Ukraine - Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project (Vol. 2 of 2) : Technical report

Docmt of The World Bank FOR OFFICLAL USE ONLY Repomt Nix 12718-UA GLOBAL ENVIRONMEWT FACIL-ITY UKRAINE TRANSCARPATHIAN BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION PROJECT TECHNICAL REPORT TO THE 4EKRANDDUI AND RECOHMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR JANUARY 24, 1 4 Natural Resources Management Division Country Department IV Europe and Central Asia Region This document has a restricted distibution and may be used by reipients only in the performanc of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank autorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENT (April 1993) 2,690 Karbovanets (Kb) = US$ 1 WEIGIM AND MEASURES The metric system is used throughout this report. GLOSSARY OF ABBRE IATIONS CBR - Carpathians Biosphere Reserve cIS - Commonwealth of Independent States DPRA - Department of Protected and Recreation Areas ECU - European Currency Unit EC - European Community GEF - Global Enviromnental Facility GET - Global Environmental 5'rust Fund ciS - Geographic Information System GDP - Gross Domestic Product IBR - International Biosphere Reserve (Slovak, Poland and Ulraine) IBRD - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICB - International Competitive Bidding IMF - International Monetary Fund IUCN - International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Naura Resources LCB - Local Competitive Bidding MEP - Ministry for Environmental Protection PMU - Project Management Unit SOE - Statement of Expenditure TA - Technical Assistance FISCAL YEAR January 1 to December 31  FOR OmCIAL USE ONLY UKRAINE TRANSCARPATHIAN BIODPVERSrrY PROTECTION PROJECT Contents 1. THE FOREST AND WILDLIFE SECTOR AND THE ENVIRONMENT ............ A. CouNTRY OVERvmEW ................................ I B. .TATuRAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PRoTECToN .2 Biological r*iversity. 2 Proteced Areas. 4 Institutional Setting .5 Legislative Framework. 7 Sectoral Issues. 8 C. LESsONs LEARNED FROM SIILAR PRoJEcrs. 9 H. THE PROJECT .................................... 9 A. ORGIN AND RAnONALE ..................................... 9 B. PRojECT AREA ............................... 10 C. PROJECT OEcTnvEs AND DESIGN ............................. 13 D. DETAL.s of PRoJECT CoMonbrs ............................. 14 Biodiversity Protection Program ......... ................. 14 Management Resources Program ......... ................. Public Educatic. and Awareness Program .......... .......... 15 Training Program ................................. 16 Project Management Program ........................... 16 E. PARTCIPATION BY NOOs AND LoCAL CoMmuNrms iN PRoJEcr Acrvrr Es... 17 F. ENVIRONMENAL IMPACT ........... ........................ 17 G. PROJECT Cosrs .....18.................................. Is H. FiNANCING PLAN ................................. ... 19 '. PROCUREtMEN ................................... 19 J. DISBURSEMENT .......................................... 20 K. PROJECT BENEFITS D JUSTrCATION ........................... 21 L. SusrABLrrY .................................... 22 M. PROJECT RISKS .................................... 22 m. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ......................... 22 IV. AGREEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. .......................... 22 V. GLOSSARY ........................................... 23 ANNEES: 1. Protected Areas of Ukraine 2. Management of Foreat Fragmentation 3. The Aquisition and Use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) 4. Monitoring, Supervision and Evaluation Plan 5. Detailed Costs and Project Timeline 6. Implementing Organizations MAPS: 1. Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project IBRD Map No. 25416 2. GEF Biodiversity Projects: East Carpathians EBRD Map No. 25417 3. Suggested Priorities for Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management IBRD Map No. 25415 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by rc"ipients only in the pfrformance of their official duties its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  UKRAINE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRANSCARPATHIAN BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION PROJECT TECHNICAL REPORT I. THE FOREST AND WILDUFE SECTOR AND THE ENVIRONMENT A. COUtMrrY OVERVIEW 1.1 The newly independent republics of the former Soviet UnioL have a remarkably diverse natural patrimony which is at ri-k. The current economic situatihn threatens one of the most extensive and well- tended systems of nature reserves in the world - their Zaovedik - that house a vast ranga of biological diversity. Yet, their status as strict reserves is fostering resentment by local communities. In Ukraine the government is making a strong effort to protect their "Zapoveddki but the lack of financial resources is hampering their efforts. 1.2 The direct and indirect effects of pollution, forestry and agricultural activities within a radically changing macroeconomic framework cannot be quantified at this time. Nonetheless, these activities, if undertaken without regard to the effects on biodiversity, can reduce the number of species, alter the balance of ecosystems and intreduce instability. Short term economic advantage must be balanced against the longer twrm detrimental impats cf these activities if any of the advantages are to be sustainable. 1.3 In Ukraine, several transitions between adjacent ecological communities are present: between the European broadleafed forests, the northern taiga, the interior steppe, semi-arid sands and marshes near the Black and Azov Seas, the seaside littoral, estuaries of large rivers such as the Danube and Dnieper, and the sub-tropical pine and chaparral of Crimea. Commercially important forest species such as Norway spruce and European beech are at the limits of their ranges. Questions of adaptability important to the management of such species need to be clarified. There is a broad appreciation of the values of such rare resources held in the system of reserves as: * They house endemic (i.e. found nowhere else) threatened and endangered species; * They are the only sites of some genetic material of importance (e.g. the best adapted trees, the healthiest soil, fauna and flora) to renewable resource management, and to the restoration of polluted watural systems. These are baseline ecosystems against which change due to development or catastrophe (e.g. Chernobyl) can be measured; e They are still of a viable size for the maintenance and development of ecosystems and therefore offer the best opportunities to explore the preservation and management of natural forests and grasslands in Europe; and O They still provide ideal opportnities to evaluate current concepts and methods of maintaining viable populations in relict fragmented forests. V ZMpovdni (stity proteed sit nar rsv) Cti tpia or unique natum lands ntad al far as possb in their nalural conditim unchagd by man. Main nm ent objectives in