THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

III.  THE STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION IN ALBANIA

III.2 THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

The Parliament is the main authority of the legislative system, and the Permanent Commission on Health and Environment is the main body within the Parliament responsible for the environment. The Council of Ministers (CM) is the main organ of the administrative system. The National Environmental Agency (NEA) is the main public institution responsible for environmental protection, and it reports directly to the Prime Minister. At the inter-ministerial and ministerial levels, there are other institutions of public administration and scientific research institutions, which are responsible for administration, studying, and monitoring of the country's natural and biological resources.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is one of the national institutions with important environmental responsibilities in Albania including the administration, protection, studying, and inventorying of biodiversity. The General Directorate of Forest and Pastures (GDFP) within this ministry is responsible for the management and administration of Protected Areas and National Parks, and of wildlife and game hunting in Albania. The General Directorate of Fisheries administrates the resources of marine aquatic fauna, and of the freshwaters in areas where there is fishing and aquaculture.

The judicial system guaranties equality in front of the law and, when relevant, rules on civil and criminal cases which are affected by environmental legislation. Table 5 presents a general scheme of the institutional framework of Albania and depicts the relations and functions of the existing institutions. However, the role of the central and local institutions is still inadequate with respect to the problems of inventorying, studying, managing, and monitoring biodiversity.

                                                                                               TABLE 5

Albania inherited a very limited experience and institutional structure in the area of environment. In addition, there is a lack of aims, objectives, and national strategies and action plans for nature and biodiversity protection. This is compounded by the existing gaps in the legal framework and in law enforcement, and this explains why the responsible institutions do not effectively co-ordinate their functions and responsibilities. This situation has led to overexploitation of some of the natural resources without taking into consideration the real cost of the damage done, the consequences on resource depletion, and the related effects on other biological resources.

The NEA has played the role of catalyst and co-ordinator for the protection of nature and biodiversity. CEP previously, and NEA today, nominally has control of, but effectively limited participation in, the management of the natural and biological resources of the country. This is because of the lack of governmental support and the incomplete legal framework. The recent changes that positioned the NEA under the direct authority of Council of Ministers, and the establishment in the future of the Ministry of Environment will strengthen its role, especially in the process of decision-making.

                                                                                                  TABLE 6