ICRR 10177
                                                                                        Report Number : ICRR10177
                    ICR Review
                    Operations Evaluation Department




1. Project Data :
             OEDID :
             OEDID:     TG010
         Project ID :   P008290
      Project Name :    Forest Biodiversity Protection
            Country :   Belarus
             Sector :   Forestry
       L/C Number :     TF28621
  Partners involved :
       Prepared by :    Charles Derek Poate, OEDST
      Reviewed by : Robert J. Van Der Lugt
    Group Manager : Roger H. Slade
       Date Posted : 08/18/1998

2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components :
 The project was part of a cohort of 5 GEF projects designed to derive global biodiversity benefits in a
number of ECA countries. It was also the first Bank activity in Belarus . The project's main objective was
to conserve the biodiversity of key endangered forests (the Belovezhskaya Protected Forest Reserve -
BPF) and the wetlands and forests of the Berezinsky and Pripiatsky reserve, through institutional support
and investments in applied research and management. BPT design included a transboundary link with
park management in the adjacent Bialowieza Primeval Forest in Poland (also supported by a GEF grant.
BPF was the major component of the project. The project was supported by a GEF grant of US$1 million
approved in September 24, 1992 and closed fully disbursed on December 31, 20 months late.

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives :
The project was slow to start and implementation was delayed considerably, due to Belarus' inexperience
with the Bank and the relative inexperience with the project's interdisciplinary approach and the Bank's
inexperience with Belarus. However, the project objectives of conserving key forest biodiversity and
collaborating on transboundary conservation efforts were achieved . The two major outcomes were: first
the improved management of the old growth forest ecosystem in BPF which itself improves the chances
of for the persistence of its globally significant biodiversity and second that protected areas management
in Belarus is now similar to that elsewhere in Europe .

4. Significant Achievements :
(i) Collaboration between Poland and Belarus went well beyond the project workplan . It was agreed to
prepare a Joint Transboundary Management Plan for the contiguous protected area; to designate the
contiguous protected area as a Transboundary Biosphere reserve and to standardize technical studies;
(ii) a business plan for nature based tourism was drafted late in the project even though this was not
originally planned.

5. Significant Shortcomings :
(i) given the ongoing fiscal difficulties of the state government, there is no indication that the national
park's budget will be increased in the short -term; ii) shortcomings at project appraisal resulted in
supervision costs four times the appraisal estimate .


6. Ratings :             ICR                       OED Review           Reason for Disagreement /Comments
              Outcome : Satisfactory               Satisfactory
    Institutional Dev .: Substantial               Substantial
        Sustainability : Likely                    Likely
   Bank Performance : Satisfactory           Unsatisfactory          While this was a small project, it was
                                                                     also the first project in a new country.
                                                                     Nevertheless, i) project appraisal was
                                                                     insufficient; (ii) continuity in
                                                                     supervision and coherence between
                                                                     the cohort of GEF projects was a
                                                                     problem; (iii) technically supervision
                                                                     was excellent but administratively it
                                                                     was not - lack of management and
                                                                     procurement support hampered
                                                                     implementation (iv) adherence to
                                                                     internal Bank reporting requirement
                                                                     was weak.
       Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory         Satisfactory
       Quality of ICR :                      Satisfactory

7. Lessons of Broad Applicability :
An interesting feature was that the lessons were discussed during a regional meeting involving the
participants of other GEF biodiversity projects in the cohort .. Among the lessons. An institutional capacity
assessment is essential, particularly in countries where the Bank has not previously been active .
Participation of local communities could have been enhanced by a social assessment early during project
implementation. Professional development and training activities were an important ingredient of the
project's success.

8. Audit Recommended?   Yes      No
         Why? This was the first project in Belarus, but more importantly would be to consider a joint
audit of the cohort of 5 GEF projects.

9. Comments on Quality of ICR :
The ICR was satisfactory.