municipalities under its jurisdiction. However, for special purposes, such as water shade management or other natural resource protection, as well as planning and development of transportation systems or any other reasons aiming the efficient provision of regional policies, the respective local governments have the right to reorganize the boundaries according to the interests serving the special purposes in the benefit of the local communities. Within each of the functional regions (North, Center, and South Coastal Regions) “joint powers authority” (JPA) with the attributes of an implementing agency can be established in order to manage and implement these plans. JPA that acts as an implementing agency integrates functions of urban planning, infrastructure delivery and operation, and land use documentation and monitoring.

3. Institutional arrangements: Establishment of “Coastal Region Planning Task Force” The Ministry of Territorial Adjustment and Tourism, and the Ministry of the Environment have an important role in guiding this process. The project should “use” the position of these ministries as members of the Steering Committee in order to initiate a systematic planning process. Most importantly, this process requires a high degree of institutional coordination at the central and local government levels (municipalities / communes and counties) which means that clear duties and responsibilities should be designed to each level. In order to guarantee the required coordination a “Coastal Region Planning Task Force” should be established in one of the above mentioned ministries. This Task Force could act as a government agency that guarantees integrity and regular planning process within the coastal region. The Task Force will work closely with “Special Purpose Planning Authorities” established in each of the three coastal regions, and will monitor the planning process in order to guarantee institutional cooperation and community involvement.

16

4. Summary of the main steps 1. Analyses of the plans approved or in progress affecting the MWC Project (completed in this report) 2. Initiate the process for the revision of the above mentioned plans in the framework of the CZM planning zones and areas. This can be done through the Ministry of Territorial adjustment and tourism 3. Facilitate and assist the process for the revision of the above mentioned plans and guarantee their approval at the Albanian Council of Territorial Adjustment 4. Initiate the process / lobby in the Ministry of Territorial Adjustment and Tourism, and the Ministry of Environment in order to undertake the necessary legislation changes that could be reflected in the establishment of a new territorial administration system that guarantees the implementation of special plans.

17

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS CENTRAL LEVEL

Coordinates with other institutions at the central, regional and local level

Headed By Prime Minister Composition Approved By Government Decision

MINISTRY of TAT

NCTA SECRETARIAT Headed By the Mayor Composition as defined in the Urban Law

PLANS APPROVED AT THE LEVEL (Regional and Municipal)

LOCAL

Plans marked with * need final approval at the NCTA

LOCAL LEVEL MCTA/RCTA

-

-

Coordinates with other institutions at the central, regional and local level

Abbreviations: NCTA – National / Albanian Council of Territorial Adjustment, Ministry of TAT – Ministry of Territorial Adjustment and Tourism, MCTA/RCTA – Municipality Council of Territorial Adjustment or Regional Council of Territorial Adjustment

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL



PLANNING DEPARTMENT Municipality

-

-

-

TOR for all planning instruments The platform on organization of competitions *Master Plans, *Regional Plans, *Strategic Plans (including studies for infrastructure development) All Local Plans: *General Regulatory Plan, *Detailed Plans, and *Building Site Plans (for the last two plans, depending on the location and the area they cover it may be needed final approval at NCTA) Action plans, and planning regulations in conformity with the regional development plans; *City and suburban area boundaries; *Building sites permission and building license in conformity with approved Urban Studies Sanctions regarding illegal buildings

18