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 £ ~~~~~~~~ o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~R .. ~~~~~~~~~~v tr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . .. cu, -t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~t 0 .. .... IP -I,- - ' ~ 9 - j:j. a. I ~ ~~~~~i Ii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j~ ~ ~ ~~~j ..... 0:A.I;-s 7 20. The component had two principal impacts. First, it gained broader acceptance among scientists and the MEPNS on proactive management activities such as the use of fire in reedbed management. Although local communities set small fires around the margins of plavnis to control reed growth and maintain productivity for grazing, fire was not an accepted tool for plavny management by the Academy of Sciences and MEPNS prior to the project. The permissions needed to initiate pilot burns in Stensovsko Zhebrianski Plavny were obtained based on the results of the research program, which demonstrated that controlled burns increase biodiversity levels in senescent reedbeds and are needed to help maintain biodiversity levels of the Reserve. Second, the investments in research and monitoring activities improved the capacity of reserve staff to implement the operational programn and contributed to improved international cooperation on conservation biology issues of the delta. 21. Biosphere Reserve Establishment. An important part of the project objective was to create a biosphere reserve and expand the protected area to include the key wetland and upland sites of Stensovsko-Zhebrianski Plavny, Yermakov Island, and additional wetlands of the Kiliya Delta. The key steps in formation of the biosphere reserve are as follows: i) The process for creation of the biosphere reserve was initiated in 1994, through a Presidential Decree and its adoption by the Supreme Soviet, of a country-wide protected area program that 'reserved' the territories of protected areas to be developed over a period of years. This step of first 'reserving' territories is standard practise in Ukraine; it initiates a sequence of activities for establishment of the protected area ii) In 1996, the MEPNS completed its reports for establishment of the reserve, drawing on the results of the project-financed scientific program, and initiated its consultations with local and regional government, and kolhozes, state organizations (owners and users), and other stakeholders (hunting and fishing organizations and local peoples). Based on these results, the regional (oblast) government signaled its approval for the biosphere reserve. iii) The 'Danube Biosphere Reserve', covering 46,403 hectares, was established by Presidential Decree in 1998. The inclusion of Stensovsko-Zhebrianski Plavny into the DBR occurred by transfer of land from the Ministry of Forestry, and the remaining sites were acquired by 'secondary title', wherein ownership remains with the Ministry of Forestry or local collectives. For all lands in the reserve, the DBA Authority is responsible for ensuring that land uses are consistent with the objectives of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. iv) In February 1999, the Council for the Man and the Biosphere Program (UNESCO) awarded diplomas designating the Ukrainian Danube Biosphere Reserve and the RomanianlUkrainian Bilateral Biosphere Reserve. 22. The MEPNS attempted to include additional areas within the Danube Biosphere Reserve. The most important of these were adjoining agricultural lands, the runoff from which impact the Stensovsko Zhebrianski Plavny, and Lake Kutai. However, the agricultural kolhozes and local communities resisted inclusion of additional land due to concern over the impact of inclusion in the biosphere reserve on economic activities. 8 23. The Central Board of National Nature Park and Reserve Affairs (CBNNPRA) considers the current Danube Biosphere Reserve boundaries as a first phase effort, and expects to continue with a second phase in the future (tentatively planned for 2003). The Danube Biosphere Reserve Authority (DBRA) has a pragmatic approach to the issue. First, it understands the concerns of the local population and considers that one of the DBRA's missions is to demonstrate the positive role of the reserve, especially in demonstrating sustainable use of its resources. If these efforts are successful, local communities will be more supportive of the Reserve and their role in its management. Second, it is concerned about keeping its land and resources management responsibilities in line with current budgetary and staff resources. Finally, whereas inclusion of agricultural kolkhozes and villages within the reserve fits better the mandate of a biosphere reserve, the local communities elected to take a 'wait and see' approach to membership. 24. Public awareness and education. Under this component, the Reserve implemented activities to raise awareness in local communities on why the delta is important to them, and worked with various actors in the international community on activities supporting protection of the Danube Delta and the Black Sea The DPA organized a number of public education activities for different target audiences. The general public was targeted through regular contributions to local and regional newspapers, dissemination of brochures and calendars, televised news reports of Reserve activities and educational videos prepared under the project, and by an annual "March of Parks" event where the Reserve hosted the local community to a festival of environmental activities. Kiosks were established at locations frequented by fishermen and posted with information on the biosphere reserve and updated fishing regulations. An ecological education program for school children and teachers was delivered for three years at the Reserve's visitors' information center, for which the project provided equipment (video, furniture, displays) and educational materials. The design of the education program was informed by the results of a survey of public attitudes on the importance of environmental issues, in particular about nature conservation and their views on the reserve. 25. NGO training and small grants program. A partnership was formed with WWF International, Green Danube Program, to provide assistance for strengthening the participation and effectiveness of Ukrainian NGOs in protecting and restoring Danube Delta ecosystems (see Box 2). The first phase was held in WWF's Environmental Education Centre, Neusiedler See National Park in Austria, and focused on building business and technical skills through lectures and exercises on: (i) organization and management of NGOs; (ii) project management, and (iii) environmental education and monitoring. The participants included representatives of NGOs from the project region, including Romania, and from Kyiv. 26. Based on an assessment of the needs and capacities of 10 NGOs active in wetland conservation activities, WWF-International implemented a second phase program in the project region. In this phase, action plans were developed for regional NGO network building, project identification, and project implementation. The plans focused on involving local communities, strategic environmental education activities, targeted media work, and project communication plans, and the organisational and equipment needs to support these. 27. The participants rated the training program as highly satisfactory, and felt that it could be improved by designing it with a better understanding of Ukrainian conditions. For example, fundraising and campaigning techniques successful in western Europe are generally not relevant to the 9 socioeconomic circumstances of Ukraine. Nonetheless, the participants indicated that the program provided a good foundation for the NGOs to adapt international practices to local conditions. 28. A small grants program (SGP) was initiated in 1998 to better engage local communities in the project, to strengthen the education and awareness component, and to provide practical opportunities to strengthen NGOs (see Box 2). The SGP was well designed and implemented. Several consultants worked under the direction of a steering committee to design and implement the program. Four reports were prepared and disseminated: (i) a description of the program and 15 thematic areas eligible for funding, invitation for proposals, proposal requirements, and criteria for selection (1997); (ii) abstracts of the 86 proposals received and contact information for their authors/organisations (1998); (iii) a summary of the selection results and comments by the committee; and (iv) a summary of results for the 22 projects implemented (1999). -:DI.ning the projects, iid-te review, itdwas agrd.tat a small grant s program(SGP)- should be ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ......... .. .... . ..... .. .... .... . . . .. -devel,oped to e no inv,l,emet'in wetlands coe i an to ove understanding of the' projet objectives 'ad-act,iviies ithe iroject reioin. Aa prelude to the smali grants progra .... . ..... . .... . ........... '.VWWF-InternaioEifia carried ou w-phase train:ing program fo rersnaives Of Ukrainain .na,ture,c,onls,e,r,vation NG3Os inl A,ustria -a nd in th project -region. ~~.. . . .... . . . ..... . .. .. -. -.-. ......... . . . .. .. .... . .. .... . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... ..... ... .. .... .. ................... .......... ... -heta n pprogr'am w'as., fiane troughthe Austrian G1'obal Environment 'Trust Fun (managed by,the Bank) and'the Green-Danube Program. It emphaized' practical skil- in N : J deel,mn adangm t, and bad ,he .,..,,importa.,t ipacs ' .'proved: (i) business skills' '' and ,skils in prt,ojectonceptuphsaib,fi .laning, and fndra - 'ing;'i kno,wledge of approache to w,lan'd,'conerva.ton and.,th,e.roleofenvitronmna education inthese;-s and:(,')- thebasis 'for cooperation and networking among the NGt,Os stfigthn O. ~~~~~~~~~. ........ .......... -, - .-,...- - TheSOPwasiniiaed n 198 o ettr egag loalcomuniiesinthesk projet top strngthen the ed n an-wareness o , n as a practil way: to put te sIl.s . ........d d in t N ., .. , ... .,. ,,., ., . , ., ............................................................ ,... .... , ............. . :taining pr,granito pic us. Several consultants active in the conservation sec off Ukra.nia c s,,,,,,,,-,,,iety,, design,d th sm , g s pogram, startig w`i dissemination of brochures callin foriproposals ad idesc6ibing th' cit for how propos's wouldw bo selected.The progrsso thepjrogawacomnatdn for brochurs andtheprogram fiaced2 pro"ets t ihat 'm a'sie-d cor. v .a...t ...i. i'i " 'b oc c i b Approximately R..XJ ..t..p1'"''''''''' ..1iiesy.... .. ... .. .. .._. ~.. . .. iz . .W .o . e! . .........s... . 50, chEildren nd: ad,.ults .were' enaged inimplem-'ting tie 22:pojects. hae sm ail grant "pr"gra w-: effuct,,ive.''t.aising ud _rt n of the project and of awareness and understing of envirome'nt issues generally im the project. egion . The projc fed-a range of activ'ities includng a conferenceon the ecology and cultuira history of the p'r'ojectarea,streamside affiorestions and restorai aenital filim$ f...tvl br... hurs.ad .p-o tersonDaube conservati onsumiercamp for :c,i,ldr.en.-.At: the end of tie program, at-d fesiv (coformDanu.beDelta '98)was hld in Vilkovo (village headquarters of the Danube Delta.X Bisher Rerv.T festival featured 'publiepton the results:of ofthe gra ts,'a-co y volu neer musicians,-- an 'pr-.r''.' A' l-,i -ill'es eg we re iin . ernene program. At the festival, local~~~~~~~~~~~: "I vilagrs we;re ipesed that -the poect weeiplmnedmil byeveTy people-l.ike themselves',rather tn dst he-sp 'sored onitions',setting an .amp,,ttt ,they w.ould be more iky to foilow in the fiture. 10 D. Major Factors Affecting the Project 29. Two positive factors that affected the project were the Recipient's experience working with the Bank and the strong interest of several intemational organizations in the project: i) Experience with implementation of Bank projects. When the project became effective in 1994, the Recipient had gained experience with Bank/GEF projects through implementation of the Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project, an SDR400,000 grant project that had been under implementation for one year when the Danube Delta project was launched. The ICR for the Transcarpathian project noted that the PIU had spent considerable time learning Bank procedures and in finding innovative solutions to the in-country conditions that hindered project implementation. The same PIU was responsible for both projects, and the experience learned under the Transcarpathian project was applied by the PIU to the Danube Delta project, with good results. ii) International interest in the project. From the outset of implementation, there was strong interest on the part of international organizations in forming partnerships with the Ukraine MEPNS and Danube Plavny Authority on implementation of the project. One of these partners was the Dutch RIZA, the General Directorate of Public Works and Water Management, which provides technical assistance in water resources management and wetlands conservation worldwide, with special emphasis on improving the management of delta ecosystems. The project's cooperation with RIZA spanned the project implementation period, and is planned to continue in the operational phase. 30. Two factors that slowed project implementation were difficulties with building construction and government licensing requirements of the Special Account: i) Headquarters construction. The project financed the construction of headquarters building for the Danube Plavny Authority, a contract for which was originally awarded to a private sector construction firm. The lack of experience of private sector involvement, by both the construction contractor and the government institutes traditionally responsible for design and construction, contributed to delays in construction. Owing to the rise in construction costs and difficulty in completing the headquarters building within the project timetable, the project's legal agreement (between the Bank and Ukraine) was amended to allow the use of project funds to purchase a newly constructed building for the headquarters. The headquarters building activity was completed two years later than planned. The delay slowed the completion of certain components, and diverted attention that should have been devoted to wetlands management activities late in the project. ii) Licensing of the SpecialAccount. In the final year of the project, the Government of Ukraine required licensing and on-going involvement of the National Bank for the use of foreign bank accounts by private and public sector organizations. As a result of substantial delays in obtaining the National Bank's license for the operation of the Special Account, disbursement was interrupted and the completion of project activities was slowed. 11 31. Finally, the project was influenced by the fact it was implemented during a difficult financial period for the country, with cuts in budgetary support for most state institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences. The reserve staff usually received their salaries from one to four months late, which reduced staff morale. As a result of the uncertain financial conditions, the reserve director adopted a conservative, risk averse approach to taking on management responsibilities which took into consideration his ability to obtain financing for the recurrent costs. The difficult financial conditions also promoted a more proactive approach to developing income generating activities such as tourism. D. Project Sustainability 32. Government budgetary support for the Danube Biosphere Reserve was leveraged by the GEF project. This budgetary support, along with the strong ownership and commitment of the main stakeholders, means that key benefits of the project will continue to be achieved in the operational phase. However, parts of the operational plan which are central to the project's sustainability will depend on the reserve's success in obtaining additional financing. While there are indications that grant support will be made available by other donors, 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. 33. With respect to the project's improvements in reserve management and biodiversity conservation that resulted from its human resources development activities, the project is likely to be sustainable through the medium term (e.g., 5-10 years). The staff is relatively young and highly committed to continuing with project activities. The project's emphasis on 'learning by doing' activities, supported by focused international technical assistance' resulted in a strengthened Reserve staff capable of handling the core activities of the operational plan without substantial external assistance/investments in human resources. For the most part, the Academy of Sciences or the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety do not have the budgetary resources to continue with the various international training programs which were initiated under the project. However, since project completion, Ukraine has maintained its participation in Europe-wide conservation and sustainable development discussions, in part through its partnerships with international organisations such as Wetlands International and World Wildlife Fund. 34. With respect to expensive activities such as wetlands restoration and applied research, the sustainability is uncertain. The reserve will continue with some wetlands restoration and applied research activities, but the state is unlikely to substantially increase the reserve's budget under current economic conditions. Implementation of the full operational plan will therefore depend on external financing and on the reserve's success in generating revenue. 35. Regarding external financing, a US$2M project in wetlands conservation and public education financed by the Dutch government and implemented through the WWF-Greene Danube Program is proposed to continue with several activities initiated under the project. Regarding income generation, the by-laws for the biosphere reserve include the right for the reserve authority to operate a revenue account, fed by revenues from fines, resource use fees, fee-paying visitors, and donations. This revenue account was created to supplement the modest budget from the Academy of Sciences for the biosphere reserve's operational expenses. The Reserve is also marketing its modest ecotourism opportunities to bird watching groups and tourists, emphasizing its rich bird life, scenic qualities, and 12 location (the "0 km location of the Danube River"). Finally, the conservation efforts of the Reserve remain of considerable interest to donors and other partners. The Reserve staff has started applying for small grants and has met with some success. Each of these activities has been designed to generate a modest supplement to the budget that will contribute to the sustainability of project benefits. E. Bank Performance 36. The Bank's performance was satisfactory throughout preparation and implementation. The project was well prepared: the project design was fully appropriate to the project objectives, and the Recipient was comfortable with the level of detail on project activities, budget, and implementation arrangements found in the project document. Starting 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, by a highly qualified resident mission staff member and other resident mission staff experienced with the needs of the project and with Ukraine. F. Recipient Performance 37. The Recipient's perfornance was satisfactory. The project 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 or organizations. 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, the CBNNPRA, Academy of Sciences, and the PFLJ. 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 authorized representative for the Recipient, was satisfactory in facilitating all aspects of the project. The PIU's efforts and results in procurement and as facilitators of project implementation were excellent, particularly in the face of the country's extensive regulations and procedures. H. Assessment of Outcome 38. The project had positive and satisfactory outcomes with respect to human resources development, expanded vision for protected area management in Ukraine, and improved biodiversity protection and use within the Danube Biosphere Reserve': i) Establishment of new approaches to the management of protected areas in Ukraine. The preparation of a management plan for the Danube Biosphere Reserve and the early 'The Recipient's comment letter (Appendix B) recommended that the project's outcome be rated as highly satisfactory. 13 stages of its implementation represents an important step in Ukrainian protected areas management. Prior to the project, the typical model for protected area management in Ukraine was that of a strict nature reserve or national nature park for which a 'territorial organization plan' was prepared. The territorial organization plan has basic elements of a management plan, but its focus on boundaries and restrictions on land and resource use is a static approach to protected areas management. The management plan prepared under the project emphasizes a participatory process for defining objectives and the technical habitat management measures that are needed to achieve these objectives. This is the first protected area management plan adopted in Ukraine that prescribes proactive habitat management measures, in this case for reedbeds and based on water management, controlled burning, and establishment of regimes for the use of its resources. The approaches to wetlands management and the plan itself were developed in collaboration with international partners such as Wetlands International, the Dutch RIZA, and AlDEnvironment (a Dutch-based NGO) over a period of four years, and in this sense are the tangible outcome of the international cooperation activities financed by the project and cofinanciers such as RIZA. ii) Development of human resources and integration of the reserve into European conservation initiatives. The project helped to build the staff skills that were needed to achieve the project objectives, and which will be needed to implement the operational phase of the project. The project also led to collaboration and partnerships on delta conservation/natural resource management issues with colleagues and organizations elsewhere in central and western Europe. The current activities with the Dutch RIZA and Austrian WWF-International that were catalyzed by the project are planned to continue in the operational phase. iii) Improved protection and management of the biodiversity of the Danube Biosphere Reserve. The Ukrainian Danube Biosphere Reserve was established in 1998 through the addition of key wetland and upland sites, a plan for its management was prepared and is being implemented, and reserve staff are better trained and equipped to fulfill the reserve's mandate of improved management and protection of the biosphere reserve's biodiversity. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania/Ukraine) was also established in 1999, shortly before the Completion Mission, and it's function has not yet been evaluated. I. Future Operations 39. The Recipient has identified activities in the following six areas that are the priorities for the operational period from 1999 to 2002: Reserve infrastructure and resource management, wetlands restoration, research and monitoring, public education and awareness, regional and international cooperation, and tourism development. Table 2 summarizes the activities and their estimated costs.. 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 investnents needed from the Academy of Sciences. The reserve will attempt to finance the remaining two-thirds from income generating activities, user fees collected for the use of resources (e.g., fish, reedbeds) in 14 selected parts of the reserve, and from additional international financing. The Recipient is working with WWF-Intemational on a proposal to finance some of the expensive wetlands restoration (i.e., sluice gate restoration) and public education activities identified in Table 2. J. Key Lessons Learned 40. The key lessons learned 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. e. Continuity in supervision responsibility contributes greatly the relationship between the Bank and its client. 15 Table 1. Danube Delta Biodiversity Project Summary of Project Activities, Results, and Impact' Component 1. DPA Strengthening Activity/result Impact Procured: * Mandate of the Reserve transformed HQ building constructed with garage, maintenance area, from conservation through dock & mooring facilities operational (including utilities) prohibition of resource use to more and equipped (office furniture & equipment), supported proactive participatory approaches by 3 vehicles, computers, communications, & other equipment; purchase of 2 apartments to be held in * Adoption of management plans as a perpetuity by Reserve Authority for use by employees tool in Reserve management Staffing: * Total staff increased from 14 to 35 * High quality staff recruited/retained Training: * Training and workshops in wetland management with * Better understanding of international substantial project financing: Odessa (1995), 250 p/d; practices of wetland management Lelystad (1995), 80 p/d; U.K.-Denmark-Sweden Study Tour (1995), 24 p/d; Lelystad, 2 workshops (1998), 48 * Experience with international nature p/d; Vienna 'Partners for Wetlands workshop (1998), 16 conservation community p/d; Svialava 'biobusiness' workshop (1996), 42 p/d; * Training and workshops with Reserve staff participation, * Reserve gained a voice in decision- with substantial co-financing: 6 technical assistance making in the region missions to Reserve by Dutch RIZA (1995-1999), 60 p/d; Odessa wetland inventory workshop (1995), 210 p/d; US- - Reserve more capable of attracting AID study tour of US protected areas (1995), 30 p/d; donor funding Italy, delta management workshop (1998), 24 p/d; Finland, EuroMab conference (1998), 19 p/d; WWF mission on wetlands restoration (1998), 16 p/d; * English language training (2 years) _ Component 2. Warden Strengthening Training: * Job satisfaction and prestige of * warden training course in Netherlands, France, Romania wardens increased completed (400 p/d) * on-going training in Vilkovo * Capability to perform monitoring * MEPNS-organized training (8 p/d), w/ training manuals * Capacity and efficiency of warden service improved through technical improvements and training * Improved ability of wardens to communicate with public about the .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D B R 16 [Component 3. Monitoring/Database Management Procured: a Scientific justification provided for • Office and monitoring equipment purchased (computers, resource management and telescopes, binoculars, night-vision, oxymeters, pH- protection meters, etc.) * PC-GIS (provided by RIZA) * Improved knowledge of * Aerial photographs obtained, reserve maps created biodiversity and input to management plan and public .______________________________________________ aw areness program Studies and results: * Broader acceptance and approval * Inventory of flora and fauna, vegetation map for proactive management * Scientific basis for management actions developed * key resources studied, recommendations for their * DBR staff with higher capacity to sustainable use developed implement the management plans * research base for wetland restoration established and other reserve programs * monitoring system established * hydrology model for SZP developed • scientific justification for DBR zoning prepared • digital map of DBR prepared * monograph of project results prepared ("Conservation and Management of Biodiversity of the Danube Biosphere Reserve") * Research for 5 PhD dissertations conducted at Reserve Training and conferences: • GIS and conservation biology training, 23 8 p/d total: US (1994, 180 p/d); Belarus (1994, 28 p/d) and GIS training in Lelystad (1997, 30 p/d) * International bird research meeting (1997, 8 p/d) * Participation in 6 international congresses/conferences: 3 financed by the project, 3 by international donors * Scientific Advisory Committee meetings (Kyiv, '96, '97, '98) Component 4. Wetlands Restoration Procured: * Local population more supportive Vilkovo canals dredged and banks restored (350m), public of Reserve mission loading dock constructed Studies and results: * Partial improvemrent in ecological •First phase of SZP restoration: first phase change in water conditions of SZP management (for drying ZP); canal dredged in ZP for improved water flows (385m); pilot reed harvesting and - Improved practical skills in testing for commercial market in Holland (40ha); reedbed (plavny) management specifications for sluice repair • reduced grazing pressure on Ostrov-Yermakov reports on SZP; Yermakov, and Larzarkin kut 17 Component 5. Public Awareness Procured: * Improved understanding of DBR • Environmental education center equipped and operational functions/objectives by local * Ecological trail and bird watching house constructed and community operational * Information stands at fish stations established and * Needed support among adult regularly updated (DBR information, updated rules and population for creation of DBR regulations on fishing in and around DBR) generated Training: Small grants program: * NGO training completed (150 p/d in Austria; 50 p/d in * Environmental support groups Odessa and locally) better-networked in the region Activities: * Reserve hosted periodic events -e.g., March of Parks (5 * Capacity of support groups and years), published - 100 articles in local newspaper individuals increased * Environmental column in local paper "Page for Children" published regularly * Several local environmental * 8 videos on nature conservationlDBR, broadcast on improvement activities realized regional TV and distributed to local schools and organizations * local community acknowledge the * Small grants program (22 projects) designed and importance of 'individual' implemented, some with small scale restoration environmental initiatives activities, tree plantings, etc * 4 Reserve staff represent DBR in local government (e.g., Vilkovo Council) and resource user/stakeholder groups (e.g. hunting & fishing association) * Ecoforum Danube Delta '98: 2-day conference/festival on results of the small grants program Component 6. Biosphere Reserve Establishment________________ Activities: a Danube Biosphere Reserve * First phase of establishment of DBR completed in 1998 established (first phase) with Presidential Decree (46 403 ha) * Temporary zoning adopted (BR is divided into core, * Improved potential for regulated economic activity, buffer and anthropogenic management, protection and zones) and land-use arrangements completed diminishing socio-economic * Establishment of legal framework for biodiversity conflict over resource use conservation and resource management * Management plans prepared for Stentsovsko-Zhebriansky Plavny (SZP), Yermakov island, Kiliya delta and Zhebrianska ridge • 25 000 ha reserved fo,jnclusion in DBR in the future by Presidential Decree (2 phase) 18 Component 6. Biosphere Reserve Establishment (continued) * Environmnental Fund at DBR established as an instrument to ensure additional funding for DBR (governance: Council, consisting of 4 representatives of DBR, Deputy Mayor, local environmental inspector and Director of the institute of Biology of Southern Seas); • Wetlands of Kiliya delta certified as Ramsar site * DBR certified by UNESCO X Bilateral Romanian-Ukrainian DBR certified by UNESCO. Component 7. Regional Initiatives and Coordination Cooperation with Romania Danube Delta Biosphere * BR benefited from and contributes Reserve: to international/regional nature * Bilateral Romanian-Ukrainian DBR established as a conservation programs result of joint efforts of Romania's and Ukraine's MAB Committees * 2-day field visit by Romanian representatives with agreement to formn working group for development of bilateral reserve by-laws and program of cooperation for the transboundary Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (April 1999) a Ukrainian participation in annual technical meetings held by Romanian authorities ('94-'98) • Regular exchange of scientific and other information between Romania and Ukraine established since 1994 Cooperation with NGOs and other organizations on other intiatives: a WWF Germany: Technical assistance in wetland restoration, booklet on future DBR published * WWF-International: potential cooperation within the "Partners for Wetlands" program • RIZA (Netherlands): various assistance X Wetlands International (WI): collaboration on Black Sea wetlands conservation efforts, (wetlands inventory); technical assistance on identification of Ramsar sites • Participation of Romanian representatives in several project activities (Odessa Wetlands Management Course, NGO training, SZP management workshop, research meetings a skill-sharing activities in natural resource, wetland restoration and protected area management organized in Romania 19 Component 7. Regional Initiatives and Coordination (continued) * joint research on sturgeon conservation undertaken * warden training in Romania (see Component 1) technical cooperation in bird monitoring and vegetation mapping Component 8. Endowment Fund Establishment * initial marketing activities underway with school groups * Initial income from various and some tourists already accommodated activities generated * For fee facilities in place (limited rooms at HQ, warden stations), additional income generation potential being explored (reed harvesting) * Management plan envisages activities on income generation by DBR * p/d, person days 20 Table 2. Danube Delta Biodiversity Project Operational Plan Planned Activity Responsibility Year Funding Funding (Primary & From Ukraine from Other Secondary) Academy of Sources Sciences ($US) ________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __________($U S) Reserve infrastructure and res urce management Finalisation of zoning DBR, MEPNS, NAS 2000 3,000 Creation of infrastructure in 2000-2002 new areas of the DBR _ _ a 3 warden stations in SZP, 1 DBR, MEPNS, NAS cc 20,000 100,000 on Yermiakov with watchtowers & equipment * 7 motor boats & engines DBR 2000 5,000 5,000 Expansion of reserve staff (to NAS 1999-2000 3,000 15,000 cover new areas; 5 scientists, 10 wardens/admin./technician staff) Reorganisation of fishing and DBR, MEPNS 2000-2001 hunting practices - licensing of fisheries etc. a Introduction of new terms DBR, MEPNS 44 2,000 1,000 and regulations * Use of grazing as a tool in DBR 1999-2001 500 vegetation management and income generation for local population subtotal 33,500 121,000 SZP Restoration 50% of restoration management DBR, MEPNS, donors 1999-2002 plan * Sluice repair DBR, MEPNS, donors 2000 45,000 * Reedbed buming and 1999-2000 12,000 recultivation (800 ha) * Continuation of reed DBR 1999-2001 3,000 harvesting (pending results of pilot activity) ___ _ __ * Channel restorations DBR, MEPNS 2000-2002 40,000 subtotal 15,000 85,000 Research and Monitoring Continuation of core monitoring DBR, IBSS, donors 1999-2002 6,000 program established under the project Restoration-oriented research * Ostrov-Yermakov DBR, Institute of Botany 2000-2001 6,000 21 * "Lenin" fish ponds DBR, IBSS, Institute of c; 3,000 Botany * Rare and extirpated species DBR, MEPNS 1999-2002 7,000 * SZP 'root felt depth' study DBR, IBSS 1999-2000 3,000 Zhebrianski Ridge 2001-2002 4,000 Office and field equipment DBR, NAS, donors 1999-2002 - 20,000 Chronicle of Nature DBR, NAS 1999-2002 13,000 subtotal 42,000 20,000 Public Education and Awareness Ongoing public awareness activities _ _ * Small grants program DBR, donors 2000-2002 _ 30,000 * March of Parks DBR 1999-2002 6,000 * Publications DBR 1999-2001 3,000 * Establishment of permanent DBR 1999-2001 9,000 visitor center (moved from current temporary quarters and improvements to old headquarters building) _I_ subtotal 9,000 39,000 Regional and International Initiatives Working group for DBR 1999-2000 4,000 establishment of bylaws/regulations for bilateral Bisophere Reserve Participation of DBR staff in DBR 2000-2002 15,000 new corridor project (especially monitoring activities) Continue technical and research cooperation * Sturgeon conservation study DBR 1999-2002 - 7,000 * Vegetation mapping of delta DBR 1999-2000 0,500 1,500 * Others (bird monitoring, DBR 1999-2002 1,500 5,000 etc.) Participation of DBR in DBR 1999-2002 5,000 international convention activities (Rarnsar, Bonn, Berne) subtotal 6,000 33,500 22 Tourism Development Development of tourism DBR 2000-2002 21,000 infrastructure (ethnographic museum, Purchase/contracting of bus for DBR 2000 30,000 transportation of tourism groups from Odessa subtotal 51,000 Total 105,500 349,500 23 Part II. Statistical Tables Tables 1: Summary of Assessment 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits 3: Project Timetable 4: Loan/Credit Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation 7: Studies Included in Project 8A: Project Costs 8B: Project Financing 9: Economic Costs and Benefits 10: Status of Legal Covenants 11: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements 12: Bank Resources: Staff Inputs 13: Bank Resources: Missions Table 1: Summary of Assessments A. Achievement of Objectives Substantial Partial Negligible Not applicable Macro Policies Q D E Sector Policies Financial Objectives [J Institutional Development 0 ] 0 Physical Objectives 0 0 0 Poverty Reduction 0 0 0 EA Gender Issues 0 0 [ [3 Other Social Objectives 0 IA 0 0 Enviromnental Objectives IA 0 0 0 Public Sector Management [A [ [ O 24 Private Sector Development 5 5 El Other (specify) E 5 5 5 B. Project Sustainability Likely Unlikely Uncertain (/) (/) (v') Highly C. Bank Performance Satisfactory Satisfactory Deficient (1) (/) (v') Identification 5 5 Preparation Assistance [] Appraisal Supervision [ [3 Highly D. Recipient Performance satisfactorv Satisfactorv Deficient (/) (/) (/) Preparation [ 5 Implementation E [ E Covenant Compliance [A Operation (if applicable) 5 5 5 Highly Highly E. Assessment of Outcome satisfactory Satisfactorv Unsatisfactory unsatisfactory El [E El 25 Table 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits Loan/credit title Purpose Year of approval Status Preceding operations Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection of mountain 1993 Satisfactory Protection Project. forest ecosystems (completed) Black Sea Environment Regional cooperation on 1992 N/A Program restoration of Black Sea ecosystems Romania Danube Delta Protection of Romanian 1993 Satisfactory Biodiversity Project Danube ecosystem Following operations Donetsk Environment Project Pollution control Under preparation N/A Biodiversity Conservation in the Biodiversity conservation Under preparation N/A Azov-Black Sea Corridor and sustainable agriculture Table 3: Project Timetable Steps in Project Cycle Date Planned Date Actual/ Latest Estimate Identification (Executive Project Summary) 11/91 11/91 Preparation 11/91-9/93 11/91-9/93 Appraisal 9/93 9/93 Negotiations 4/94 5/94 Board Presentation 4/94 7/94 Signing 4/94 7/94 Effectiveness 5/94 8/94 Grant Closing 12/98 6/99 26 Table 4: Grant Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual (US$ million) FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 Appraisal estimate 0.20 0.65 1.10 1.45 1.61 Actual 0 0.27 0.51 0.77 1.28 1.54 Actual as % of 0 41% 46% 53% 80% 100% estimate Date of final disbursement: June 4, 1999 Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation [not applicable for GEFproject]s Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation [not applicable for GEF projects] Table 7: Studies Included in Project Study Purpose as defined at Status* Impact of study appraisal/redefined 1. A water balance model for Technical study to guide C Technical justification Stentsovsko-Zebrijanske plavny. management actions for management actions 2. Management plans for three Participatory and technical C Technical and social areas of the biosphere reserve. plan for protected justification for area/wetland management management actions and resource use 3. Conservation and management Monograph summary of C Summary of project of the biodiversity of the Danube project-funded applied results Biosphere Reserve. research and protected areas planning. 4. Eight videos on biodiversity Public education and C Videos shown on and sustainable use of resources awareness regional television and of the Danube Delta region distributed to local schools, but magnitude of impact not studied. C, completed 27 Table 8A: Project Costs Appraisal estimate Actual/latest estimates (US$ Thousands) (US$ Thousands) Item Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total costs costs costs costs A. DP Authority Strengthening 561.0 189.8 750.8 680.6 310.2 990.8 B. Warden Strengthening 157.8 8.9 166.8 189.3 85.5 274.8 C. Monitoring,DatabaseManagement 77.7 32.7 110.4 154.7 38.3 193.0 D. WetlandRestoration* 218.1 82.7 300.8 40.9 3.2 44.1 E. Public Awareness 2.0 129.4 131.4 89.4 2.0 91.4 F. Biosphere Reserve Establishment 27.2 32.3 59.5 117.4 15.6 133.0 G. Regional Initiatives & Coordination - 10.7 10.7 0 5.2 5.2 H. Endowment Fund Establishment 2.6 9.6 12.2 0 0 0 Special Account charges 5.8 1.0 6.8 Total Baseline Costs. 1,046.3 496.2 1,542.6 1278.1 461.0 1739.1 Physical Contingencies 104.6 49.6 154.3 Price Contingencies 27.2 13.3 40.5 Total 1,178.1 559.2 1,737.3 See paragr. 14 (Part I) for explanation of change in appraisal and actual budgets Table 8B: Project Financing Appraisal estimate Actual/latest estirnates (US$ Millions) (US$ Millions) Item Local Foreign Total L,ocal Foreign Total costs costs costs costs GEF Grant 0.94 0.56 1.5 1.09 0.46 1.54 Government 0.24 0.0 0.24 0.19 0 0.19 Total 1.18 0.56 1.74 1.28 0.46 1.74 28 Table 9: Economic Costs and Benefits not applicable for GEFprojects Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants Agreement Section Covenant Present Original Revised Class Status Fulfillment Fulfillme Description of Covenant Comments Date nt Date GRANT 2.02(b) 3 C Continuous The Recipient shall open & maintain in dollars in a special deposit account in a bank acceptable, & on terms & conditions satisfactory, to the Trustee including protection against seizure. This account shall operate according to provisions in Schedule 5. GRANT 3.01(a) 5 C Continuous The Recipient declares commitment to project objectives as set forth in Schedule 2 to this Agreement and shall carry out the project with due diligence & with appropriate administrative & fmancial practices & shall provide funds for the project. GRANT 3.01(b) 10 C Continuous Without limitation upon para (a) of this Section & except as the Recipient & the Trustee shall otherwise agree, the Recipient shall carTy out the Project in accordance with the Implementation Program set forth in Schedule 4 of this Agreement. GRANT 3.02 5 CD Continuous Except as the Trustee shall otherwise agree, procurement of goods, works & services for the Project & to be fnanced out of the GET Grant shall be governed by the provisions of Schedule 3 to this Agreement. GRANT 4.01(a) 1 C Continuous The Recipient shall maintain records & accounts adequate to reflect accordance with sound accounting practices the operations, resources & expenditures of the project as well as those of the agency responsible for carrying out the project. 29 GRANT 4.01(bXi) I C Continuous The recipient shall have the records & accounts referred to in para (a) of this Section incl those for the Special Account for each FY audited, using appropriate auditing principals, by independent auditors acceptable to the Trustee. GRANT 4.01(bXii) I CD Continuous The recipient shall furnish to the Trustee not later than six months after the end of each year, the audit report, of such scope and in such detail as the Trustee shall have reasonably requested. GRANT 4.01(bXiii) I C Continuous The recipient shall furnish to the Trustee such other information concerning said records & accts & audit thereof as the Trustee shall from time to time reasonably request. GRANT 4.01(cXi) 1 C Continuous For all expenditures where withdrawals from the GET Grant Account were made on the basis of statements of expenditure, the Recipient shall maintain in accordance with para (a) of this Section, records & accounts reflecting such expenditures. GRANT 4.01(cXii) I C Continuous The Recipient shall retain, until at least 1 year after the Trustee has received the audit report for the fiscal year in which the last withdrawal the Grant Account was made, all records (contracts, orders, bills, etc) evidencing such expenditures. GRANT 4.01(cXiii) 1 C Continuous The recipient shall enable the Trustee's representatives to examine such records. GRANT 4.01(cXiv) I C Continuous The recipient shall ensure that such records and accounts are included in the annual audit & that the audit report contains a separate auditors' opinion on the FYs statements of expenditure together with their preparation procedures. Covenant types: Present Status: 1. = Accounts/audits 8. = Indigenous people C = covenant complied with 2. = Financial performance/revenue 9. = Monitoring, review, and reporting CD = complied with after delay generation from beneficiaries 10. = Project implementation not CP = complied with partially 3. = Flow and utilization of project funds covered by categories 1-9 NC = not complied with 4. = Counterpart funding I1. = Sectoral or cross-sectoral 5. = Management aspects of the project budgetary or other resource or executing agency allocation 6. = Environmental covenants 12. = Sectoral or cross-sectoral policy/ 7. = Involuntary resettlement regulatory/institutional action 13. = Other 30 Table 11: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements Statement number and title Describe and comment on lack of compliance no lack of compliance was observed Table 12: Bank Resources: Staff Inputs Planned1 Actual Stage of project cycle Weeks USS Weeks US$ Preparation to appraisal na-- na- 12.5 37,100 Appraisal na-- na-- .3 6,000 Negotiations through Board na-- na-- .6 2,000 approval Supervision na- na-- 61.7 209,800 Completion 8.7-- 28,100-- 9 29,800 Total - -- 284,700 Data on planned weeks not available. 31 Table 13: Bank Resources: Missions Performance Ratin2 Types of Stage of project cycle MontW/ No. of Days in Specialization Implem. Develop. Problems 3 Year Persons Field Status obJectives Through appraisal Not Not Not E, B available available available Appraisal through signing Not Not Not E, B available available available Supervision I 9/94 6 8 E,B,P S S P Supervision II 12/94 1 6 B S S P Supervision II 6/95 2 3 B, E S S P Supervision IV 6/96 1 7 B S S Supervision V 2/97 2 8 B S S P Supervision VI 5/97 2 8 B n/a n/a Supervision VII 6/97 4 11 B, C S S Supervision VIII 2/98 3 12 B S S Supervision IX 7198 2 7 B S S Supervision X 9/98 1 1 B S S Completion 4/99 2 7 B S S Total 1 - Key to Specialized staff skills: 2 - Key to Performance Ratings: 3 - Key to Types of Problems: E = Economist I = Satisfactory P= Procurement B = Biodiversity/Wetlands Specialist S = Satisfactory. M = Managerial. P = Procurement Specialist HS =.Highly satisfactory C = Construction Specialist * updating of the 590/PSR was not needed for these missions Appendix A Ukraine Danube Delta Biodiversity Project (TF 28654), Completion Mission Biodiversity Conservation in the Azov-Black Sea Corridor (TF 28961), Pre-appraisal Mission World Bank Mission, April 1999 Aide-Memoire 1. A World Bank mission consisting of Messrs. Brylski and Slenzak (ECSSD) and Ms. Heitman (consultant) worked in Kyiv from March 22-26 to pre-appraise the Biodiversity Conservation in the Azov-Black Corridor project. Messrs. Brylski and Slenzak carried out the Completion Mission for the Danube Delta GEF project in Vilkovo and Kyiv from April 8-22. The mission thanks the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety (MEPNS), Academy of Sciences, Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, and Project Implementation Unit (PIU, InterEcocentre) for their hospitality and assistance during this and all previous missions during the implementation of the Danube Delta project. The mission was well-supported by the Bank's Resident Mission in Kyiv. This Aide Memoir is subject to confirmation by World Bank management. Danube Delta Project Completion Mission 2. The mission worked with the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Academy of Sciences, MEPNS, and the PMU to discuss the project achievements and operation plan in Vilkovo (at the Danube Delta) and in Kyiv. 3. The Project will close on June 30, 1999, after one six extension. At the time of the Completion Mission, the funds were 95% disbursed. Annex 1 and its attachments contain draft sections of the ICR and the operational plan. 4. In Vilkovo, the mission participated in discussions between the DDBRA, Dr. Voloshyn, Vice-Director, Academy of Sciences; Dr. Stetsenko, Director, Central Board for Nature Conservation Reserve and representatives of the Romania Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Dr. Baboianu, Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Dr. Staras, Danube Delta Institute, and Ms. Rachita, World Bank Team Leader for the Romania Danube Delta project). The discussions focused on project achievements and on the steps needed to operationalise the recently created biltateral (transboundary) Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. 5. The Special Account for this project and other Bank projects in Ukraine have been frozen for approximately four months as a result of delays in obtaining a license to meet the National Bank's requirement for accessing foreign bank accounts. When it became evident that approval from the Central Bank to continue to use the Special Account was not likely to occur before the 1 closing date of the project, the MEPNS transferred the funds back to the Bank, where they are now available for use through direct payment. In order to make full use of the remaining grant funds, the MEPNS needs to contract with its PMU (InterEcocentre) to finalise procurement of the remaining goods and services. 6. Next Steps: * If the MEPNS is to use the remaining grantfunds, it will need to authorise the PMU to proceed with preparing contractsfor the remaining goods and services, so that they can be paid by direct payment. * The Bank shouldprovide a translated version of its draft ICR to the MEPNS as soon as feasible, and not later than May 7. * The MEPNS shouldprovide its comment letter on the Bank's ICR within several weeks of its receipt. a The Academy of Sciences and MEPNS should inform the Bank of the next steps it will take for working with Romania on making the bilateral biosphere reserve operational, so that this can be included in the Implementation Completion Report. Biodiversity Conservation in the Azov-Black Sea Corridor Project 7. A three-day workshop was held at the Resident Mission to review the project design with the main stakeholders. The workshop was well-attended, with about 25 participants, including representatives of key national and local stakeholders. From the local/regional level, the following were represented: six oblast governments/MEPNS, Crimea State Environmental Protection Committee, farm collective, State Agricultural Institute, and NGOs. From the national level, the following were represented: MEPNS and Central Board for Nature Conservation, Parliamentary Committee, National Agency for Development and European Integration, and Presidential Administration office. 8. The workshop participants confirmed their strong support for the project and worked together in updating the project design, project outputs and performance indicators. A key issue discussed during the workshop was the project implementation arrangements. The Bank recommended an implementation arrangement that gives the national MEPNS responsibility for overall project implementation and local (oblast) level responsibility for key decisions on project activities and integration of activities within and between oblasts in the project region. 9. Next Steps: * The Bank should arrange for translation of the updatedproject description materials and provide these to the MEPNS and workshop participants by May 7. 2 7TheAMEPNS shouldprovide written comments on the project design and implementation arrangements within two weeks of receiving the translated version. * The mission requested the assistance of the Central Boardfor Nature Conservation in drafting/finalising the budgetsfor the project components 3 Appendix B MIMHCTEPCTBO MINISTRY OXOPOHD HA1BKOJDUIIbOrO N FOR ENVIRONMENTAL fPIPOARor-O CEPEAOBHJlkA l PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR TA 5AgEPHOI rE3IIEK YjKPAiH- __M SAFETY OF UKRATINE XpenmaTuK, 5, 252601, KfuB - 1 5 Khreshchatyk str., 252601, Kyiv-1 Tea: +380 44 228 06 44/228 2428, phone: +380 44228 06 44/226 24 28 4aicc: +380 44229 83 83 fax: +380 44229 8383 E-mail Internet: E-mail Internet: mep®mep.FreeNet.Kiev.UA mep(&mep.FreeNet.Kiev.UA YWA0Q Ng< 0o57_0_X Ha_Ng Big Ms. Lily Chu Acting Country Director Ukraine and Belarus Europe and Central Asia Region The World Bank 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, DC 20433 USA Re: Danube Delta Biodiversity Project, GET GRANT TF 28654 Dear Ms. Chu, The Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine has considered the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) on the Danube Delta Biodiversity Project prepared by the World Bank and considers that it comprehensive and completely reflects the information and results of project implementation. The Ministry has no any objections to the ICR. Taking into consideration significant input of the World Bank in planning and implementation of the project and its high efficiency the Ministry deems it appropriate to change rating in the table 1: Summary of Assessment of the ICR as follows: * the World Bank efforts on "Identification" and "Preparation Assistance" should be rated as "highly satisfactory"; * "Assessment of Outcome" can be rated as "highly satisfactory" as well. We have a pleasure to inform you that based on the results of the GEF project it became possible to undertake new important steps in international efforts to protect nature in the Danube Delta. According to the decision of International Co-ordinating Council of the UNESCO Programme on Man and Biosphere of 2 February, 1999 the Bilateral Romanian-Ukrainian Biosphere Reserve "Danube Delta" was established. The inauguration of the reserve took place in Ukraine on September 23-24, 1999. The Ministry would like to express its great satisfaction on fruitful cooperation with the World Bank on the project. Sincerely yours, Deputy Minister enko Appendix C Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine COMPLETION REPORT DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT GET GRANT TF 28654 KYIV 1999 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS DP - Danube Plavny Reserve DPA - Danube Plavny Reserve Authority GEF - Global Environment Trust Fund DBR - Danube Biosphere Reserve SZP - Stentsovsko-Zhebrijanskie Plavny GIS - Geographical Information System MEPNS - Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine SGP - Small Grants Program NGO - Non-governmental Organization RDBU - Red Data Book of Ukraine IBRD - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development RIZA - Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment WWF - World Wildlife Fund PIU - Project Implementation Unit CONTENTS A The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) A. 1. Danube Delta A.2. Purpose A.3. Objectives B. Project Objectives B. 1 Project Description C. Evaluation of Project Objectives D. Achievement of Objectives D. 1. Project Objectives D.2. GEF Objectives E. Project Performance F. Monitoring and Evaluation G. Key Lessons Learned and Impact On July 19, 1994 an agreement was signed between Ukraine and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), acting as Trustee of the Global Environment Trust Fund (GEF) totaling 1. 100,00 (one million one hundred thousand) SDR (on equivalent $ 1.500.00) for funding the DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT. Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine (MEPNS) was assigned as the body responsible for the fulfillment of the project, and the Interecocentre - Project Implementation Unit (PIU) for this project. A. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) A.1. Danube Delta The Danube Delta is the largest and least damaged wetland complex in Europe, covering about 600,000 ha. The Ukrainian part of the Danube Delta and its associated wetlands cover some 150,000 ha in the southwest part of the Odessa region. The Kiliya branch of the Danube, with 60% of its total flow, fonns the border between Romania and Ukraine, but for its last part lies entirely within Ukraine. The delta region encompasses a large number of islands, marshes, tributaries and canals, lakes with aquatic plants, and a mosaic of forests, grasslands and dunes in the wetland area. The lagoons or limans to the north of the Kiliya branch are a special feature of the Ukrainian Danube Delta wetland system. Land formations in the delta are dynamic, and within the last 10 to 20 years a new generation of islands has been formed. The flora of the Danube Biosphere Reserve (estimated during project implementation) comprised 950 identified species of vascular plants. These include some unique flora complexes. Fauna consist of more than 5,000 species, including 252 species of birds. These include the rare pygmy cormorant and red- breasted goose, and the common and Dalmatian pelican. Mammals (39 species in total) include the otter, muskrat, mink, little ermine, and wildcat. The fish fauna is represented by 91 species. There is strong evidence that some species are in decline due to pollution and over-fishing. A.2. Purpose The GEF Danube Delta project was closely linked with two other GEF and other donor-funded regional projects, one for the Danube River basin, and one for the Black Sea. The Danube River basin project had attracted funding of US$ 56.7 million by 1994 year and focused on preparation of an action plan, improved river basin management, a regional environmental survey, inventory of biological resources, strengthening monitoring, data management and applied research. The Black Sea program, for US$ 9.3 million, had as its objectives reversal of environmental degradation of the Black Sea, and rational natural resource management, development of a pilot pollutant monitoring program, database, policy and legislative enhancement, preparation of investment proposals and donor mobilization. While the Romanian portion of the delta had been the focus of considerable international interest, the Ukrainian portion of the delta had as yet received very little support from the international community. Yet the Danube Delta functions as an integrated series of ecosystems, all of which require protection. Initially, the 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 identification, the scope of the project was amended to provide parallel support to the Danube Plavny Reserve (DP) in Ukraine and US$ 1.5 millions of the US$ 6 millions allocated to the Danube Delta Project were earmarked for it. The relative neglect by the international community of the Ukrainian portion of the delta highlights the importance of the GEF project to Ukraine. A.3. Objectives: The project objectives were to: (a) help develop sustainable management of the Ukrainian part of the delta and protect its biodiversity, and also to improve the management of the Danube Basin, Delta and Black Sea as part of a much larger regional program. (b) implement governmental policies concerning the protection of biodiversity and extend protected areas which were top priority to this GEF project. (c) link and coordinate the F Danube Delta Biodiversity project with two other GEF and other donor-funded regional projects, one for the Danube River basin, and one for the Black Sea. B. Project Objectives The Project Objectives were to: (a) protect and enhance the Ukrainian portion of the delta ecosystems and contribute to conservation of biodiversity within the delta; (b) strengthen the capacity of Danube Plavny Reserve Authority (DPA) to expand and manage the protected areas effectively, and continue the activities in the operational phase; (c) work with local community groups to introduce participatory protected area management in the Ukrainian part of the Danube Delta and ensure sustainable resource use in it; (d) coordinate the project with the GEF Romania Danube Delta Biodiversity Project. B.1. Project Description The project components were summarized as follows: B3.2.1. Institutional strengthening: the Project had to provide for the expansion and restructuring of DPA to develop and implement effective management plans for protected areas in and around the delta, through training and technical assistance, and provision of infrastructure including an office and visitors center, construction of a house for the office, transport and scientific equipment and its maintenance, staff increase; B.2.2. Strengthening the warden's section: through staff increases, training in patrolling and protected area management, provision of equipment, and field offices and residential accommodation; B.2.3. Strengthening ecosystem monitoring: including flora, fauna and hydrological monitoring and creation of database and simple Geographical Information System (GIS), to assist with the development of management plans; B.2.4. Pilot wetland restoration: including restoration of hydrological circulation to the Stentsovsko-Zhebrijanskie Plavny (SZP) and monitoring of the impact, restoration of the Vilkovo town canals, studies for restoration of Yermakov Island partially being used by the farm for cattle and horse breeding, and studies of marketing alternatives for ecologically-friendly cultivated produce from Lenin fisheries kolkhoz; B.2.5. Public awareness and community involvement in protected area management both by DP staff and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); B.2.6. Biosphere Reserve Establishment: developing and implementing a program for protected area expansion and creation of a biosphere reserve through land use studies and using information provided from monitoring, and community participation, focusing in the first phase on protecting three priority areas (Kiliya Delta, SZP and Yermakov Island). B.2.7. Regional Initiatives and Coordination: with GEF activities in Romania, the GEF Black Sea Environment Management Program and other international initiatives; B.2.8. Endowment Fund: finance technical assistance for establishing a Trust Fund for financing recurrent costs of the biosphere reserve. C. Evaluation of Project Objectives C.1. The objectives of the GEF and project were clearly defined and they took into account the social, economic, institutional and financial aspects of the real needs for the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems, and management of the Danube Delta. C.2. During the implementation of the project new objectives were defined: * within the framework of the project in accordance with component 5 Public Awareness, a small grants program (SGP) was initiated in 1998 to better engage local communities in the management, to strengthen the education and awareness component, and to provide practical opportunities to strengthen NGOs; * for joining efforts for protection and management of the Danube Delta as an entire system Ukraine initiated an idea on the creation of a bilateral Romanian-Ukrainian biosphere reserve. C.3. During implementation some activities have been changed. * in order to establish the scientific background for the creation of the Danube Biosphere Reserve (DBR), extension its area and preparation of Management Plans a Scientific Program was elaborated and carried out; * instead of construction of a house for the director his apartment was renovated, etc., and some had to be rejected, * pilot blocking the open connection between Danube water and one lake (" Lazarkin Kut") in the DP reserve was rejected because during research it was identified the "kut" would lose its great fishing and biodiversity significance after the blocking; o the canal dredging activities were not completed fully as defined in the project due to the request of the Vilkovo City Council which took into account the opinion of the local inhabitants rejecting further works; 9 the allocated US$4,000 for studying the possible conversion of Lenin Kolkhoz fish ponds to a more remunerative production, preferably for the eastern European market, was spent for another purpose because of substantial changes in the economic state of Ukraine and region. These changes in the objectives and activities had a positive impact to the project as far as they provided an- integrated approach and allowed to achieve the most important results by means of more effective use of project funds. D. Achievement of Objective The project was implemented largely as planned and the achievement of GEF and project objectives was mostly substantial. This has repeatedly been emphasized by the Government, MEPNS, local authorities, officials. All the DBR's visitor are under great impression of the project outcomes. D.1. Achievement of Project Objectives Objective D.1.(a) Concerning the protection of the Ukrainian portion of the delta ecosystems and contribution to conservation of biodiversity within the delta the project has facilitated: * increase of the warden staff (increased up to 13 ), creation of a special training prograrn for wardens, warden training course in Netherlands, France, Romania, on- going training in Vilkovo, MEPNS-organized training, warden training manuals (wardens have been trained in regulation, law enforcement, patrolling, public relation and park management), equipping of the wardens, three warden stations were built and the renovation of a fourth. The stations were constructed to provide basic facilities (sanitary, sleeping, kitchen for the wardens and with extra room for fee- paying researchers and occasional tourists), vehicles and boats and outboard motors were purchased, a radio-telephone system covering the total area of DBR was installed; * designing and implementing a Scientific Program. The main components of the Scientific Program were: analysis of ecological interplay of the main components of the Danube Delta ecosystems with the goal of elaboration of management plans for the DBR areas, development of background for advanced nature protection regulation of DBR area and methods for the management of its particular parts with the aim of protecting biodiversity of DBR, assessment of the resource potential of various areas of DBR, preparation of management plans for DBR and its particular areas, hydro- ecological, phyto- and zoo-monitoring. Scientists of research institutes, universities and DBR's staff were involved and relevant reports and project proposals were made. The program produced good results on the inventory of fauna and flora, the research justification for wetland restoration activities and the boundaries and zoning of the planned biosphere reserve, resource use studies and a monitoring system. It can be noted that 18.5% of vascular plant species and 63% of bird species occurring in Ukraine became under protection in DBR. Scientists have found 36 species of insects listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine and European Red Dada List, 7 species are totally new for science and 19 species are new for Ukraine. The table below provides data on numbers of flora and fauna species reported for DP, and corresponding figures estimated for DBR by the scientific program. Taxonomic/ecological group DP DBR Vascular plants 692 950 Birds 225 252 Mammals 25 39 Amphibians 9 10 Reptiles 2 5 Fishes 91 91 Insects 700 1937 incl. insects species listed in RDBU 6 40 Phytoplankton 632 717 Zooplankton 159 190 Microzoobenthos 63 87 It shows significant increasing an amount of species, which will be protected by the creation of DBR. The results of these research and monitoring activities are partly being summarized in a monograph " Biodiversity of the Danube Delta Reserve, protection and management", a design for creation of DBR and the Management Plan for DBR; - establishing the DBR in Ukraine in 1998, covering an area of 46,402.9 ha and extending the area of the former Danube Plavny Reserve (14,851 ha). The DBR's staff was strengthened through an increase in numbers, a training program and technical assistance activities which introduced international best practices in wetlands protection and management. Creation of the DBR provided opportunities to manage natural protected areas in a more efficient way, for protection of the unique delta ecosystems of Ukraine, for scientific research and monitoring; it also gave an important impetus for region's sustainable development. Creation of the bilateral Romanian- Ukrainian biosphere reserve will result in further enhancement of international cooperation for conservation of biodiversity within the Danube Delta. Objective B.1. (b) The objective of strengthening the capacity of DPA to expand and manage the protected areas effectively was accomplished in a few directions: * increasing of the total staff of the DPA has been made from 14 to 35, several higher level staff (GIS, environmental education, ecotourism development) were hired, * general training has been provided through: on-site English training, wetland study tour, on-site wetland management course, ecosystem monitoring, GIS, conservation biology, vegetation mapping, 'bio-business' workshops and training, USAID study tour of US protected areas, delta management workshop, participation in 6 international and many Ukrainian congresses and conferences; * DBR has obtained its own juridical status and revenue account fed by revenues from fines, resource use fees, fee-paying visitors, and donations; * the headquarters office had been built together with a garage, maintenance area, dock and mooring facilities, and equipped with rooms designated to serve as offices, conference rooms, research facilities, lodging facilities for ecotourism programs; * purchased of one apartment for employees, renovated of 3 staff apartments; * DBR had been equipped with furniture, office, radio-telephone system covering all the DBR's territory, monitoring and laboratory equipment (computers, communications audiovisual equipment etc.), supported by 3 vehicles, gauge tools etc. Objective D.1.(c) On the Ukrainian side of the Danube due to modification/destruction of natural habitats specific management strategies were needed for wildlife, hydrological regimes, agriculture, forestry and ecotourism management in the delta. The data from the developed Scientific Program has been synthesized to prepare the draft management plan for DBR (for the following DBR's parts: Stentsovsko-Zhebriansky Plavny (SZP), Yermakov Island, Kiliya delta and Zhebrianska ridge) in regard to hunting, grazing, fisheries, farming etc. There were fed into the overall Biosphere Reserve Establishment Component to ensure appropriate and realistic management criteria, legislation, zoning (DBR was divided into core, regulated economic activity, buffer and anthropogenic zones), as well as serve to provide ongoing direction for the flora and fauna monitoring activities. It is important that the process of establishing DBR was done in a participatory manner, between government, NGOs, local communities, hunters, fishermen and inhabitants with mutual understanding of the need for protection of biodiversity and ensuring the sustainable resource use in the region. To prepare local community, landusers, landowners and other stakeholders, the DPA and InterEcoCentre developed a Public Education/Awareness Plan which has being implemented through the following main activities: * mass media campaign ( 8 videos on nature conservation DBR, broadcast on regional TV and distributed to local schools and organizations); * educational activities to be offered at the headquarters/visitor center (Reserve's visitors center was renovated, equipped and is operational); * children's environmental education (an ecological education program for school children and teachers was delivered for three years at the visitors center); * an annual "March of Parks" event where the Reserve hosted the local community to a festival of environmental activities; * a series meetings and workshops occurred involving the local community; * 4 Reserve staff represent DBR in local goverrnent and resource user/stakeholder groups; * ecotourism activities (the headquarters office has lodging facilities which may be used by scientists, bird watchers, photographers etc. ; in order to provide facilities allowing access for visitors to watch large numbers of migratory birds and waterfowl an ecological trail and bird watching house were build at the southern tip of the Danube delta; the 0 km Danube mark was put in place); * publications (published are about 100 articles in local newspaper, calendars, posters; the environmental column in the local newspaper "Page for children" is published regularly); * environmental actions (information boards at the fish station are established and regularly updated); * NGOs training in Austria, Odessa and locally. Great influence upon NGOs had the Small Grants Program which was implemented by the InterEcoCentre. After the competition among 86 applications 22 projects were selected and accomplished. Approximately 500 children and adults were engaged in implementing these projects. The project financed a range of activities, including a conference on the ecology and cultural history of the project area, stream-side afforestation and restoration, environmental films festival, brochures and posters on biodiversity conservation, an evironmental summer camp for children etc. Under the accomplishment of the program, a two-day festival was held in Vilkovo. To support local communities Vilkovo canals were dredged and public loading dock was constructed. It had a great positive effect in building relations between the DBR and the local community. Based on the results of introduced participatory management approach the regional government and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine signed their written approvals for establishing the biosphere reserve and the President of Ukraine signed the Decree on establishing DBR on August 10, 1998. The Danube Biosphere Reserve Authority (DBRA) understands the concerns of the local population and considers that one of the DBRA's missions is to demonstrate the positive role of the reserve, especially in participatory protected area management and demonstrating sustainable use of its resources. The DBRA had opened a campaign and the prepared draft management plan for DBR and in particular for SZP drew great attention of scientists, landusers and landowners, inhabitants, NGOs, officials, government, MEPNS, RIZA, WWF . The management plan for DBR was discussed with substantial involvement of local communities through a series of meetings and workshop and supported public awareness activities in the local community. It was endorsed by the stakeholders and published in 1999. The growth of reeds in the SZP have reduced its open water habitat and fisheries productivity and impeded water flows. The need was recognized to restore water circulation in the plavny (i.e. reed beds) and to undertake proactive management measures to restore habitat productivity, such as controlled bums, grazing and mechanical removal of the dense reed beds. The local communities had being used uncontrolled small fires around the margins of plavny to decrease reed growth and maintain productivity for grazing. The project financed next activities: * pilot reed harvesting and testing for commercial market; * TOR developing for burning based on the results of the Scientific Program and getting the government permission to burn, a pilot burning was begun; * reducing the grazing pressure on Yermakov Island; * a canal along the Vilkovo-Primorskoye road was dug; - a siphon underneath the Danube-Sasyk canal and culverts underneath the Vilkovo- Primorskoye road were cleared. The first undertaken steps toward implementation of the management plan for SZP area improved the ecological situation in some parts of its territory. The Danube Plavny Authority's approach to working with local user groups to gain consensus on management of DBR, along with the environmental education and NGO training/small grants program, improved relations with local villagers and gained more support for the biosphere reserve's mission. Objective D.1.(d) The coordination of the project with the GEF Romania Danube Delta Biodiversity Project was made through the following activities: * a few field visits by Romanian representatives to DBR and Ukrainian ones to Romania; * Ukrainian participation in annual technical meetings held by Romanian Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authorities; * regular exchange of scientific and other information. The project fostered modest cooperation, especially on technical exchanges. Joint studies were carried out on sturgeons and their protection, in bird monitoring and vegetation mapping the Danube Delta; * Ukrainian wardens training was held in Romania and Romanian wardens training was held in Ukraine; * cooperation with Romania Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (bilateral Romanian- Ukrainian transboundary biosphere reserve was established); * cooperation with NGOs and other organizations. D.2. GEF Objectives Objective D.2.1.(a) Given the isolation and neglect of the DP and the Ukrainian Danube Delta, and the very limited attention that it had received from the international community and from Ukrainian authorities by the beginning of the project, support from the GEF was of particular benefit. It has increased international understanding of the ecological process of the Ukrainian portion of the Danube Delta. Most important, by strengthening and reorienting the DPA the project has helped to introduce public support for the effective sustainable protected area management that was necessary to conserve the biodiversity of this key part of the delta. It has been established appropriate planning for sustainable resource use in the areas surrounding the core zone of DBR, conserving and restoring breeding grounds for delta wildlife. The bilateral Romanian-Ukrainian transboundary biosphere reserve will be serving as a further catalyst for improvement management of the Danube Delta and good background for the sustainable management of the Danube River basin and the adjoining part of the Black Sea. Objective D.2.1(b) During implementation of the project the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted the decision "On Strategy of Biodiversity Conservation". That means that biodiversity was recognized to be one of priorities of the "Trends of State Ecological Policy of Ukraine in the sphere of environment protection, use of natural resources and provision of ecological safety", which were approved by the Verhovna Rada (i.e. Parliament) of Ukraine on March 5, 1998. Among others there are "The Main Lines of Activity in Biodiversity Conservation", namely: conservation of coastal, marine, river, wetland, lake and marshland, meadow and steppe, woodland, and highland ecosystems; ecological of agricultural landscapes and other territories of intensive economic activity; conservation of species and populations; creation of a national ecological network. An Operational Plan for Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve has been prepared, the main components of which will be financed by the National Academy of Sciences. Objective D2.1. (c) Within the framework of other donor-funded regional projects the following activities which are closely link to the "Danube Delta Biodiversity Project" occurred: a center for Biodiversity Conservation has been created; National reports on State of Biodiversity Conservation Programs have been prepared and published; a draft of an Intemational Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, a report entitled Wetland Conservation in Black Sea Region of Ukraine and Action Plan have been prepared, coordinated Action Plans for Conservation and Protection of Black Sea Biodiversity have been prepared. E. Project Performance E.1. The performance of the project met certain difficulties. The following ones can be noted: * the project financed the construction of headquarters building for the Danube Plavny Authority, a contract for which was originally awarded to a private sector construction firm. The lack of experience by both the construction contractor and the government institutes traditionally responsible for construction, the enormous changing the local construction material prices during project implementation, contributed to costly delays in construction. The headquarters building activity was completed two years later than planned. The delay slowed the completion of certain components, and to some extent diluted attention that could have been devoted to wetlands management activities late in the project; * in the final year of the project it was identified the necessity of licensing the use of foreign bank accounts and on-going involvement of the National Bank in it. As a result of substantial delays in obtaining the National Bank's license for the operation of the Special Account, disbursement was interrupted and the completion of project activities was slowed for a few months; * the project was implemented in a period of severe national problems, with cuts in budgetary support for most state institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences. The reserve staff usually received their salaries from one to four months late; * transition of Ukraine to a market economy. It caused the problems in procurement at the beginning the project, in spending funds and disbursing. Pertaining to the project implementation laws and regulations changed quite frequently (sometimes within a year); * substantial inflation in Ukraine during the implementation period and financial difficulties; * the project's modest accomplishments in the restoration of Stensovsko-Zhebrianski 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. E.2. A few positive factors that affected the project were: * experience with implementation of the GEF Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project ( it was the same project implementation unit - InterEcoCentre), that had been under implementation for one year when the Danube Delta Biodiversity Project was launched; * international interest to the project. From the outset of implementation, there was strong interest of some international organizations in forning partnerships with the MEPNS and Danube Plavny Authority on implementation of the project. One of these partners was the Dutch RIZA, which provides technical assistance in water resources management and wetlands conservation worldwide, with special emphasis on improving the management of delta ecosystems. The project's cooperation with RIZA spanned the project implementation period, and is planned to continue in the operational phase; * fruitful, coordinated and efficient work of the Word Bank, MEPNS and InterEcoCentre. The World Bank's staff should be highly praised for their excellent work, mutual understanding and assistance . Understanding and assistance of the World bank disbursement division helped to overcome all the financial difficulties. There have been many people and organization, including ministries, NGOs, scientific institution, universities and commercial enterprises who have helped to get down this road. However the key factor was the involvement of the local population. F. Monitoring and Evaluation The World Bank carried out on a regular basis the monitoring and evaluation of the project performance. The MEPNS permanently controlled and supervised the process of the implementation of the project. There has been tight cooperation with all branches of authority. G. Key Lessons Learned and Impact The Project was the second the World Bank and GEF project, following the earlier "Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project". The "Danube Delta Biodiversity Project" was extremely important in promoting a positive image of Ukraine among international organizations; it laid a good foundation for further international environmental activities and participation of new financial institutions interested in supporting various projects in environmental protection and conservation. Because of the enthusiasm and efforts of hundreds of people, all obstacles and difficulties were overcome, and the Project has been brought to its successful completion. The "Danube Delta Biodiversity Project" belongs to the 387 projects recommended for registration by the International Selection Commission to participate in the EXPO-2000 Program "Projects all over the World", Germany. The implementation of the Project greatly influenced reserve's activities and the social and ecological situation in the region, in particular: * the aim of reserve's activities has changed - it shifted from "nature protection" toward nature conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, involving all the strata of the local population; * new data on biodiversity of the region were obtained; conservation methods and approaches were revised and re-evaluated; management plans for conservation biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources have been set up; * DBR has become a leader in forming the policy of using natural resources in the region; * a better warden service resulted in better nature protection due to the new staff recruitment policy, warden training courses (including training abroad), and the modem facilities and equipment now available to DBR's wardens. * the awareness level of the local population and authorities has risen, especially in issues related to biodiversity conservation; this resulted in a wider and better support to DBR's actions concerning nature conservation. * The small-size grants program extremely stimulated environmental activities of NGOs, local communities and individuals in the region - Preconditions were created for development of ecotourism in DBR. The project had a positive impact to: * MEPNS through training staff, learning new approaches to participatory protected area management and sustainable resource use, familiarizing staff with progressive international experience in nature protection; * scientists through participation in training, workshops, conferences, symposiums; * NGOs through training, strengthening capability, participation in the small grants program, workshops; * InterEcoCentre through training, strengthening capability. DBR enjoyed a wider support from local people, and a better understanding of the tasks and functions of the reserve. The project will have further positive impact on social and environmental development of the region through introduction and promotion of ecotourism. Creation of DBR provided opportunities to manage natural protected areas in a more efficient way, for conservation of unique natural complexes, for scientific research and monitoring; it also gave an important impetus for region's sustainable development. It is necessary to emphasize the role of the Central Board of National Nature Parks and Reserve's Affairs, the Danube Biosphere Reserve, the InterEcoCenter, and, of course, the World Bank in the Project. Now, with its completion, it is especially important to disseminate the results obtained by scientist and conservationist, to continue the activities in the operational phase, and to use received knowledge and experience for other projects and in other nature conservation units and protected areas of Ukraine. MAP SECTION -(j- IBRD 25412 7/ ~~~~The boundories, colors 2:2D ,:.' : W 2r40 / denosoirsotosss andmn ny /7 ot info,mation hon 4-L_' N - / / on this sp do not im,ply, on the port of The World Bank Group, g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P -" 74- on 16 ; XA : stats of any territosy, or myce,tnc o sc S6m en o~~~ I 4s.Db ' Qu' GOAENRNETAkoYeV/ OO R O 2 S /4 - 6KilTENOoSK UKAN D N B DELT B DVR INTYERNTOJECTUDAIE YUOLA AVD ( BULGARINE L~::ENIN FISH PONDS CANALS HUNGARY IA R9 / ROMANIAA5'0' ® OSTROV YEIUAAKOV RIVER 0 STENSOVSKO - ZHEBRLIANSKE PLAVNY MARSHY AREAS CECA -~~~~~~~~~kinku TOWN CANAL RESTORATION SANDY FOREST AREAS - S BUCHAREST 45@2- ' ROSNL5/ - 1'~~~~~~01 '6' DANUBE FLAVNY RESERVE Z.i0 MAI STL MENTs n FE.RP7Se GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY UGOSAVIA UKRAINE DANUBE DELTA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT POLAND UKR~~~~~~AINUAYE 9