Photo: Volodymir Kucherenko/Фото: Володимир Кучеренко.
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (TF-28267) ON A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 5.6 MILLION (US$ 6.9 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE FOR A AZOV - BLACK SEA CORRIDOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Implementation Completion Report
The GEF project: AAZOV - BLACK SEA CORRIDOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/140021468318346907/text/36593.txt
" https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/140021468318346907/text/36593.txt
Project Objectives and Components
a.Objectives Objectives he Development Objectives were conservation of biodiversity within the Azov -Black Sea coastal corridor by: 1. strengthening the protected area network; 2. mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into the surrounding agricultural areas; and 3. by building support at the national and international levels for sustainable development of the region ’s unique biological landscape. The Global Environmental Objective was to support in-situ conservation of biodiversity and threatened wetland ecosystems through improved protected area planning and reduction of agricultural impacts on sites protected under the Ramsar Convention (The official title is The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat. The convention was developed and adopted by participating nations at a meeting in Ramsar, Iran and came into force in 1975. Wetlands listed under the Convention are commonly known as "Ramsar Sites.") b.Components Components Components (or Key Conditions in the case of Adjustment Loans or Key Conditions in the case of Adjustment Loans or Key Conditions in the case of Adjustment Loans ): There were five: 1. Support protected areas management . Planned US$7.91 million, actual US$1.17 million. This included Support protected areas management creation or expansion of protected areas at the proposed Sivash and Preazovsky national parks; preparation and implementation of management plans for these protected areas and three existing protected areas (Chornomorsky biosphere reserve and Granite -Steppe Pobuzhia and Meotida regional landscape parks); and professional development for park staff in protected area administration and management planning, wetland and waterbird ecology and management, warden skills, and visitor management. 2. Support protected area and corridor planning . Support protected area and corridor planning . Planned US$5.57 million, actual US$0.09 million.This included inventories of natural habitats to identify and prioritize key natural areas, their ecological functions and management requirements; establishment of a biodiversity monitoring system; finalization of the costal protected area plan including roles of protected areas in local economies and financing needs for their long-term operation; and preparation of land–use plans to mainstream biodiversity conservation into regional development plans. 3. Build capacity and awareness for biodiversity conservation in Ukraine . Build capacity and awareness for biodiversity conservation in Ukraine . Planned US$7.14 million, actual US$0.04 million. This included local communities and NGOs and support for regional and international cooperation in wetlands conservation and waterfowl flyway management . 4. Demonstrate biodiversity friendly agriculture practices . Demonstrate biodiversity friendly agriculture practices . Planned US$9.78 million, actual zero. This included assessment of environmental management needs for lands within the former collective farms; Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized evaluation of the feasibility of developing conservation easements with favorable tax incentives for environmentally sensitive, marginal agricultural lands and their incorporation into the land titling (developed under a parallel project). The project would also implement sustainable agricultural practices at the farm and landscape levels, working through a competitive small grants program for improved on -farm management practices. 5. Project management and information dissemination . Project management and information dissemination . Planned US$2.12 million, actual US$0.31 million. This was to finance the operating costs of a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) that would undertake procurement of goods, works and consultant services; support development and maintenance of a communications support system to serve project participants and stakeholders, and provide monitoring and evaluation of project implementation. c.Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates Total project financing included GEF's Grant of US$ 6.9 million that was to be complemented by US$7.2 million parallel funding by four bilateral donors (Netherlands, Danish, UK and USA), one multilateral (EC) and one international NGO (WWF). IBRD was to parallel finance US$16 million from its Rural Land Titling and Cadastre Project; and a Programmatic Adjustment Loan was to support complementary policy reforms (economic and regulatory mechanisms for reducing pollution .) Only US$1.1 million or 16% of the GEF Grant was disbursed. Of the parallel financing only US$0.4 million or 5% was disbursed by the Ukraine. |
TheRelevance of Objectives & Design Relevance was high : Relevance was high : It would safeguard habitat and biodiversity resources that are globally important . It would safeguard habitat and biodiversity resources that are globally important . The Ukrainian coasts of the Black and Azov seas contain large and biologically diverse wetland complexes, some of which are the best or only remaining examples of such habitat types in Europe . About 650,000 hectares of the most important of these habitats are designated as Ramsar sites . These wetlands and the adjoining endangered upland steppe serve as key components of an ecological corridor that links natural communities in the northern Black Sea region and provides critical wintering and feeding habitats for over one million of waterbirds migrating through the northwest shelf along various Eurasian – African flyways. In addition to this global environmental function, the marine, wetland and steppe communities together support more than 100 internationally endangered species. The project would reverse unsound agricultural practices that were polluting the Black Sea . The project would reverse unsound agricultural practices that were polluting the Black Sea . The project supported the government's undertakings under the Bucharest Convention and as an executing agency of the Black Sea Environmental program. The project would provide critically needed support for environmental protection and raise local, national and The project would provide critically needed support for environmental protection international awareness of the need for better management . The project was relevant to Country Assistance Strategies . The project was relevant to Country Assistance Strategies .The project was included in the CAS 2000 and addressed the following CAS objectives: (i) help the Government develop the legal and institutional framework for environmental regulation; (ii) improve the capacity of the Ministry of the Environment and related agencies; and (iii) efficiently prepare and implement larger environmental investment projects in the protection of biodiversity and improvement of land, water and solid waste management . The current CAS 2003 specifies protection of natural environment as an area for priority Bank intervention . Project objectives are also highly relevant under the Bank ’ Project objectives are also highly relevant under the Bank ’s sectoral operational strategies s sectoral operational strategies s sectoral operational strategies – the Natural Resource Management Strategy for the ECA Region (2000), the Environment Strategy for the World Bank (2001), and the Biodiversity Strategy for the ECA Region (2003). Design was problematic and quality at entry is rated unsatisfactory : Design was problematic and quality at entry is rated unsatisfactory : The project incorporated most of the lessons learned from two earlier GEF projects in Ukraine and the overall approach followed a similar format focussing on improving management, integrating biodiversity management into the regional plan and agricultural management, and building local capacity and awareness through a competitive small grants program and dissemination . However, the design was ineffective because of low ownership by the government and mistaking the high levels of technical knowledge and scientific excellence in the sector for cross-sectoral managerial ability. Arrangements for counterpart cofinancing were inadequately appraised. Arrangements to secure a common agreement regarding the scope of corridor conservation strategy, biodiversity monitoring and evaluation and integration into agricultural operations among a the wide range of official stakeholders (who were dispersed over a large area) were not finalized during appraisal and led to implementation problems. The sub-contracting of project implementation (including procurement and financial management) to a small Ukrainian NGO failed because of unwillingness of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) to delegate authority, woefully inadequate counterpart funding, ineffectiveness of the NGO because of its capacity limitations and its inexperience at procurement and financial management . In many respects these capacity issues and inability to manage /coordinate cross-sectorally were well-known generic problems in former FSU states and the risks these posed should have been mitigated . |
Implementation Completion Report Review: Download the document