Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 20588 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT BELARUS FOREST BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION PROJECT (GEF Grant 28621) June 20, 2000 Operations Evaluation Department Sector and Thematic Evaluation Group 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. 11 Abbreviations and Acronyms BPF Belovezhskaya Protected Forest BNP Belovezhskaya National Park GEF Global Environmental Facility GIS Geographic Information System ICR Implementation Completion Report MNREP Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection OED Operations Evaluation Department PAR Performance Audit Report PMU Project Management Unit Director-General, Operations Evaluation Mr. Robert Picciotto Director, Operations Evaluation Department Mr. Gregory Ingram Manager, Sector and Thematic Evaluation Group Mr. Ridley Nelson (Acting) Task Manager Mr. Andres Liebenthal The World Bank Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Office of the Director-General Operations Evaluation June 20, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Performance Audit Report on Belarus Forest Biodiversity Protection Project (GEF Grant 28621) The Forest Biodiversity protection project (GEF Grant 28621, of SDR 700,000, equivalent to US$1.0 million) was the first operation of any kind by the Bank in Belarus. The grant was approved in September 1992, and closed, fully disbursed, in June 1997, after a delay of 20 months. The objective of the project was to protect globally significant biodiversity of key endangered forests, especially the Belovezhskaya National Park (BNP), through institutional support and applied research and management. The BNP work was designed to linked with similar GEF-supported work being carried out in the contiguous Bialowieza Primeval Forest in Poland. The project provided: (a) institutional support to the BNP and the Department of Protected Areas to undertake biodiversity conservation activities; and (b) investments in programs, research and equipment to assist with the conservation of forest and wetland ecosystems. Institutional support components were preparation of a management plan for the BNP, professional development and training for staff, consulting services to assist protected area staff implement selected activities, further cooperation with Poland on the management of the transboundary reserve, and technical assistance for increasing the ecological sensitivity of the management of farms adjacent to the BNP. Investments included a small forest gene bank and related archival nursery equipment, and a geographic information system (GIS). The project objectives were substantially achieved. The applied research effort identified the greatest adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the BNP as poor regeneration in old and mature stands, overpopulation of game ungulates resulting in reduced regeneration of the major tree species, and drainage of agricultural land adjacent to the park. The former changes were inducing a succession to spruce. Following the management plan the park has been expanded to reduce drainage impacts and protect unique and threatened stands. The pressure from ungulates (hoofed animals) is being reduced through an increase in controlled hunting and capture and movement of game. Following increased exposure of senior staff to forest, park, and game management practices in other countries, a number of measures are being undertaken to increase revenues through targeted efforts in tourism and hunting, and limited management of non-core forest areas. The Belarus Ecological Reserves Foundation was established to support these efforts and to increase domestic awareness of Belarus' biological resources and of the need and of methods of conserving them. However, despite the best efforts of those involved in the project (and in the subsequent management. of the reserves) to develop alternative funding sources, the sustainability of their efforts remains uncertain. 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. 2 The audit rates project outcome as satisfactory; sustainability as uncertain; institutional development as substantial; Bank performance as marginally satisfactory; and borrower performance as satisfactory. Sustainability is rated as uncertain because of the weak economic and financial position of Belarus. Bank performance is rated as marginally satisfactory because supervision reporting was incomplete and little effort was made to support efforts to generate follow-on funding. At the time this project was undertaken, the Bank was attempting to establish lending programs in all the FSU countries, all of which had limited experience with international agencies. Resources in the region were stretched thin and, to some degree, the project fell through the cracks. The ICR noted that by more recent standards, these operations were under-designed, and noted issues such as the need for clearer and more operationally relevant objectives and targets, and the importance of greater inclusiveness during both the preparation and implementation stages. These issues have been highlighted in reviews of the GEF program and have largely been incorporated in subsequent operations, so are not reemphasized here as lessons from this review. This operation was initiated in the early stages of the pilot phase of the GEF, when it was implicitly assumed that countries would be able to obtain follow-up funding to take the place of the initial GEF input. The lesson from this project is that this assumption may be outdated and that GEF should review whether further steps are required to ensure long-term support for efforts to protect resources of high global biodiversity value. Attachment Contents Principal Ratings ................................................................................****.*******.*.*****************.**********.************* Hi Preface ................................................*.*******.*..***************************************............................................... V Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Country and Sector Context .....................................................1 Bank/GEF Role ...........................................................1 P roject O bjectives ...................................................................................................................................... 1 C o m p onents................................................................................................................................................2 Institutional A rrangem ents.........................................................................................................................2 Implementation and Results....................................................................................*.******************. ****........... 2 ICR Findings .............................................................2 Supervision Reports and Project Files........................... .................3 PAR Findings ............................................................3 Summary Conclusion............................................................3 Progress at Belovezhskaya National Park....................... .....................3 Belarus Ecological Reserves Foundation........................ .....................4 Coordination ................................................................... Assessment of Performance.................................................... 5 Ratings ................................................................. 5 Sustainability ............................................................. 5 Bank Performance......................................................... 6 Borrower Performance...................................................... 6 Conclusions and Lessons...................................................... 7 Conclusions ....forma......................................................................................................................... 7 Lessons................................................................... 8 Annex A. Basic Data Sheet ..................................................... 9 Annex B. Comments from the Borrower .............................................................................................. 11 This report was prepared under the supervision of Mr. Andres Liebenthal (Task Manager) by Mr. John English (Consultant) who audited the project in September 1999. Mr. William Hurlbut edited the report. Ms. Soon-Won Pak provided administrative support.  111 Principal Ratings ICR Audit Outcome Satisfactory Satisfactory Sustainability Likely Uncertain Institutional Development Substantial Substantial Borrower Performance Satisfactory Satisfactory Bank Performance Satisfactory Marginally Satisfactory Key Staff Responsible Task Manager Division Chief Country Director Appraisal August Schumacher Wafik Grais Russell Cheetham Mid-term Kathleen Stevenson Jeffrey Fox Basil Kavalsky Completion Philip Brylski John Hayward Paul Siegelbaum  V Preface This is a Performance Audit Report (PAR) on the Forest Biodiversity Protection Project in Belarus, for which the GEF Grant 28621 in the amount of SDR 700,000 (US$1.0 million equivalent) was approved on September 24, 1992, and made effective on January 7, 1993. The grant was closed on June 30, 1997, after a delay of 20 months. The final disbursement took place on May 30, 1997. The grant was fully disbursed. The PAR was prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED). It is based in part on the Appraisal Report, the Implementation Completion Report (ICR, Report No. 18000, dated June 11, 1998, prepared by the Rural Development and Environment Sector Staff, Europe and Central Asia Region), environmental and related project reports, loan documents, review of the project files and discussions with Bank staff. An OED mission visited Belarus in September, 1999 and discussed the effectiveness of the Bank's assistance with government officials and other stakeholders. Their kind cooperation and invaluable assistance in the preparation of this report are gratefully acknowledged. Following standard OED procedures, the draft PAR were sent to the borrower for comments which is attached as Annex B to this report.  1 BACKGROUND Country and Sector Context The Republic of Belarus extends to just over 200,000 km. The continental divide between the Baltic and Black Seas runs approximately NE - SW through the center of the country. The landscape is relatively flat with the highest elevation being 300 meters. About half its area is farmed, 35 percent is forest, 5 percent is in protected areas, and 5 percent is wetland. Through much of its history the society was feudal in its structure, and significant parts of the land now protected have been reserved for much of the millennium as hunting areas for the nobility. Areas of these forests form some of the few remnants of the deciduous lowland forest that once covered much of northern Europe. This is especially true of the Belovezhskaya Protected Forest (BPF), which is situated on the western border with Poland and is contiguous with the Bialowiezca Primeval Forest in that country. The Chernobyl nuclear power station lies in Ukraine, just south of the border with Belarus. Significant areas of Belarus were heavily impacted by the fallout from the 1986 accident (Belarus absorbed 75 percent of the fallout), and this constituted the single greatest environmental problem for the country. Agricultural and forestry use is banned or production practices are restricted on almost 2 million hectares of land (almost 10 percent of the country) as a result of pollution from the accident. Bank/GEF Role The Government of Belarus was interested in continuing to preserve areas of biological interest but, in the face of the economic pressures accompanying the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, it sought support to do so. Given the international importance of the major protected forests, especially the BPF, the GEF was interested in supporting efforts of this type, in particular to complement similar efforts being undertaken in Poland, which included a program in its part of the contiguous Bialoweza/Belovezhskaya protected forests The Bank fostered contact between Belarus and Poland and promoted the GEF as a potential source of funding for strengthening conservation activities. At the same time that the Poland project became effective in February 1992, the Bank formally proposed the Belarus project. Once the initial decision had been made, formulation, processing, and approval were rapid. The project was prepared in June 1992 and appraised in July. Negotiations were held in September of that year and it became effective in January 1993. Project Objectives The objectives of the project were to preserve the biodiversity of key endangered forests (the BPF and the wetlands and forests of the Berezinsky and Priaptsky Reserves) through institutional support and investments in applied research and management. The component for the Belovezhskaya National Park (BNP) was designed to link park management with ongoing GEF- supported work in the adjoining Bialowieza Primeval Forest in Poland. 2 Components At appraisal the project was estimated to cost US$1.25 million, with US$1.0 million to be covered by the GEF grant, and the balance of US$250,000 to be provided by the Government of Belarus. The project included two principal components: (a) Institutional support (US$800,000 including contingencies) to the BNP and the Department of Protected Areas to undertake biodiversity conservation activities, including the preparation of a management plan for the BNP, professional development and training for staff, consulting services to assist protected area staff implement selected activities, further cooperation with Poland on the management of the transboundary forest reserves, and technical assistance for developing ecological agriculture on farms in the buffer zone of the national park. (b) Investments in programs and research (US$450,000) to assist with conservation of forests and wetland ecosystems, including air and soil monitoring equipment, a forest gene bank and related archival forestry equipment, and a geographic information system (GIS). Institutional Arrangements The project was managed by a project management unit (PMU), which formed part of the Department of Protected Areas, located in the Presidential Affairs Office. IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS ICR Findings The ICR reports that the principal operations planned were carried out. In the BNP an initial applied research program identified the main problems affecting biodiversity as poor regeneration in the old and mature stands, an apparent succession to a spruce monoculture (with reduced presence of pine, oak, and ash typical of the climax lowland forest), overpopulation of grazing mammals (especially deer), and agricultural drainage on the park's borders. The area of the park was extended by 15 percent to reduce the drainage impacts and protect the unique and threatened forest stands. A multidisciplinary management plan for the park was drawn up and is under implementation, including an increase of hunting to reduce the deer population.' Workshops and study tours achieved useful professional development and training in technical subjects and the establishment of international professional contacts. These were also assisted by the publication of a book in Russian and English containing 30 reports on aspects of the applied research carried out in the protected areas assisted by the project. This has been disseminated throughout Europe and has helped develop further international collaboration. The project specifically aimed to foster ties and joint operations with the Bialowieza National Park in Poland, contiguous with the Belovezhskaya National Park. At the time of project completion, scientific exchanges and semi-annual meetings on the management of the parks were continuing, and efforts were being pursued to designate the contiguous protected area as a 1. See Implementation Completion Report para 12. 3 Transboundary Biosphere Reserve. The Director of the BNP is also reported to be developing collaboration in park management activities with a number of international organizations. The planning work for the BNP included a social assessment, including a survey of the attitudes of local communities towards the park and nature conservation more generally. This was a first of its kind in Belarus. The study also included an assessment of the impact of the park on the local communities and made suggestions on how relations could be improved. The ICR rated the overall outcome of the project, and Bank and borrower performance as satisfactory, and judged that its achievements were likely to be sustainable. Supervision Reports and Project Files The initial supervision reports and the research reports raised at some length the ongoing practice of feeding large grazing mammals (e.g., bison, deer, and boar) in the preserves as a matter of concern. It was felt that the result had been to raise the numbers of these species above that which could be readily supported by the area leading to physical damage, e.g., seedling damage by deer. However, this issue seemed not to have been pursued, and there is no mention of it in the ICR. PAR Findings Summary Conclusion In retrospect, those involved with the park see two main benefits of the project beyond the financing to maintain infrastructure, upgrade skills of park staff, and help maintain key scientific staff during a period of turmoil. * First, it encouraged those involved with management of the parks to take a wider view of these areas and their needs. In that context, it gave them an opportunity to develop a more interdisciplinary approach to the areas and to evolve appropriate decision-making procedures. * Second, through international contacts developed under the project, it helped them to recognize that, if the parks are to be satisfactorily maintained and developed, management will have to develop a wider range of partners. It can no longer just depend on support from the central budgets. In particular, it needs to be proactive in generating support, both internally, through working with members of parliament to keep them apprised of developments, but also through the media, to increase general public awareness of the parks, both to encourage visitors and to generate general support, and externally, through international tourism and wildlife umbrella groups. Progress at Belovezhskaya National Park Most of the activities initiated under the project have been continued since its completion. The park currently obtains about half of its operating budget from national subventions and the balance is internally generated, principally from forestry activities and tourism. Some sales are also being made of live mammals, deer, wild-boar, and occasionally bison, as part of the effort to reduce the numbers of these species, which had been encouraged with supplementary feeding since World War II. Most research is separately funded from external sources, much being linked to academies and similar institutions. 4 The park extends to about 87,000 ha and uses are restricted. About 15,000 ha (in three main tracts) comprise the strict protection areas, which are essentially undisturbed. The major area of the park, 57,000 ha, is subject to regulated use. This comprises removing larger deadwood and some "sanitary" cutting, aimed at the maintenance of the present tree composition, or that recorded in the recent past and agreed to be the natural stands in the area. In significant parts of the regulated area, the average age of the trees is over 100 years and there are concerns that a rapid die-off could result in a significant change in composition, especially as the seed fall declines from the older trees. Further problems arose because, between the 1960s and 1990s, the numbers of bison and deer were increased for hunting purposes. The additional animals increased the pressure on certain tree species, such as oak and pine, which were being superseded by spruce and hornbeam. Sanitary cutting is aiming at redressing this balance. Further extensions of the protected area are being made. The first, about 5,000 ha (which may be extended further), consists of wetlands and bogs, which will be maintained in this condition. The second, about 9,500 ha, consists of land that was previously under low-level agricultural/forestry use. Efforts will be made to move some of the bison and other large mammals there, and it will be used for hunting purposes, along the lines of the game ranches in South Africa. About 3,000 ha is to be fenced to protect deer and wild boar. Capital costs of these improvements are being partly financed by private operators of safari-type tours from West Europe. A buffer zone of about 90,000 ha is primarily under restricted agricultural use. During the 1950s and 1960s lower-lying areas were drained for cropping. However, given low profitability, there has been little resistance to proposals to allow the water table in these areas to rise. Since most of the areas were upstream of the protected area, this action should offset problems caused, in both the Belarus and Polish parks, by the earlier drainage. Belarus Ecological Reserves Foundation The project provided limited funds for the establishment of a foundation with the objective of sustaining the biodiversity protection program for the foreseeable future. The GEF would organize the legal and financial structure of such a foundation and encourage contributions from eco-debt conversion resources and from bilateral and international (EU, foundations, etc.) donors." (Appraisal Report para 3.19) The foundation was established in 1994 but in its initial years was essentially inactive, and only limited funding from formal sources has been forthcoming. In 1996 it was proposed to visit the U.S. to try and generate support, but this was not supported by the Bank as the project was closing. In the last two years, the foundation, which reports to the Department of Presidential Affairs, has become more proactive. It sees itself more as a promotional organization, seeking to increase support for the national parks in general (of which there are four) rather than just for Belovezhskaya alone. It is seeking to generate increased interest in the national parks internally, so as to increase, or at least maintain, domestic political support, and to increase awareness of them internationally, with the aim of increasing tourist revenues. In addition to printed material, the foundation has prepared two films (one on Belovezhskaya), which have aired on local TV, as well as numerous short news and promotional materials. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the number of visitors to National Parks fell. However, many of them were formal groups and delegations. In the past five years the number of visitors has tripled (45,000 at Belovezhskaya in 1998), with many more being private, which generate more actual spending at the parks. Externally, the foundation has participated in a few tourism "expos", focusing on contacts with organizations promoting eco-tourism, and nature organizations, with the aim of generating increased numbers of foreign tourists to Belarus. In 1998, 3,000 foreign visitors to Belovezhskaya 5 stayed for more than one day at the park. The foundation is also attempting to develop contacts with travel/tourism organizations that might generate interest in investment in or near the parks, as at Belovezhskaya, noted above. It is not clear that the current organization is exactly what was envisaged at the outset. However, it does appear to be a pragmatic response to the rather unsatisfactory position in which the foundation found itself after the close of the project. Focusing on tourism to the national parks does help generate revenues for them. A broader question is whether it makes sense for the organization to restrict itself to the national parks, under the aegis of the Presidency. Given that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (MNREP) has the wider remit of managing protected areas as a whole (which in total area are much larger than the parks) and that there are significant tourism opportunities within them, including for hunting, consideration might be given to linking the foundation to the MNREP. Coordination' The Forest Biodiversity Protection Project was implemented by the Department of Protected Areas in the President's Affairs Management Department. This link to the Presidency helped in ensuring action in implementation, not least because it eased the way to obtaining Presidential decrees when necessary. However, overall responsibility for environmental affairs rests with the MNREP. This ministry is responsible for management of protected areas as a whole (8 percent of the national area - including the areas closed to occupation after the Chernobyl disaster), and the role of the Presidency in the national parks does not help in coordination of policies towards environmentally sensitive areas. The ministry is also the technical focal point for GEF-funded activities in the country, but the ability to coordinate has been hampered by the division of responsibility at the operating level. It is also not clear that the Bank has been able to do as much as would be desirable to foster this collaboration. The result has been a degree of duplication of effort as, for example, both ministries have put forward proposals for GEF funding of efforts to address wetlands policy. ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE Ratings The audit rates project outcome as satisfactory; sustainability as uncertain; institutional development as substantial; Bank performance as marginally satisfactory; and borrower performance as satisfactory. These ratings downgrade the ICR assessments of sustainability from likely and Bank performance from satisfactory, the others remaining unchanged. Sustainability Park management and the foundation have displayed considerable ingenuity in tapping into new sources of funding for the management of the national parks. These revenues, and the government's own subventions, have enabled the BNP to build upon the foundation laid by the project in the ways described above. However, because of the weak state of the Belarus economy and finances, the ability to continue to do so remains tenuous. Since the project ended, external support has been limited and sustainability would be radically enhanced if even a limited level of 2. The Government notes that improving coordination between the Ministry and Department for Protected Areas was not a project objective. 6 long-term support were available. The issue of continued funding to support globally significant biodiversity is discussed at greater length below. Bank Performance Bank performance is rated as "marginally satisfactory." The Bank was proactive at the outset and responded quickly to the expression of interest in the country and the possibility of fostering collaborative efforts with the Polish agencies, where essentially none had taken place before. However, given that this was the first Bank-funded operation in Belarus, appraisal was perhaps overly rapid, not giving the Belarussians enough time to absorb what was expected of them. This was apparent in the initial difficulties with procedures in implementation and, if the project had not been headquartered in the Department of Presidential Affairs, these problems might have been much more disruptive than they were. Given the small size of the operation, the level of Bank supervision and general back-up support was creditable. However, supervision focused almost exclusively on technical issues, using external consultants (biologists and foresters) who were not closely familiar with Bank procedures. In a sense, the timing of the operation was unfortunate. In the early 1990s, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the Bank found itself in a position of trying to get lending programs going in a dozen new countries, in all of which the political, financial, and administrative systems were chaotic. Especially in the smaller republics, they had had no previous exposure to agencies such as the Bank and western practices in project management, etc. Belarus was grouped with Ukraine, Moldova, and the Caucasian republics in one division. The result was an overwhelming load of project operations, and small, peripheral operations such as this project, tended to fall through the cracks: as the ICR points out, the relevant reporting forms appear to have been completed for only half of the supervision missions undertaken. Similarly, the overall workload left little time for Bank staff to assist the Belarussians to pursue possible external sources of follow-on funding, thus putting the long-term viability of the effort at risk. Borrower Performance Given the limited size of the grant, project management achieved a great deal. This has been reflected in the award to the park in 1998 of the European Diploma in Nature by the European Commission. The extent of the work undertaken is partly reflects the exchange rate and relative prices, but also tight management. Almost all of the activities foreseen at the outset were achieved. As noted earlier in the report, management has also displayed a considerable degree of initiative in generating some additional sources of funding in generally discouraging circumstances. The major issue not addressed is the division of responsibility between the Directorate of Protected Areas in the Office of Presidential Affairs (the manager of the project), which is responsible for the four national parks, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (MNREP), which is responsible for management of protected areas as a whole,3 and for related policy. This division of responsibility risks wasting valuable resources. For example, the Foundation, which reports to the Office of Presidential Affairs, might also promote domestic and international interest in the protected areas as a whole. For example, hunting tours might be much more attractive if they could include other areas as well as the parks, given the abundant bird populations, especially during the fall migrations. 3. This includes the areas devastated by the Chernobyl accident. 7 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS Conclusions This project and its companion in Poland were part of the first wave of GEF grant-supported operations. They were funded under the initial "pilot" phase of the GEF. At that time there was a significant pressure to get projects up and running in a situation in which experience with this type of operation was extremely limited and, in these cases, the recipients were not experienced in dealing with international aid-related agencies. The ICR has noted the major short-term lessons that may be learned from the initial implementation of these operations. They noted that by more recent standards, these operations were under-designed and noted issues such as the need for clearer and more operationally relevant objectives and targets, and the importance of greater inclusiveness during both the preparation and implementation stages. These issues have been highlighted in reviews of the GEF program and have been incorporated in subsequent operations. It is now almost 10 years since the inception of the GEF. This audit will, therefore, not repeat the earlier conclusions, but will focus on longer-term issues that have perhaps become more apparent in recent years, relating primarily to the longer term support and management of the unique biological resources whose conservation the GEF has sought to enhance and maintain. Funding of global biodiversity. The initial GEF support was predicated on the international value of the biodiversity resources and the need to protect them against the effects of encroachment in general and pollution in particular. However, the project activities made no provision for efforts to obtain long-term funding for the region. Unfortunately this tendency is not confined to GEF. The park was included on the list of World Biosphere Reserves in 1977 and was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1979. But these honors do not result in financial support for the resource, although they may help in fund raising. Presumably, because of the uniqueness and biological richness of the park, its global biological value may be assumed to continue to exceed that to Belarus alone. On that basis, it might be adjudged to qualify for continued GEF funding, since GEF is designed to finance "incremental costs required to achieve global benefits." However, the GEF is not seen as a long-term funding entity. This leaves open the question of how the "incremental costs required to achieve global benefits" are to be covered. Given its significant role in environmental funding, it may be appropriate for the GEF to begin to raise this issue. Otherwise, the benefits it has helped achieve may risk being undone. The government and the park management and foundation have made significant efforts to continue and enhance the actions supported by the project. However, efforts continue on a shoestring. Given the current exchange rate, a limited amount of hard currency can go a relatively long way, but some firmer source of external funding would be desirable. There may be scope for the GEF to take a more active role in fostering such support. The present pilot efforts to develop country programs as the basis for GEF support are a move in this direction, since they expect that funding will be obtained from other external sources to supplement the GEF effort. There may be scope for broadening this effort and perhaps, involving wildlife-oriented NGOs as sources of funding and in fostering international research collaboration. Other sources of official funding might also be explored. For example, implementation of the Kyoto Agreement (if it is ratified) appears likely to lead to the use of carbon emissions trading contracts. Funding will be required to cover the costs of monitoring these agreements and might be raised by a surcharge on the contracts. Consideration might be given to using this source to finance other limited, long-term, global environmental goals such as preservation of biodiversity. A more general review of the issue may be appropriate in the run-up to the 10t anniversary of the Rio Conference. 8 Research institutions and practice. As noted, the project focused on research to assess the severity of the threat to the forests, which would lead to the determination of a range of responses to them. Companion projects in Poland and the Czech Republic, which supported similar efforts in contiguous forests, were used as vehicles to promote cross-border collaboration on this basis. However, the ICR concluded that the results in this area had been disappointing. This appears to have been at least partly a result of the structure of research funding in the former socialist countries, and which has been largely retained in Belarus. This provides a large role to Academies of Sciences, which disburse significant research funds. These tend to view research very much from an academic viewpoint, its contribution to a discipline, rather than in a problem- oriented mold. Given the short duration of the project, the research supported was largely based on proposals made by relevant researchers. They made choices based on this disciplinary perspective rather than from a problem-oriented one.4 The results of the joint programs on the Bialowieza/Belovezhskaya forest were published in two volumes: one on the Polish work,' and one on Belarus.' In consequence, the results did not lend themselves as much as they might have to the development of operational programs. This does point up the importance of ensuring that the existing institutional structures, including operational procedures, are consistent with the aims of the project. Lessons This operation was initiated in the early stages of the pilot phase of the GEF where it was implicitly assumed that, with the additional support provided by the GEF, countries would be able to obtain follow-up funding to take the place of the initial GEF input. The lesson for this project is that this assumption is outdated and that GEF should review whether steps are required to ensure long-term support for efforts to protect resources of high global biodiversity value. GEF should consider taking a longer-term and broader nation-wide view of biodiversity and conservation issues following the model piloted in Mexico. A more general review on how to ensure sustainability of globally important bio-resources should be raised in the run-up to the 10t anniversary of the Rio Conference. 4. Remember, this was nearly a decade ago, shortly after the demise of the socialist structures in Poland. Attitudes have changed greatly since then. 5. Piotr Paschalis, Kazimierz Rykowski, and Stefan Zajaczkowski, "Protection of Forest Ecosystems Biodiversity of Bialowieza Primeval Forest", Warsaw, 1995. 6. Alexander Luchkov, Vladimir Tolkach, Stephen Berwick and Philip Brylski, "Belovezhskaya Pushcha Forest Biodiversity Conservation". Minsk, 1997. 9 Annex A Annex A. Basic Data Sheet Key Project Data (in US$ thousands) Appraisal estimate Actual at project closing Actual as % of appraisal estimate Total project costs 1,251 1,285 102 Grant amount 1,000 1,032 103 Cumulative Estimated and Actual Disbursements (in US$ thousands) FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 Appraisal estimate 300 700 1,00 - - Actual 121 146 442 889 1,033 Actual as % of appraisal estimate 40.3 - 20.9 44.2 Date of final disbursement: May 30, 1997 Source: ICR/590 Note: Actual disbursements in dollars was higher than appraisal estimate due to exchange rate with SDR. Project Timetable Steps in Project Cycle Date Planned Date Actual/Latest Estimate Identification (Executive 2/92 2/92 Project Summary) Preparation 6/92 6/92 Appraisal 7/92 7/92 Negotiations 9/92 9/92 Signing 9/92 9/92 Effectiveness 10/92 1/93 Grant closing 10/95 6/97 Source: SAR/ICR Staff Inputs (staff weeks) Planned Actual Weeks US$ Weeks US$ Preparation to Appraisal - - 5.5 16,900 Appraisal - - n.a n.a Negotiations through Board - - 4.6 11,400 approval Supervision - - 70.0 244,900 Completion - - 6.0 28,000 Total - 86.1 301,200 10 Annex A Mission Data Performance Rating2 Month! No. of Days Implem. Developm. Types of Year Persons in field Specializations' Status Objectives problems3 Through appraisal 7/92 4 E,F,F,F Appraisal through signing 9/92 Supervision I 4/93 3 5 F,F S S M Supervision II 6/93 1 3 F No 590 No BTO Supervision 111 11/93 3 3 E,F,F S S Supervision IV 3/94 2 3 E,F S S Supervision V 6/94 4 6 F,F,F,F S S Supervision VI 11/94 2 8 F,F No 590 No BTO Supervision VII 2/95 3 4 E,F,F No 590 No BTO Supervision VIII 6/95 3 6 E,F,F S HS Supervision IX 3/96 1 10 F No 590 No BTO Supervision X 10/96 1 8 F No 590 No BTO Supervision XI 2/97 1 6 F S HS Completion 9/97 1 6 F Total 1. E=Economist; F=Forestry and Biodiversity 2. HS=Highly Satisfactory: S=Satisfactory 3. M=Management Follow-up Operations Operation Credit/Grant Amount no. ($US million) Approval FY None 11 Annex B Annex B. Comments from the Borrower May 17,2000 Mr. Gregory Ingram, Managor Sector and Thomatic lvaluation Group Operations Evaluation Department Dear Mr. Ingram: Concerning Forest Biodiversity Project (GEF Grant 28621) Draft Performance Audit Report, we would like to make corrections as below. 1. On page 2: in Chapter "ICR Findings" in the end of first paragraph in last sentence we propose to omit phrase "including an increase of hunting to reduce the deer population" 2. On page 5: Chapter "3clarus Ecological Reserves Poundation" must be finished at "...does help generate revenues for them". 3. We propose to exclude section "Coordination" because this topic wasn't in the initial project objectives and isn't related with the obtained results. Yours sincerely Leonty Kho yk Vasily Podolyako Deputy He8 Deputy Minister Presidential Affairs Management Ministry of Nature Resources and Deparnent of the Republic of Uelarus environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus