Ukraine - Danube Delta Biodiversity Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 19911 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSfTY PROJECT GET GRANT 28654 November 22, 1999 Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Unit Europe and Central Asia Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of July 1999) Currency Unit = Hrivnya (UAH) US$1 = 4.1 NOTE: On September 17, 1996, the Ukrainian Karbovanet was redenominated by a factor of 100,000 and renamed to the Ukrainian Hrivnya. AVERAGE OFFICIAL EXCHANGE RATES 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 .328 1.473 1.829 1.862 2.440 3.756 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Metric System ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CBNNPRA Central Board of National Nature Park and Reserve Affairs DBR Danube Biosphere Reserve DBRA Danube Biosphere Reserve Authority DPA Danube Plavny Reserve Authority DDBR Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve GEF Global Environment Facility GET Global Environment Trust GIS Geographic Information System ICR Implementation Completion Report LCB Local CompetitiveBidding MEPNS Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety NAS National Academy of Science PIU Project Implementation Unit RIZA Dutch Institute for Iland Water Management and Waster Treatmnent, Directorate General of Public Works and Water Management SGP Small Grants Program SZP Stentsovsko-Zhebrianski Plavny WWF World Wildlife Fund ZP Zhebrianski Plavny FISCAL YEAR OF UKRAINE January 1 - December 31 Vice President: Johannes Linn, ECAVP Acting Country Director: Lily Chu, ECCI1I Sector Director: Kevin M. Cleaver, ECSSD Sector Leader: John Hayward, ECSSD Responsible Teamn Phillip Brylski, Alexci Slenzak (ECSSD)  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT PREFACE GET GRANT 28654 Executive Summary Contents i-iv PART I. PROJECT IMLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT A. Introduction I B. Statement/Evaluation of Objectives 1 C. Achievement of Objectives 2 D. Major Factors Affecting the Project 10 E. Project Sustainability 11 F. Bank Performance 12 G. Recipient Perfonnance 12 H. Assessment of Outcome 12 I. Future Operations 13 J. Key Lessons Learned 14 PART II. STATISTICAL TABLES Table 1: Summary of Assessments Table 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits Table 3: Project Timetable Table 4: Grant Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation Table 7: Studies Included in Project Table 8A: Project Costs Table 8B: Project Financing Table 9: Economic Costs and Benefits Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants Table 11: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements Table 12: Bank Resources: Staff Inputs Table 13: Bank Resources: Missions APPENDICES A. Mission's aide-memoire B. Recipient's comments on the ICR C. Recipient's Contribution to ICR D. IBRD Map 25412 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the peformance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.   IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT GET GRANT 28654 Preface This is the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the Ukraine Danube Delta Biodiversity Project, for which the GET Grant 28654 in the amount of SDR 1.1 million (US$1.6 million equivalent) was approved on June 21, 1994 and made effective on August 4, 1994. The Grant was closed on June 30, 1999, following a six-month extension to the original closing date of December 31, 1998. It was fully disbursed, and the last disbursement/recovery took place on June 4, 1999. The ICR was prepared by Phillip Brylski and Alexei Slenzak (ECS SD) and reviewed by Gottfried Ablasser, ECSSD Portfolio Manager. The Recipient's comments on the ICR and contribution to the ICR are included as appendices B and C, respectively. Preparation of this ICR began during the Bank's completion mission from April 12-17, 1999. It is based on material in the project files and discussions with the staff of the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety (MEPNS) engaged in the project, the Project Inplementation Unit (PIU), NGOs, and other individuals and organisations involved in the project.  I  i IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT GET GRANT 28654 Evaluation Summary Introduction i. The Danube Delta is the second largest delta in Europe, covering about 564,000 hectares, with 122,000 hectares in Ukraine and the rest in Romania. Over the last century, the wetlands have been degraded by the construction of dikes and large scale hydrological works but maintain significant social, economic, and biodiversity values. The original Danube Delta GEF project planned assistance only to the Romanian part of the delta because Ukraine was not yet a member of the Bank. During the project's identification, the scope of the project was amended to provide parallel support to the Danube Plavny Reserve Authority (DPA) in Ukraine, particularly to raise the level of national and international interest in the protection and management of the Ukrainian part of the delta. Project Objectives and Components ii. Objectives: The project objective was to protect and enhance the Ukrainian part of the Danube Delta ecosystem and contribute to biodiversity conservation within the delta. The project objective and investments emphasized improvements in management of the protected area at the local level and the capacity building needed to implement the project and continue the activities in the operational phase. Tlhe project's focus on creation of the biosphere reserve and skills and methods for its improved management was appropriate. The Completion Mission team and the Recipient agreed that the project was well-designed and its activities and expenditures were appropriate for achieving the objectives. iii. Components: The project investments were delivered through eight components designed to strengthen the Danube Plavny Authority and the warden service, improve monitoring and database management, initiate the restoration of key wetlands, improve public awareness, establish the Danube biosphere reserve, facilitate the reserve's participation in regional initiatives, and establish mechanisms to assist with financing of the reserve's recurrent costs in the operational phase. Implementation Experience and Results iv. Achievement of Objectives: The project was implemented as planned and achieved its objectives satisfactorily. The Ukraine Danube Biosphere Reserve was established, and improved techniques and participatory methods for the protection and management of its biodiversity were implemented. A more proactive approach to protected areas management in Ukraine was established, and the capacity of the Reserve Authority to implement the management plan in collaboration with local users was strengthened. The project fostered cooperation with Romania, especially on technical exchanges. At the end of the project, a Romania-Ukraine transboundary biosphere reserve was  ii established. The project also led to collaboration and partnerships on delta conservation/natural resource management issues with organizations in central and western Europe. v. Major Factors Affecting the Project: Two factors affected the project positively. The first was the Recipient's prior experience with Bank projects, gained through implementation of the GEF- financed Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project and a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The second was the strong interest by intemational organizations such as the Dutch General Directorate for Public Works and Water Management (RIZA) and World Wildlife Fund- International in forming partnerships with Ukraine stakeholders to implement the project. Two factors slowed project implementation. The first was the difficulties encountered in constructing the headquarters building, mainly attributable to a lack of private sector experience in construction and government regulations. The second was the new regulations on the use of foreign bank accounts by both private and public sector organizations, which resulted in temporary freezing of the Special Accounts for most Bank projects in the final year of implementation. Finally, the project was implemented in a period of severe national budgetary problems, which reduced staff morale. Although these budgetary problems promoted a cautious, risk averse approach to management decisions with fiscal impacts, they also produced a proactive approach to developing income generating activities such as tourism. Project Sustainability and Future Operations vi. Sustainability: The main stakeholders' commitment to continue the project activities is strong and key benefits of the project will continue to be achieved in the operational phase with the assistance of government financial support. Although the GoU's budgetary support for the Danube Biosphere Reserve was leveraged by the GEF project and is expected to continue through the operational phase, the cost of implementing the operational plan will require additional external support. The main reason for this is Ukraine's difficult economic conditions and their impact on state budgets for all protected areas. There are indications that grant support will be made available by other donors, but this is not certain. Therefore, while key aspects of the project are sustainable, there remains some uncertainty over whether the project as a whole is sustainable. To help meet the challenge of financial sustainability, the biosphere reserve gained approval for the right to operate a revenue account, fed by revenues from fines, resource use fees, fee-paying visitors, and donations, and has had success in applying for small grants. Each of these activities has been designed to generate a modest supplement to the budget that will contribute to project sustainability. vii. Future Operations: The Recipient prepared a costed workplan for priority activities to be implemented in the operational period from 1999 to 2002 that focuses on reserve infrastructure and resource management, wetlands restoration, research and monitoring, public education, regional and international cooperation, and tourism development. An estimated US$150,000 will be required annually to finance the plan over the next 3.5 years. Excluding salaries, the reserve can expect to cover approximately one-third of the investments needed from the Academy of Sciences. The reserve will attempt to finance the remaining two-from income generating activities and external sources. Bank and Borrower Performance viii. Bank Performance: The Bank's performance was satisfactory throughout preparation and implementation. The project was well prepared: the project design was fully appropriate to the project  iii objectives, and the Recipient was comfortable with the level of detail on project activities, budget, and implementation arrangements found in the project document. Early in implementation, the Bank provided assistance with procurement, focused on human resources development activities that were useful in implementing the project and preparing the Recipient for the operational phase, and assisted with facilitating partnerships with international organizations interested in the project. The Bank was responsive to the additional supervision needs not foreseen during preparation, by accessing trust funds for technical issues and training. The project was continuously supervised from project launch through completion by a technical specialist experienced with the needs of the project and with Ukraine. ix. Recipient Perfornance: The Recipient's performance was satisfactory. The grant was disbursed over a five year period and its completion required one six-month extension. The legal covenants were continuously enforced. The project was implemented largely as planned, with small adaptive changes made in consultation with the Bank. The principal beneficiary of the project was the Danube Plavny Authority (re-named the Danube Biosphere Reserve Authority at the end of the project), which consisted of a relatively small staff with nearly no experience with bilateral or multilateral financed projects. The reserve staff performed well in adapting its previous mandate of monitoring and protection functions typical of a strictly protected area to include wetland management and public education and involvement. The DPA was assisted by the MEPNS and its Central Board of National Nature Park and Reserve Affairs, the Academy of Sciences, and the PIU. The Academy of Sciences contributed modest budgetary resources, substantial technical support for the scientific program, and oversight with regard to the Man and the Biosphere Program. The performance of the MEPNS, the executing agency, was satisfactory in facilitating all aspects of the project. The PIU's efforts and results in procurement and as facilitators of project implementation were satisfactory, particularly in the face of the country's extensive regulations and procedures. Key Lessons Learned X. The key lessons leamed from the Recipient's and Bank's perspectives are: a. Well-planned public education and awareness activities are needed early in the project to get the public involved in a meaningful way. One way to catalyse the education and awareness activities would have been to initiate the project with an awareness and education activities through the NGO development and small grants program. b. The creation of a biosphere reserve should be undertaken in phases to allow the administration and local communities opportunity to understand and adequately plan for its added financial and managerial responsibilities. c. Future projects should seek ways to simplify Ukrainian requirements and procedures early in project implementation, in order to avoid delays in its progress. d. If the protected areas administration is to work effectively with local communities, technical studies to guide sustainable use of reserve resources (e.g., hunting and fishing) should be undertaken early in project implementation, in collaboration with local users and linked to public education activities.  iv e. Confinuity in supervision responsibility contributes greatly the relationship between the Bank and its client.  IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT GET GRANT 28654 Part I. Project Implementation Assessment A. Introduction 1. The Danube Delta, one of Europe's last and largest natural wetlands, covers 564,000 hectares (ha), 122,000 within Ukraine and 442,000 in Romania. The reed beds, riparian forests, dunes and the open waters of the maze of tributaries of the Danube River provide critical wintering and feeding habitat for many threatened species such as the pygmy cormorant, red-breasted goose, and several species of threatened sturgeon.. The delta ecosystem also plays a role in environmental management of a major international water by acting as a biological filtering system for water flowing from the Danube river system into the Black Sea. 2. The delta ecosystem has been a source of natural resources and income to human populations for over 500 years. Over the last 50 years, fish harvests have significantly declined. The causes of these declines are thought to be habitat loss and degradation as a result of large scale hydrological works (dams, dikes, etc.), changes in Black Sea ecology as a result of its eutrophication, and inappropriate resource management practices. 3 . The original Danube Delta GEF project planned assistance only to the Romanian part of the delta because Ukraine was not yet a member of the Bank. During the project's identification, the scope of the project was amended to provide parallel support to the Danube Plavny Reserve Authority (DPA) in Ukraine, particularly to raise the level of national and international interest in the protection and management of the Ukrainian part of the delta B. Statement/Evaluation of Objectives 4. The project objective was to protect and enhance the Ukrainian part of the Danube Delta ecosystem and contribute to biodiversity conservation within the delta. During the completion mission, the Recipient and the Bank agreed that this project objective was appropriate. The Recipient noted that a more specific objective used during implementation was to establish the Ukraine Danube Biosphere Reserve and initiate management measures for the protection and sustainable use of the delta ecosystem. 5. The project investments were delivered through the following components: i. Danube PlavnyAuthority Strengthening This component focused on improving the capacity of the DPA to implement the project and manage the biosphere reserve through staff increases, human resources development, infrastructure and equipment.  2 ii. Warden Strengthening. This component called for strengthening the warden service through increased staffing, training, and provision of infrastructure and equipment. iii. Monitoring and Database Management. This included development of monitoring and applied research activities, and data management and a GIS. iv. Wetland Restoration. The project was to finance three small pilot wetland restoration activities and small feasibility studies for the restoration of two sites with histories of intensive economic and recreational use. v. Public Awareness. This component included activities for raising awareness of the importance of the Delta ecosystem in local communities, and encouraging international cooperation on Danube Delta and Black Sea conservation issues. vi. Biosphere Reserve Establishment. Under this component, the Danube Biosphere Reserve would be established, focusing in the first phase on protecting three priority areas (Kiliya Delta, Stensovsko-Zhebrianski plavny, SZP, and Yermakov Island). vii. Regional Initiatives and Coordination. This component would facilitate participation of the DPA in training workshops related to development of the Black Sea Biodiversity Strategy, cooperation with the Romanian GEF Danube Delta Project, and other international initiatives. viii. Endowment Fund. This component would finance technical assistance for establishing a Trust Fund for financing recurrent costs of the biosphere reserve. C. Achievement of Objectives 6. The project objective and investments emphasized improvements in management of the protected area at the local level and the capacity-building needed to implement the project and continue the activities in the operational phase. The project's focus on creation of the biosphere reserve and on building skills and methods for its improved management was appropriate. The completion mission team and the Recipient agreed that the project was well-designed and its activities and expenditures were appropriate for achieving the objectives. 7. The project's results and impacts are described below and summarized in Table 1. The project was implemented largely as planned and achieved its objectives satisfactorily. The Ukraine Danube Biosphere Reserve was established, and its staff was strengthened through an increase in numbers and through training technical assistance activities which introduced international best practices in wetlands management. The Danube Plavny Authority's approach to working with local user groups to gain consensus on management of the Stensovsko-Zhebrianski Plavny, along with the environmental education and NGO training/small grants program, improved support among local villagers in the biosphere reserve's mission. The project fostered cooperation with Romania, especially on technical exchanges. At the end of the project, a Romania-Ukraine transboundary biosphere reserve was established. The project's modest accomplishments in the restoration of Stensovsko-Zhebrianski  3 Plavny were influenced by a delay in establishment of the biosphere reserve and by the time needed to develop consensus among Ukrainian stakeholders on how to best manage this site. 8. Danube Plavny Authority Strengthening. This component focused on improving the capacity of the DPA to implement the project and manage the biosphere reserve through an increase in staff, their professional development, and provision of infrastructure and equipment necessary to implement the project. 9. Under the project, the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine was expected to increase the number of wardens and scientific staff to adequately manage the expanded reserve staff, from 18 (in 1993) to 50. The realized increase in staff occurred through the addition of wardens (now at 13) and several higher level staff (GIS, environmental education, ecotourism development). The project design anticipated that expansion of the protected area, zoning recommendations, and preparation of management plans would require scientific input beyond what could be managed by the small reserve staff in place at the time. Consequently, the project contracted specialists to assist in preparing technical reports and the management plans. For each of the research teams engaged in these activities, small teams were formed by the reserve staff and their consultants, so as to provide technical assistance to the existing reserve staff and ensure continuity of the monitoring and research activities in the operational phase. 10. Human resources development. The project was highly successful in building capacity of reserve staff and consultants to implement the project and to expand the results in the operational phase. i) Wetlands Management Training. The project originally envisioned two wetlands training activities: The first, facilitated by the International Wetlands Research Bureau (JWRB; now Wetlands International), concentrated on management of water resources, reedbeds, and wildlife in the Stensovsko-Zhebnranski Plavny and restoration techniques. The second, several study tour/training workshops, was hosted by the Dutch General Directorate for Public Works and Water Management (RIZA). These activities led to a number of additional training opportunities financed by the project and by international partners. With regard to the latter, the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Danube Plavny Authority and RIZA in 1995 initiated a series of excellent training opportunities in wetlands management and GIS. This included collaboration among the DPA, the Ukraine Institute for the Biology of Southern Seas (IBSS), and RIZA in preparing a hydrology model for the Stensovsko-Zhebriasnki Plavny. The hydrology model was essential for understanding the restoration options for SZP, now included within the biosphere reserve. The additional technical assistance and training delivered under the project amounted to an additional 360 person days, delivered through cofinanced and parallel activities and programs. ii) GIS and conservation biology. Selected staff participated in a series of GIS training courses between 1995 and 1999, first in collaboration with several other GEF-financed projects and later through training financed by RIZA. RIZA's assistance, and provision of a PC-GIS, was used by the IBSS in analyzing hydrobiological data on SZP  4 that have been useful in management planiing. DPA staff also participated in a 'biobusiness' training workshop that focused on biodiversity-based economic activities, which was jointly held in 1995 with the staff of the Bank/GEF Belarus and Ukraine Transcarpathian biodiversity protection projects. iii) Language training. As a result of English language training classes, some of the staff are now able to communicate and collaborate with individuals and groups who do not speak Russian or Ukrainian. This will facilitate further international collaboration, and will be useful in assisting the reserve staff to communicate with foreign visitors to the biosphere reserve in the operational phase. 11. The project financed key improvements to the DPA infrastructure, the most important of which were a headquarters building and warden stations and associated equipment. Construction of the headquarters building met with a number of delays and problems which were eventually resolved by purchasing a privately-built, unfinished building. The building, completed in May 1999, provides a headquarters with sufficient office space for the staff, garage and boat dock facilities, access to the canals for use in reaching the Kilia reedbeds of the biosphere reserve, and limited accommodations for visitors. The original plan was for the headquarters to be built on the outskirts of Vilkovo, but its current location within the village is more conducive to the Reserve's developing role as a socio- cultural and public awareness center for Vilkovo. 12. Warden Strengthening. The project provided the warden service with training, facilities, and equipment which improved their effectiveness, elevated their professionalism, and initiated an expanded role for them in reserve management. Early in the project, the Reserve recruited a highly effective chief warden and the staff was increased from 4 to 13 wardens, with roughly half of these attending warden training in the Netherlands and France (Tour du Valet). Later, the entire warden service was hosted by the Romanian Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority for additional training and to promote bilateral cooperation. Also, the Romanian warden team were trained in the DBR. The training lessons were later the subject of periodic 'refresher' training activities organized by the Chief Warden of the DPA and augmented by a training program by the MEPNS. In addition to the training, the project financed the purchase of boats and engines (previously, many wardens used their own), associated equipment (e.g., uniforms and binoculars), and the construction/renovation of four warden stations. The impact of these investments was more effective protection of the Reserve's biodiversity and an expanded role of the wardens in communicating the Reserve's function to the public. The wardens were impressed with the Dutch motto for managing and interacting with visitors: "we should surround ourselves with friends, not enemies". This reflects a more positive approach to visitor management which the Ukrainian wardens are working to adopt. 13. The project financed construction of three warden stations and the renovation of a fourth, all in the remote Kiliya part of the DBR. The stations were constructed as originally planned: to provide basic facilities (sanitation, sleeping, kitchen) for the wardens (while away from home on patrol) with an extra room for fee-paying researchers and occasional tourists. Due to an increase in construction costs beyond what was anticipated in the project budget, only one bird monitoring station (bird blind) was constructed, with a raised trail above the Kiliya wetlands. 14. Wetland Restoration. The original design of this component included the restoration of canals within Vilkovo (where the DPA is located), several studies in wetland restoration, and some  5 small civil works to improve water flows through the SZP. Two adaptive changes were made during its implementation. First, the work plan and budget for dredging canals in the village of Vilkovo was substantially reduced. The project financed the construction of a public dock and the dredging of canals, and most of the planned budget was reprogrammed to training activities and cost overruns for the headquarters building. These investments, though at a lower cost than originally planned, had their intended effect of demonstrating the DPA's interest in working for the benefit of the local community as well as for biodiversity conservation. 15. Second, greater emphasis was placed on wetland management planning. The project provided a small amount of funds (less than $50,000) to support the restoration of the Stensovsko-Zhebrianski plavni (SZP). The importance of restoring the SZP was recognized during project preparation, and during implementation it became a focus of cooperation between the DPA and two international partners: the Dutch Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) and WWF-International (Greene Danube Program). 16. Restoration of SZP. The floodplain of the delta between Kilia and Vilkovo, including fish ponds, pasture and croplands, is largely enclosed by dikes. In this area, only the SZP has retained important natural values, and is one of the most important sites in the Black Sea region for migratory and resident waterfowl. The hydrology of the plavny is entirely regulated and is affected by agricultural runoff from surrounding farmlands. 17. Over the last 30-50 years, the growth of reeds in the plavny has reduced its open water habitat and impeded water flows, and the fisheries and muskrat population traditionally used by the local community have declined. With the declining local economy, up to 200 people regularly fish in and around the SZP, resulting in unsustainable harvesting of fish. In addition to fisheries, the plavny is used by members of the local hunters and sports fishermen association, which contributes to the management of the site. 18. During project preparation, the need was recognized to restore water circulation to the plavny and to undertake proactive management measures to restore habitat productivity, such as controlled burns, grazing, and mechanical removal of the dense reedbeds. The project laid the foundation for the DPA's management of the SZP, by financing wetlands management training, the technical studies needed to study management alternatives and obtain government approval for management measures, preparation of the SZP management plan, and the first stage of its implementation (see Box 1). 19. Monitoring and Database Management. The project addressed the need to improve the understanding of baseline conditions of the delta ecosystem and to develop a monitoring program that serves the management needs of the DPA. In the first three years of the project, a scientific program was designed and implemented under the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Group. This three-year program produced good results on the fauna and flora, the research justification for wetland restoration activities and the biosphere reserve boundaries and zoning, resource use studies, and a monitoring system. The detailed studies of the project region also identified species not previously known to occur within Ukraine and those not previously known to science. The results of these research and monitoring activities are being summarized in a monograph "Conservation and Management of Biodiversity of the Danube Biosphere Reserve". This component also included training in GIS, conservation biology, and presentation of research and monitoring results at a number of international conferences/workshops by Ukrainian scientists.  CD U OK .~~~~~~ '.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -, 0~~~~..... kj~~~~~~~~0ih _ 0 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o . . . . . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'lz 4OQh _ X1~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ rA::: ~~~~~~~i