REPUBLIC OF BELARUS
Concept Paper
1. Project title
Conservation and sustainable management of the Polesie biogeographic region through integration of
globally important biodiversity values into main areas of economic activity at key sites
(PIMS No. 2894)
2. GEF Implementing Agency
United Nations Development Program
3. Country or countries in which the project is being implemented
Republic of Belarus
4. GEF Focal Area
Biodiversity
5. Operational Program/Short-term measure1
OP2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Strategic Priority
SP 1: Catalyzing sustainability for protected area systems
Council Submission: May 2005
Funding requested:
Full Project (Estimates):
US$1,813,000 GEF
US$ 970,000 Co-financing from Human Security Trust Fund
US$ 400,000 Co-financing UNDP, Darwin Initiative, Michael Otto
Foundation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
US$3,547,000 Co-financing from Government
6. Country Driven-ness
The draft Second National Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Republic of Belarus proclaims
integration of environmental concerns into all sectors of the economy a key priority for the Government
for the coming decade2. The unique Polesie biogeographic region is given special attention, first, as an
area where efforts toward the goals of key global environmental conventions (Biodiversity, Climate
Change, Land Degradation) can converge. At the same time, Polesie is an area where the need and
opportunities are most evident to integrate economic activities and human security issues, such as flood
defense, with fulfillment of the these international environmental treaties.
1
The GEF has recently reshaped its priorities for the biodiversity focal area. ANNEX 14 describes the degree to which the
proposed project fits into the new guidelines. Generally, the project proponets belive it falls well in to the Sustainable Protected
Area Network section (SP1).
2 Please also see ANNEX 3.
1
Under the Sustainable Development Strategy, the key protected areas of the Polesie region are to
continue to play a central role in preserving its unique natural heritage. Government plans in this
respect are further reflected in the National Strategy and Action Plan on Conservation of
Biological Diversity in Belarus. These documents define the wetlands of the Polesie area as
priority sites for investments in the area of environmental protection and biodiversity
conservation. Conservation of biodiversity should be the predominant purpose of establishment
and operation of protected areas. Economic activities on such territories, such as forestry,
agriculture, and flood defense, are to be adjusted accordingly to enable effective biodiversity
conservation on the one hand, while seeking to strengthen human security and business efficiency
– in a sustainable way – on the other3.
Polesie lies geographically almost fully within the Dnieper basin. To date, the Government of Belarus has
remained a full participant in the UNDP-GEF regional project Preparation of a Strategic Action Program
(SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms. The draft
Dnieper Basin Biodiversity Conservation Strategy4 developed within the mentioned project has factored
biodiversity conservation priorities into agriculture, flood defense, forestry, fishing and other key areas of
economic activities in the Dnieper basin. Polesie’s nature reserves, such as the Mid-Pripyat, Sporovsky,
Zvanets, and Olmany reserves are defined as priority biodiversity hotspots. Being fully aware of the need
to take practical steps to implement the Dnieper project's key agreements - once adopted by the three
countries in 2003 - the Government of Belarus has already begun to prepare the ground for the effective
protection of Polesie biodiversity hotspots while ensuring human security and a sustainable economy. The
proposed GEF project is expected to complement and build on these efforts, assisting the Government of
Belarus to move from the strategic planning level established by the Dnieper project, to the level of
action, with the aim of ensuring that Polesian natural values are managed in a way that is beneficial not
only for the country, but also for the global environment.
7. Context
Overall context: key economic activities, especially those linked to biodiversity
As a state of the former Soviet Union, the Republic of Belarus specialized in processing industries and
agriculture, the latter facilitated through the all-Union campaign on wetland drainage in the middle of the
20th century. Although independent since 1991, state-managed agriculture (collective and soviet farms,
dependant on allocations from the state budget rather than on their own profit) has retained a leading role
in the national economy. The country's population is slightly below 10 million, with six regional centers
(oblasts) as the most densely populated. The capital, Minsk, alone accommodates 1.7 million inhabitants.
Administratively, the six regions are further divided into districts.
At independence, Belarus enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the former Soviet Union
(FSU). In 2002 it occupied the 57th place in the Human Development Index and had one of the lowest
levels of poverty amongst FSU countries. Despite the consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant accident (1986), the transition process and more recently the 1998 Russian financial crisis, the
economy continues to grow but remains vulnerable due to its dependence on Russia for fuel and raw
materials. In contrast to other FSU countries, GDP growth has been associated with state owned
enterprises rather than private sector development.
3
4
Please also see ANNEX 3.
Please also see elements of the draft strategy in ANNEX 3.
2
The basic principles and recommendations of Agenda-21 have received widespread recognition in
Belarus. In 1997 the Government drafted and approved the First National Strategy for Sustainable
Development. The strategy reflected existing global trends in social and economic advancement. The
Second Strategy, to be adopted in 2003, will focus especially on mainstreaming environmental concerns
into various sectors of the economy. To implement the country’s strategy for sustainable development, a
governmental National Commission for Sustainable Development was created.5
Forests cover about 38 % of the country. Forestry policy is overseen by the state Committee on Forestry
of the Council of Ministers, working locally through a network of forest enterprises. The highest forest
density is in the North and South (Polesie) of the country. Overall the country enjoys considerable annual
surplus of growth over harvest, which provides a good basis for introduction of renewable fuels such as
wood and woodwaste. This fact, however, obscures the issue of unsustainable, conventional Soviet-era
forestry in protected areas, which is particularly acute in Polesie.
Much of the rest of the country is used for agriculture, with the Ministry of Agriculture supervising
agricultural activities. It has a controlling power over local state collective farms, and interacts with the
State Belmeliovodkhoz Concern, which is in charge of land amelioration activities. In its turn the Concern
has supervising authority over local amelioration companies in charge of maintenance and servicing of
drainage facilities. The development of a private farming subsector has been quite slow. The number of
private farms is insignificant compared to the number of collective farms, however, economic output
figures clearly favor private agriculture development6 In many areas, especially in Polesie, collective
farms manage lands included in protected areas, which – like the Mid-Pripyat and Sprovoski reserves were established without expropriation. In such areas, biodiversity is frequently only partially protected.
The main reason is a lack of awareness and technical capacity among collective farm leaders and local
authorities to identify and implement innovative agricultural practices and systems which would benefit
both agriculture and biodiversity.7
Human security, specifically flood defense, remains high on the Government's agenda. Polesian floods
are the tragic outcome of unwise past physical planning. They directly damage people and the economy
both physically and psychologically, further aggravate the state of agriculture and present a constant risk
of re-suspending the radioactively contaminated sediments. Thirteen large floods have taken place on the
Pripyat and its tributaries over the last 50 years. Especially dangerous are summer and fall floods leading
to inundation of vast agricultural tracts during crop growth and harvesting. The Belgiprovodkhoz State
Amelioration Concern and the Ministry of Agriculture are charged with development and implementation
of the flood defense programs and strategies. Flood forecasting and warning is the responsibility of the
Ministry of Emergencies. The first Program of Action for Flood Defense for the Polesie was developed as
late as 1977, and has been subsequently revised several times. Initially the Program envisaged
construction of full-length ground levees along the river on both banks, and more than half of the Pripyat
floodplain was modified in this way. The latest revision of the Program (to 2015), currently in
implementation, uses a modified approach, whereby localized dikes are built to protect the more
vulnerable areas, such as towns and isolated industrial and agricultural areas. However, the capacity to
integrate biodiversity values into flood defense programs and their implementation on-the-ground is
lacking.
5
Please see the composition of the Commission in ANNEX 4.
an example, one private farmer in Zhiktovichi district produces the annual output exceeding that of all collective farms in the
same district.
7 Examples include introduction of summer polders, whereby collective farms can shift land out of farming for pasturing and
flooding of such an area is controlled artificially to allow periods of wetland, when birds can breed, while maintaining a proper
pasture or haymaking meadow the rest of the time.
6As
3
Environmental management, protection and use of natural resources
The regulatory framework for environmental protection and rational use of natural resources as
elements to achieve the sustainable development of the country is formed by:
- Constitution of the Republic of Belarus;
- Laws, adopted by the Parliament (National Assembly);
- Decrees and Orders, issued by President and other executive bodies
The National Assembly determines major aspects of state environmental policy and adopts environmental
legislation. The President of the Republic of Belarus issues decrees and orders for the implementation of
laws, including those relevant to environment and natural resources. The Council of Ministers is the
central body of control and has executive powers to implement state environmental policy, coordinate
activities of Ministries and other government bodies in regard to natural resource management and
environmental protection.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (MNREP), working through its central
office, regional environment committees and district environmental inspectorates, ensures on-the-ground
implementation of environmental policy. The strategic role of the Ministry is to enable creation of a
system of environmental legislation not only by advocating the adoption of environmental laws, but also
by mainstreaming environmental considerations into the various sectoral laws regulating all spheres of
government activity.
Research on environmental issues is undertaken by a number of research institutes of the National
Academy of Sciences of Belarus, such as the Institute of Zoology, the Institute of Botany, and the Institute
of Ecology.. The State Ecological Monitoring Network is maintained by the Academy of Sciences. New
sites, identified as important for ecological monitoring, are studied by various institutes of the Academy
of Sciences and are then proposed for inclusion in the State Ecological Monitoring Network. Practical
studies to devise technical plans for implementation of specific nature-conservation activities are carried
out by Project Institutes and enterprises, such as Belgiprovodkhoz, Benlitszem, Polesiegiprovodkhoz, etc.
The Republic of Belarus is actively involved with international environmental issues and is a party to
twelve international conventions and protocols (see Annex VI). The legislation of Belarus (para 56 of the
Law “On Protection of Environment”, 1992) provides that under conflicting or unclear situations, the
norms of international conventions or protocols should prevail over those in national legislation.
Biodiversity conservation: general context
Extensive drainage of wetlands in the middle of the last century has transformed river basins and
undermined the water balance in many rivers. As a result, total wetland area has shrunk by 40% and many
small rivers and brooks have disappeared. Since ecological and nature conservation requirements were
not taken into account in building drainage and other hydraulic infrastructure, there has been a notable
loss of biodiversity. Populations of many plant and animal species, especially wetland plants and water
birds, have declined. The 1993 edition of the National Red Data Book listed 28 wetland plants, while the
edition currently under preparation will list at least 66. Protection of the key natural habitats that remain is
a high priority for Government.
At present specially protected areas play a major role in the protection of natural biological and landscape
diversity in Belarus. These include one site with the highest level of protection – Berezinski Biosphere
4
Reserve - three national parks8, including one in Polesie (Pripyatski National Park), as well as a network
of national and local reserves9. Most of the Polesian biodiversity sites are national reserves, for which the
Government is seeking improved protection without exclusion of sustainable economic activities.
Altogether, protected areas in Belarus cover some 1.5 million ha (7 percent of national territory). The
Government envisages expansion of protected areas to cover some 8.5 percent of total Belarus territory
by 2005. At the same time, however, budgetary allocations have not increased proportionately. Compared
to 1990, allocations have fallen 38 percent in real terms and do not allow for many of the interventions
necessary to protect ecosystems or individual species. Hence, the international community currently
supports much important conservation work, which has recently focused on strategic planning. Limited
projects focus on adoption of innovative approaches to biodiversity conservation and integration with
economic activities. Having limited capacities in this area, the Government has welcomed international
support as it contributes to implementation of the country’s priorities and international commitments.
Polesie biogeographic region
Polesie10 is a unique biogeographic region encompassing southern Belarus, northern Ukraine and adjacent
areas of Poland and Russia, which is characterized by specific geological, morphological and
hydrological features. Originally, water from the melting Dnipro and Sozh glaciers formed an immense
sea (historically called the Polesian Sea). Over time, sediments transported by rivers and brooks in the
surrounding low elevations caused the sea to gradually become shallower and break into large lowland
lakes. With time, many of these were transformed into interlinked wetlands of a specific type ("fen mires"
or "lowland mires"). The resulting vast mosaic of lakes, floodplains, open wetlands and low hills forms
what has been known as Polesie (Polesie in Belarus, Russia and Poland; Polissya in Ukraine).
As a whole, Polesie is a relatively flat area with absolute altitudes above sea level of 100-170 meters, and
the watershed between the Baltic and the Black seas is found in its western-most part. Located almost in
the center of Europe, the region – despite a history of human interventions – has managed to retain a great
many of its unique natural landscapes and habitats. The Pripyat river basin is a key ecological and
landscape element of the Polesie and is its main waterway. The Pripyat is the second largest tributary of
the Dnieper by its length, and the largest by catchment size.
The Polesie region is an important ecological corridor for many flora and fauna species. It is a very
important element in the genetic foundation of East-European biodiversity. Two mass bird migration
routes meet here: the White-Baltic-Mediterranean seas North-South route and the latitudinal East-West
route. In spite of the large-scale drainage, there are sections of fens, floodplain broad-leafed forests, and
floodplain meadows (located mainly in the floodplains of the Pripyat and its tributaries) that still remain
in their natural condition. It is exactly these ecosystems and their biodiversity which make Polesie a
globally significant natural complex. Polesie accounts for a substantial share of European populations of
the following bird species: Black Stork Ciconia nigra – 14,6%, White Stork Ciconia ciconia – 8,7%,
Garganey Anas querquedula – 5,4%, Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquilla pomarina – 44,7%, Great Snipe
Gallinago media – 10%, Redshank Tringa totanus – 23,3%, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa – 10,7%,
Black Tern Chlidonias niger – 26,3%. In regard to globally threatened species, the analysis of their
distribution in Europe reveals that the open fen mires located in the Pripyat floodplain and its tributaries
constitute the most important breeding habitats for several species whose numbers are declining rapidly in
Europe and elsewhere (Aquatic Warbler, Greater Spotted Eagle, Great Snipe, Corncrake). Specifically,
Prostyr, Sporovsky, Zvanets, and Mid-Pripyat reserves, as well as the Pripyatski National Park host the
8
which is the next protection level: national parks have an exclusion zone restricted from any activity, but also zones with
regulated economic activities
9 the third level of protection; these normally lack management units, although the legislation allows for it.
10 Polesie is the name in Belarus for the biogeographic region, as it is in Russia and Poland; in Ukraine it is called Polyssia.
5
bulk of the globally threatened biodiversity in its natural and semi-natural state. Together these reserves
and the National Park, all located in the Pripyat river basin, form an interdependent network of globally
important habitats.
Polesie also hosts many non-avifauna species of global concern (see Annex VI).
The biodiversity of Polesie and the need for its conservation received special attention at the First
International Conference on Conservation of Floodplains and Fen Mires of the Belarusian Polesie,
conducted in 1997. The Conference resulted in an Action Plan, the main provisions of which support
establishment of the Mid-Pripyat Reserve, review of the borders of the Sporovsky reserve and the
elaboration of management plans for key biodiversity sites of the Polesie.
As of late 2002, the Government of Belarus, in partnership with the international community has achieved
considerable progress in strategic planning and elaboration of the legislative foundation for conservation
of Polesian biodiversity. This is exemplified in numerous projects and programs, described in more detail
in the Baseline section of the document. The need for practical actions is now high on the agenda. As was
noted at the Second International Conference on Conservation of Floodplains and Fen Mires of the
Belarusian Polesie11 (May 2002), these have to be based on integration of biodiversity conservation
values with economic sectors and human security considerations (flood defense). Since all the key
Polesian reserves were established without expropriation from local land-users (mainly collective farms
and forest enterprises), enforcement of a special protection regime on such territories in many cases is
poor, while the protection regime itself needs revision to make use of innovative approaches to ensure
efficient biodiversity conservation on the one hand and sustainable economic growth on the other.
Transboundary context
The key transboundary element of the proposed project is the UNDP-GEF regional project Preparation of
a Strategic Action Program (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and Development of SAP
Implementation Mechanisms. Once the three countries have agreed on priorities, approaches and a
common plan of action, each country needs to move to practical implementation measures. The countries
now have a foundation for specific interventions in line with the conclusions of the Dnieper Project and
are launching different projects to realize the Strategic Action Program. The project proposed here is
regarded as one of the most important in terms of biodiversity conservation.
While each country is now embarking on its specific priority components, the coordination mechanisms
established by the Dnieper project shall continue to play an active role in sharing knowledge and
information, beyond the Dnieper project’s life. These mechanisms will be further defined in a threecountry Agreement on Cooperation for Environmental Rehabilitation of the Dnieper Basin12. The
Agreement will serve a legal framework for implementation of the Strategic Action Program, other
strategies (such as Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy), as well as for coordination of national
and international programs and projects within the basin. The key governing body for cooperation around
the basin will be the International Dnieper Basin Council. Naturally, for the purposes of this project and
in line with the Council’s TOR, the Government of Belarus has chosen it to serve as a clearing-house
mechanism, i.e. the proposed project’s steering committee will be tasked with sharing information on
project progress and disseminating information from other stakeholders made available through the
Council.
11
See the Resolution of the Conference in ANNEX 7.
The draft Agreement was first presented at the Project’s 2nd Steering Committee, June 2002, Moscow. All participants noted of
appreciation of this form of legal confirmation for cross-country cooperation beyond the project.
12
6
As a transborder biogeographic region, the environmental state of Polesie depends on activities in more
than one country. Cross-border influence is especially high in terms of pollutant transport and air
emissions. These two areas of environmental management have been effectively covered by the Dnieper
Project. These elements will continue to be covered by the recently launched Tacis project, in which
Pripyat is one of four transborder rivers targeted13. In terms of biodiversity conservation, agriculture,
forestry and flood defense (the main elements of the proposed project), it is worth noting the following
factors:
The target sites of the proposed project in Belarus are located along the middle reaches of
the Pripyat river and/or along the left-bank tributaries of the Pripyat. Drainage stock to these
natural wetlands is formed almost fully through Belarusian surface waters and underground
aquifers, which means it is water and wetland management in Belarus that define their
hydrological state. The contribution of the upper reaches of the Pripyat and the sources of its
right-bank tributaries in Ukraine to the drainage stock of the target sites is small, mainly because
the stream flow rate figures here are insignificant.
On 16 October 2001, Belarus and Ukraine signed a cross-border cooperation agreement
on regulation of transborder rivers. This envisages information sharing and consultations in
advance of each side's activities that might impact the other side's situation. The Dnieper Project
Strategic Action Program builds on this agreement and seeks to strengthen it to achieve more
efficient coordination on a day-to-day basis. The mechanisms of the Agreement and of the
Dnieper Strategic Action Program are considered to be very strong risk mitigation tools
guaranteeing observation of a "no-damage" principle in any of each side's developments. The two
countries will establish a joint working group to ensure effective coordination between the two
projects.
Ukraine is currently developing a similar GEF initiative to conserve the biodiversity in its
part of Polesie. To symbolically reflect the fact that Polesie should be conceived as a single
entity, the two countries have agreed to cooperate on establishment of a transborder protected
area in the Pripyat floodplain where the river crosses borders: it is planned that Belarusian
Prostyr reserve will join the Ukrainian Pripyat-Stokhid reserve in a single protected area, the
specifics to be define in the PDF B stages of each project. This linking element will at the same
time serve as a coordination mechanism of the two projects – and an additional transboundary
risk mitigation tool.
8. Project rationale and objectives
Project boundaries
Scientific knowledge of Polesian ecosystems and species provides multiple evidence that conservation of
unique habitats, such as fens, floodplain meadows and floodplain forests, as well as the biodiversity they
host, is dependent on a limited number of relatively large territories which survived the drainage
campaigns of the past. All of these are currently under state protection, but some remain vulnerable.
These key seven protected areas - the Mid-Pripyat, Prostyr, Sporovsky, Zvanets, Dikoie, Olmany Mires
According to the Tacis Project Document, “tuition and workshops” will be the key tools to impart techniques of integrated
management planning for the Pripyat river. The final outcome of the Tacis project will be “integrated management plan for the
Pripyat river”. The project does not explain in what way it will be different from the Pripyat elements of the Dnieper project
Strategic Action Program, and how it will benefit from the already existing capacity for management planning built up through
other UNDP initiatives (UNDP BYE99/003 and BYE02/001 two-project Integrated Management Planning for Polesie program).
Thus, substantial degree of duplication is expected. The Tacis project TOR mentions analysis of flood protection and land use,
but only for the management planning purposes. It does not envisage introduction of policy changes with validation/pilot
elements for key economic sectors, which is key to the proposed initiative. Therefore, having a substantial overlap with the past
GEF and UNDP projects, its activities will have no overlap with the proposed new GEF project.
13
7
Reserves, and Pripyatski National Park - were all mentioned as priority biodiversity hotspots in the
Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy of the Dnieper Project. These sites together host 70-100
percent of all globally threatened bird species breeding in Belarus, such as Aquatic Warbler, Corncrake,
Great Snipe, Greater spotted Eagle, Ferruginous Duck
Of the seven mentioned sites, two (Dikoie and Pripyatski National Park) have to date received the greatest
protection: in 2000 Dikoie was attached to the Belavezhskaia Pushcha National Park and like Pripyatski
National Park currently enjoys relatively efficient conservation management 14 combined with sustainable
economic activities. Another site – Olmany Mires – is a national reserve, which due to its inaccessibility
and absence of damaging activities on adjacent areas, has best retained its biodiversity.
The attention of the Government, as well as of the international community, has thus focused on four
reserves, which while retaining the most valuable biodiversity, suffer from insufficient and ineffective
protection. Establishment of national parks in these areas is currently beyond the Government's capacity;
even if national parks were established they would not automatically guarantee the sought combination of
full protection and sustainable economic growth. In contemporary conditions the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection (MNREP) is seeking innovative approaches that – without the
substantial allocations like those needed for establishment of national parks - would allow for improved
levels of protection while not eliminating, but rather strengthening, the capacities of existing land-users,
as well as the system of flood-defense. The proposed project will target these four sites both for their
global biodiversity values (described in more detail in Annex I), as well as for the opportunities of
environment-economy-human security integration.
These four sites are all located in the Pripyat river floodplain and/or along its key tributaries15. These are
The Mid-Pripyat reserve, Europe's last natural complex of lowland mires, rivers, streams
and floodplain forests of this size and level of biodiversity. The total area of the reserve is 90,447
ha. It is an Important Bird Area (IBA) and a Ramsar site.
Prostyr reserve, 3,440 ha. This is a floodplain wetland on the border with Ukraine. The
reserve contains an IBA and a potential transboundary Ramsar site.
Sporovsky reserve. One of the largest fen mires in Europe. Its area is 19,384 ha. The
reserve is an IBA and a Ramsar site.
Zvanets reserve. Huge fen mire, with total area of 15,873. This is an IBA and a Ramsar
site.
The core of the project, both for its size and diversity, is the Mid-Pripyat reserve. As can be seen from the
description above and in the annex, this protected area includes a large mosaic of habitats, including
forests. In order to establish sound long-term conservation and sustainable management of the target
reserves, the project will work in all habitat types within the reserves and buffer zones, covering
conservation planning and practices in fens, and meadows, as well as forests. Since the territories of the
protected areas in question have not been withdrawn from economic activity (as described in Biodiversity
conservation: general context), this will presuppose extensive cooperation with their current managers,
especially in terms of collective farms and forest enterprises.
Lessons and best practices resulting from innovative integration of biodiversity into key sectors –
forestry, agriculture, flood defense – at the four pilot sites in Polesie will be replicated widely throughout
Belarus. Experience will be shared with other countries of the region and elsewhere, as appropriate. The
14
National parks are the second highest protection level which allows both for efficient preservation of key habitats, as well as
sustainable economy.
15 Please see location of the target sites on the Map in ANNEX 2.
8
project will have a structured replication plan, the principles of which were developed and agreed at the
PDF A stage.
Finally, it is important to note that in 2002 the Government of Belarus agreed with UNESCO on
assistance in establishment of the Polesian bionetwork that would envisage linking the core, seven
protected areas with corridors and subsequently adding the Polesian bionetwork to the Pan-European
network (Econet).
Threats: root causes and consequences16
Exclusion of local stakeholders and the public from decision making regarding land use and development,
leading to inappropriate and illegal activities
The legacy of Soviet era planning is the main barrier to switching to a new model of physical planning
and decision making in the country. This is evidenced in all aspects of policy planning, including
establishment of protected areas. The fact that protected areas have traditionally been established by state
decree and have not required a management plan or a management system has meant that local
stakeholders have rarely if ever been consulted about either the existence of the PA or its management for
environmental or economic goals.
Inertia at the local level (little willingness to oppose this system of planning at the grass-roots level) is
explained by the fact that local stakeholders themselves are predominantly state-owned enterprises
(collective farms, forest enterprises, amelioration companies). In the conditions of centralized budget
allocations and planned production output, they have opted to follow the conventional path and not
demand a participatory planning approach.
As a result, little effort has been expended to identify and implement best practices aimed at achieving
economic profits and environmental improvements. The result of this situation in Polesie has been
widespread land degradation and biodiversity loss. With the advent of a rudimentary market economy in
Belarus, this situation has tended to worsen, as the eagerness of local enterprises to retain profits at all
costs has often resulted in inappropriate and sometimes prohibited activities, such as unlawful drainage,
overuse of fertilizer, violations to the protection regime at protected areas (plowing where only
haymaking was permitted), etc. This has been compounded by the loss of environmentally beneficial
practices, such as traditional haymaking.
Thus, traditional exclusion of local stakeholders from land planning and decision-making has resulted in
processes presenting an ultimate threat to biodiversity.
Today, under the emerging market economy, local stakeholders are demanding more participation in
decision-making regarding the farms and forestry enterprises that employ them. Additionally, years of
biodiversity awareness raising has served to motivate many leaders of collective farms and forest
enterprises to become eager advocates not only for profitable land use, but also for its environmentally
sustainable use.
As to the common people, the situation is not very different. They have traditionally enjoyed extremely
low participation in making decisions about management of lands they live on or near. This is equally true
of the level of awareness people have regarding what they can and cannot do at protected areas, if they are
to comply with the established protection regime. The resulting violations are numerous and include
16
The project concept model and ANNEX 1 (Biodiversity description) give a detailed picture on what specific biodiveristy is
impacted by which threats.
9
illegal hunting, and fishing and tillage of valuable forest areas – the mineral “islands” located in reserves and logging of ancient oak and alder forest (see attached graphical concept for more detail).
To counter exclusion of local stakeholders and people from decision making processes is to involve them
in planning and subsequently – in practicing – operations beneficial both to the environment, as well as to
their economic condition. A specific tool in this situation is the participatory development of management
plans for protected areas, a tool which was legally introduced in the last revision of the Law on Specially
Protected Areas. The project will pilot use of this tool, building on participatory approaches and best
available international experience, at the target sites.
Drainage systems in agricultural lands and environmentally inappropriate agricultural practices resulting
in the drying of wetlands, changes in vegetation type and reduced biodiversity
Many of the currently existing threats to the project sites stem from environmentally detrimental past
activities targeted at improving productivity of Soviet agriculture. These include the drainage campaign
carried out in Polesie from 1960 to the 1990s. As a result of drainage, the groundwater table throughout
Polesie dropped significantly, resulting in the disappearance of many natural wetlands. Few unique fen
mires were left, and the remaining globally significant sites are subject of the present proposal. The
remaining natural mires still retain their biodiversity, but as they are surrounded by drained areas, they
remain under imminent threat of habitat loss following fragmentation and encroachment of shrubs (an
unnatural vegetation succession in the formerly vast open fen mires). Overall, the area of natural
wetlands, floodplain forests and meadows has shrunk considerably, resulting in substantial biodiversity
loss. For those areas remaining in their natural or semi-natural condition, traditional management of the
surrounding drained lands presents a significant threat the way it is practiced by the collective farms and
the local drainage companies. An important number of drained lands adjacent to project areas have
degraded and can no longer be used productively in agriculture. However, these unnaturally drier lands
continue to drain the neighboring natural areas, leading to their increased fragmentation, loss of shallow
water breeding areas, gradual loss of hydraulic and ecosystem function and disappearance of valuable
plant and animal species.
In the Mid-Pripyat Reserve 64% percent of the land falls under management of 34 collective farms.
While hay-cutting and cattle grazing remain key types of agriculture within the reserve itself, the
bordering buffer zones, as well as mineral islands and some minor plots within the reserve itself, are
being used for cultivation. This type of agriculture benefits from low groundwater table, which is
incompatible with the habitat requirements of wetland biodiversity species occurring in the reserve.
Although arable farming continues with ever declining productivity, collective farm leaders lack technical
capacity and resources to change to biodiversity-friendly haymaking and cattle grazing. Means to carry
out innovative agriculture benefiting both biodiversity and economic growth are mostly unknown to
collective farm leaders. In many cases they find it too risky to venture into an unfamiliar enterprise with
their own limited resources, even if the scientific prognosis of win-win outcomes is presented.
In addition to threats arising as a result of cultivation, natural vegetation communities on numerous
floodplain areas suffer from overgrazing. This leads to changes in the vegetation structure of meadows,
and destruction of saplings and undergrowth..
In the Sporovsky Reserve 30% of the area is used for haymaking, with another 10% for cattle grazing.
Five collective farms are active in the area. As with Mid-Pripyat, most of the buffer zone is under
cultivation, presenting a similar set of threats to the biodiversity. There is one fish farm, operations of
which appear incompatible with biodiversity conservation requirements. Cattle overgrazing is also
observed at the site, though on a limited scale.
10
In Zvanets Reserve 94 ha are cultivated, 36 ha are used for haymaking, and 149 ha for cattle pasturing. In
all, six collective farms and one fish farm influence the biodiversity of the site. Mineral islands are
partially used by the local population for cultivated crops. The western part of the mire is used most
intensively. The eastern part of the mire adjoining the Belooziorsk Canal is also used quite intensely. The
area of the mire is used, as well, as a large reservoir to store water pumped out of the ameliorated
(poldered) areas in rainy periods and supply water for drained tracts during dry periods. The operation of
the polder fails to take into account the biodiversity of the site, leading in many cases to inundation of
nests of globally threatened birds.
The economy of the ameliorated areas adjoining the site is based on agricultural activities (growing of
perennial crops, arable and grain crops) that are harmful to biodiversity, although the physical features of
the area (soil type, climate) are unfavorable for high-yield agriculture. The low quality of agricultural
production is explained by the mosaic of various soils, rough microrelief, unfavorable water regime, and
presence of carbonate layers, as well as by the fact that the peat layer on the areas before amelioration was
not deep, varying form 0 to 1 m. Exploitation of soils for agriculture was accompanied by mixing peat
with sand, contributing to a decline in the soil quality. Currently large portions of ameliorated areas are
not used in agriculture due to their poor quality, and these would be the primary focus of the project,
seeking to either re-establish habitat or make the soil more beneficial economically, through introduction
of biodiversity friendly haymaking or pastures.
All of the Prostyr Zakaznik is used for haymaking and cattle pasturing. Cultivation on adjacent areas
does not present a serious threat to biodiversity.
It is important to note that a good number of the agriculture-related threats are primarily a result of poor
enforcement of the now quite progressive (in terms of nature-conservation) state agricultural policies.
There is no need for a broad change of policy for Polesian agriculture, but rather the development of the
capacity of the local stakeholders to introduce nature-friendly agricultural practices and observe the
nature-friendly norms established by already existing national policy instruments. However, a more
explicit strengthening of the biodiversity elements of national agricultural policies is still a need.
Forest policies and management plans do not take into account biodiversity needs resulting in clear
cutting and fires that damage bird and rare plant habitat
There are almost no forests in the Sporovsky and Prostyr Reserves, except the mineral islands amidst the
open fens. Forests in the Zvanets reserve cover 16.7% of the total area, in the Mid-Pripyat – 21.4%. The
open mires of the last two reserves also contain mineral islands mainly populated with oak and blackalder forests.
In all four areas, forest-related causes are similar, but their intensity and scale of impact on biodiversity is
different and is defined by the size of the forest plots.
The Mid-Pripyat and Zvanets sites are intricate natural complexes, and unique floodplain forests requiring
special protection cover a significant portion of their territories. Altogether forest enterprises at target
sites are the second largest land-user after collective farms. They implement forestry policies established
by the Forestry Committee of the Council of Ministers. Each forest enterprise has its own forest
management plan, which undergoes "capital" revision once every ten years, but is also reviewed annually
on a less intensive basis. Each year, as part of its review, forest enterprises receive annual harvest plans
from the Forestry Committee. Harvest planning decisions are made by the Forestry Committee, mainly on
the basis of information communicated by forest enterprises, in line with the need to fulfill the overall
national harvest plan.
11
At reserves district environmental inspectorates control forest enterprises for observation of the
established special protection regime. In reality, however, it is common to find that even with full
observance of the regime forest enterprises continue to significantly degrade biological diversity. The
reason is that protection regimes are based on very general documents focusing mainly on land and water
use; their scope simply does not include links between forestry activities and possible damage to
biodiversity, e.g., the protection regimes cannot foresee protection of selected tree plots that serve as a
key biotope for a globally threatened bird, i.e. a Greater Spotted Eagle, and as a result this plot is logged
and the fact is recorded towards implementation of the harvest plan. On the other hand, this level of detail
can be accommodated in forest management plans. However, currently existing plans for project sites
were elaborated on the basis of traditional approaches and the extremely insufficient level of knowledge
of the existing globally important biodiversity. This is how, having assessed the difference in detail
between a protection regime and a forest management plan, the Government and national experts have
come to understand that in order to achieve full environmental sustainability in forestry at protected areas,
the forest management plans themselves have to be revised using new information on globally important
biodiversity and innovative approaches that could be beneficial both for biodiversity and forestry.
The outcomes of currently unsustainable forest management at target sites include logging of tree stands
serving as biotopes for globally threatened biodiversity, fires, biological pollution (see the graphical
project concept in the Annex).
Environmentally detrimental flood defense measures which have caused changes to the natural
hydrological regime
The biodiversity of two of the project sites – Prostyr and Mid-Pripyat (especially the latter) - suffers from
unwise construction of flood defense facilities in the past. Mid-Pripyat continues to remain under the
threat of further losing its biodiversity if currently planned flood defense activities continue.
The existing full-length embankment was constructed from the border with Ukraine (Prostyr reserve) to
the mouth of the Lan River in the 1960s, which is over 100 km. Further downstream, interrupted diking
was performed during the second stage of flood defense program in the 1970-80s. In both cases,
irreversible changes in the hydrology of the floodplain took place. The width of the Pripyat floodplain
near Lan before diking was up to 25 km, but after embankment it was as little as 5-8 km. The result was:
Loss of habitats for important biodiversity. Embankment resulted in decreased habitat
area (floodplain lakes, fens, alder forests) of a number of threatened bird species, such as Aquatic
warbler, Corncrake, Great snipe.
Increased water level in the now very narrow floodplain. Elevated water level in the
floodplain resulted in deterioration of conditions for waterfowl.
Loss of shallow areas. Embankment resulted in decreased shallow water area that led to
worsening conditions for fish spawning. Shallow water areas decreased and produced a deficit of
suitable breeding places.
Changed flood timing. Embankment of 2/3 of the upper Pripyat and its tributaries
resulted in a new model of flood formation. Before the two embankment campaigns, the water in
spring would accumulate in the lower Pripyat where the floodplain could reach some 20-30 km
wide: this gave excellent conditions for fen mires and their associated biodiversity. After
embankment most of the floodwater in spring inundated the very fertile agricultural lands
downstream, i.e. now water was not retained in the upper reaches of the river, but instead
inundates its middle part to a catastrophic degree. The currently proposed system of flood defense
is based on selective diking, but many of its parameters (e.g. distance from the channel, exact
placement of some of the selective dykes) are inappropriate for biodiversity and would lead to its
12
loss in many areas. One of them is the so-called Turov meadow (part of the Mid-Pripyat), which
is a breeding area for globally threatened birds.
Full-length embankment of more than half of the Pripyat and many of its upstream tributaries, and later
selective diking were planned and performed without due heed to the need to conserve biological
diversity. In its current revision the Program does not guarantee biodiversity conservation simply because
at the time of its elaboration there were no biodiversity experts present in the development team, and
hence this work was deprived of in-depth analysis of the outcomes of the Program for biodiversity.
Belmeliovodkhoz concern is acknowledging the negative implications of the existing Program for Flood
Defense for biodiversity, but the capacity to revise the Program (change policies) and implement
practical changes, is limited.
Ineffective protected area management is unable to prevent land degradation or adequately determine and
address threats from surrounding landscape activities.
This threat is equally relevant to all four target areas.
In the protected areas per se special protection regimes are in place, to be observed by the land-users who
– by law - did not lose their lands or land-use rights once reserves were established. Regime enforcement,
however, has been extremely inefficient: reserves have no management units, and enforcement
jurisdiction is within the corresponding district's environmental inspectorate (i.e. the local branch of
MNREP), who with their limited human17 and financial capacity, are in most cases unable to properly
enforce the protection regime. Lack of human and technical capacity at the local level is, thus, another
root cause of a number of the present-day negative processes impacting the state of biodiversity.
Summary of the baseline situation18
In the Soviet era the seemingly unending wetland areas were hardly perceived as natural heritage, but
rather as an impediment to extensive agriculture, which needed to develop fast enough to "feed" the
industries and cities, after World War II. There was little conflict, if any, with environmental demands,
just as there was little attempt to study and provide a sound environmental background to what was
carried out by the powerful Soviet drainage enterprises. The economic model eventually set up in Polesie
focused on arable agriculture and extensive logging and did not favor biodiversity. Neither did flood
defense measures of the late Soviet period, which – similar to the previous cases – were poorly analyzed
from the point of view of impact on species and habitats.
In fact, not until regaining its independence in 1991 did the Belarusian Government come to understand,
under growing pressure from scientists and the international community, that Polesie represented a unique
legacy for the entire world in many respects: the wetlands of Polesie were discovered to fix carbon
dioxide several times faster than mature forests; the traditional lifestyle of people in Polesie presented a
peculiar mix of Polish, Belarusian and Ukrainian traditions blended into a special culture worth valuing.
But most importantly – those areas remaining in their natural state were discovered to host exceptional
biodiversity, of which several habitat types were the last existing examples on Earth, and some globally
threatened species were found nowhere else.
17
Many district environmental inspections are staffed with just 2 staff members and a driver. Their terms of reference, though, is
very wide, beginning with control over the use of ozone-depleting substances and inspection of pollution discharges (the socalled "brown environment") and ending with control over enforcement of protection regimes at reserves within their district (the
"green environment" sector).
18 Funding sources and amounts are given in the ANNEX 12
13
The convergence of environmental concerns in Polesie and the willingness to draw international attention
to the region provided the main argument for Belarus to become Party to key global and other multilateral
treaties, such as the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Biodiversity, the UNFCCC, and the UNCCD.
On the national level, the first response to increased awareness of the values of Polesie expressed itself in
enlargement of the Polesian protected area network. Pripyatski National Park was established first. MidPripyat, Prostyr, Sporovsky, Zvanets, and Olmany Mires Reserves followed between 1980-2000, with
funding from the Government and assistance of the Michael Otto Foundation for Environmental
Protection (Germany).
Resources were allocated by Government and international organizations to better study and identify
more integrated approaches to conservation of Polesie. In order to strengthen the scientific foundation for
the work to enhance the protected areas network in Polesie, the National Academy of Sciences has since
the early 1980s been implementing the Scientific Monitoring Program, in which various institutes of the
National Academy of Sciences of Belarus monitor the impact of large-scale drainage on the biological
diversity of the floodplains of the Pripyat and its tributaries. Another element of the monitoring program
is the compilation of descriptions of the flora and fauna in the most significant sectors of the Pripyat
River, carried out over the last five years by the Institute of Botany and the Institute of Zoology of the
National Academy of Sciences. Environmental monitoring is supported by the State Hydrological
Monitoring Program carried out through a network of stations along the Pripyat and its tributaries. The
Program has been carried out for several decades now and contributes toward analysis of factors defining
the biological diversity and conditions of wetlands. The monitoring activities serve to define an important
scientific baseline for state programs and action plans, and through these to the fulfillment of international
obligations under the relevant global conventions.
Gradually increasing scientific knowledge about Polesie empowered both the Government and interested
international organizations to undertake more strategic action towards conservation activities in Polesie.
The First International Conference on Conservation of Floodplains and Fen Mires of the Belarusian
Polesie was conducted in Minsk in 1997. The Conference resulted in an Action Plan, the main provisions
of which supported integrated management planning as a means to conserve biodiversity in the Polesie
region.
One-time awareness campaigns (in 1997 and 1998) were organized by the National Academy of Sciences
in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and the Michael
Otto Foundation to raise the awareness of local people and authorities about the biodiversity values and
need for conservation of the Pripyat floodplains.
Strategic planning initiatives that followed the 1997 Conference and continue through the present laid the
basis for future actions in Polesie. In the forest sector the Government benefited from the World Bank
loan for elaboration of a strategic action plan of the forestry sector. Another main element of the strategic
planning processes has been the elaboration of the Strategic Action Program for the Dnieper basin, under
the UNDP-GEF Dnieper Project. The project will result in a Strategic Action Program to secure
conservation of the Dnieper and its tributaries. The draft Dnieper Basin Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy, which is part of the Strategic Action Program, envisages integration of biodiversity conservation
priorities with key economic activities in the area, such as agriculture, flood defense, and forestry.
Polesie, which geographically almost fully lies within the Dnieper basin, will benefit from the Strategy, in
that its nature reserves, such as Mid-Pripyat, Sporovsky, Zvanets, Olmany are defined as priority
biodiversity hotspots.
14
All of the above mentioned initiatives can be considered as a past baseline for the proposed project19.
Today the Government of Belarus acknowledges the need to move from simply extending protected area
networks and strategic planning to practical implementation of sustainability principles established by key
national and international documents, such as the National Sustainable Development Concept and
Regional Biodiversity Strategy for the Dnieper Basin. This was the core agreement of the Second
International Conference on Conservation of Floodplains and Fen Mires of the Belarusian Polesie in
May 2002. Below is the contemporary baseline for the proposed initiatives: these are the most recent
national and international programs and projects, recently completed and/or ongoing, which have the
space and potential to factor conservation of Polesian biodiversity into the key economic sectors.
The proposed GEF project should be perceived as co-contribution to those initiatives which factor global
biodiversity concerns already, and as an incremental element to realize the potential of those which –
because they focus mainly on national priorities – currently do not do so. The three groups presented
below logically represent the key economic activities in the area, while the fourth group lists overarching
interventions (also see graphic concept in the Annex):
Integration with agriculture
Agricultural production still plays the key role in the region’s economic development. More than 1,200
Belarusian collective farms are located in Polesie. More than 600 Belarusian private farmers produce
about 5% of the agricultural output. However, these agricultural activities continue on drained lands with
ever-declining efficiency. This is true for crop production, which is a dominant agricultural activity,
represented mainly by grain production and pastures on drained peatlands, the level of mineralization of
which grows every year resulting in drastically declining soil fertility. An ever-growing area of land is
being withdrawn annually from agriculture. This has recently become a major ecological problem of the
region, where the density of the population is one of the highest in Belarus: in Brest oblast alone
(Belarus), about 100,000 people live in the floodplain of Pripyat and its tributaries.
The need to harmonize environmental and economic factors in agricultural land use brought about a
number of the following baseline programs of the Government:
Concept of Development of Drained Areas and Their Use in Belarus (adopted by the Minister
of Agriculture 25 April 1994). The key principles of the Concept are:
Drained areas shall be used in a way so as to ensure ecological security in accordance
with current legislation on soil fertility, waters, forests, protection of flora and fauna. Design of
new drainage facilities – if any – shall be pre-empted by forecasting ecological changes which
construction of such a facility might bring about.
Drainage and use of drained areas near protected areas shall be done in strict observance
of the protection regimes and the need to maintain the level of protection required at protected
areas. This includes a number of specific guiding principles such as (1) establishment and
maintenance of an interrelated network of protected areas, (2) establishment of special protection
regimes for especially valuable sites and species for buffer zones and corridors, (3) segregate
agricultural landscapes, plant forest strips, introduce landscape diversity.
The Concept serves as a guidance for the agricultural sector of Belarus in terms of future use of
Polesian territories.
The State Program on Inventory of Drained Areas of Belarus. The Program was carried out in
1996-1999 with the purpose to assess the state of the drained agricultural lands and provide
recommendations for their subsequent use. The Program found that out of the 3.05 million ha of
drained areas, about 760,000 ha could no longer continue to be exploited as usual, their drainage
networks being extremely dilapidated, so decisions needed to be made regarding introduction of
19
Some of those, however, will continue to serve as a baseline in present and future, and especially the monitoring programs.
15
different agricultural or non-agricultural uses there. Many of the areas in this category are those
arable lands in and around the Zvanets, Sporovsky and Mid-Pripyat zakazniks targeted by the
project. In line with the Program's recommendations, arable farming will sought to be replaced
by biodiversity friendly haymaking and cattle pasturing in the framework of the proposed project.
.By 2003 the Program was completed.
The Measures on Effective Sustainable Agriculture in selected districts in Belarus adopted by
the Council of Ministers’ Decree #79 dated 20 January 2000. Building on the outcomes of the
Inventory, the aim of this list of measures is to develop practical recommendations on how to
optimise arable farming and grassland management. Belnitszem Project Institute manages this
program. It divides lands into various categories based on their conditions, and specific
recommendations and a work program are proposed for each category. Specifically, for wet soils
and those subject to annual or more frequent flooding, the clear instruction is to exclude this land
from arable farming and use only as grasslands, growing hydrophillic plant species only. The
Zhitkovich and Kobrin districts are two districts covered by this project, and hence this will serve
as a policy baseline for the project. The project will seek to strengthen implementation of the
program and review some of its components related to biodiversity conservation, with a focus on
globally important biodiversity.
Integration with forestry
Following elaboration of the National Strategic Action Plan, the Forestry Committee in 2001
launched a Program on elaboration of national forest certification standards. The Government
attaches great importance to introduction of certification and seeks to make it a national law,
which will obligate forest enterprises and independent harvesting and wood processing
companies to observe certain limits in terms of logging, follow reforestation guidelines and take
into account principles of good environmental practices. At the same time, wood companies
would get an economic benefit in that their product will be competitive on international markets.
National standards are to be compatible with international ones, and will also be included into the
All-Belarusian economic certification system. By late 2002 the draft national certification system
was elaborated and successfully tested in Smorgon forestry. However, the proposed system as it
currently is elaborated does not fully cover specific forestry cases, like forestry in protected areas,
where special biodiversity conservation conditions have to be taken into account.
For the last several years the Government has been carrying out a program on transfer of forests
from under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture (from management of collective farms)
into the jurisdiction of the Forestry Committee (for management by forest enterprises), which
results in environmentally more sustainable management of forests. In each case the transfer
requires elaboration of a plan and methodology for sustainable use of the transferred forests. In
the coming years, similar activities will be conducted for the forests of Mid-Pripyat and Zvanets
Reserves, which will represent an additional co-financing element to the special forestry planning
and certification, envisaged by the proposed project.
Rethinking flood defense measures
In 1990-1996, the Government initiated the elaboration of a mathematical hydrological model of
the Pripyat floodplain including a GIS module, to prepare grounds for planning and construction
of flood defence facilities. The program, however, was halted half-way due to lack of funds.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Emergencies took it up and is now revising the previous work and
developing a GIS module to forecast floods in the Pripyat floodplain.
The State Program on Installation of Technical Facilities for the Protection of Dwellings from
Floods in the Critical Locations of the Polesie Region, for 1999-2004 was adopted by the Council
of Ministers on 30 June 1998. The first program, adopted in 1994 ended in embankment of about
16
2/3 of the Pripyat floodplain by full-length levees. The Program currently in implementation
relies on the so-called localized diking to protect the more important towns, villages and isolated
industrial and agricultural areas. However, the Program is still implemented with almost no
attention to biodiversity and needs re-thinking.
Strengthening Protected Area management
As a final stage to realize the integrated management approach in the Polesie region and establish
the most effective way to conserve and manage the region's biodiversity values, the Government
of Belarus with assistance of UNESCO and the National Academy of Science are planning to
develop the so-called Polesian bionetwork. This idea emerged in late 2000 and as of 2002 its
development continued with support from the UNESCO Man and Biosphere program. Only the
general concept has been developed so far, which prescribes:
- Establishment of a Polesian national bionetwork on the basis of existing and newly established
protected areas (as core elements) surrounded by buffer zones and linked through corridors. The
bionetwork design is the next stage of idea elaboration, for which funding has not been identified
as of early 2002. At that time, very detailed design modules of the future Polesian bionetwork
will be developed, specifying location and size of buffer zones, placement of corridors, etc. based
on a number of criteria, such as presence of habitats of valuable flora and fauna, hydrological
boundaries of catchments and sub-catchments, etc.
- Integration of the Polesian bionetwork into the Pan-European Econet through establishment of
transborder biosphere reserves with Ukraine, Poland, Russia.
As has been noted above, at this stage only a general concept of the Polesian bionetwork is available.
Prospects for funding from internal and external sources are difficult to estimate. According to the
estimates of program initiators, the total need for the project will amount to several million dollars.
Building the capacities of local land use decision makers in the decision making process in Polesie
As a means to break through the traditional exclusion of local decision makers in management of Polesie,
and with a special focus on protected areas, the UNDP-Darwin Initiative-RSPB project Management
Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire Biodiversity (1991 – 2002) has managed to build on the new
provisions of the Law on protected areas allowing for management plan preparation, and develop in a
participatory manner integrated management plans for 3 protected areas in Belarus, two of which are the
sites of the proposed project: Sporovsky and Mid-Pripyat reserves.
The project was built on the RSPB experience in management plan preparation, which is based on a broad
participatory approach, whereby all local stakeholders, including land users, managers and local people,
are consulted during the key steps of management plan preparation and adoption.
Specifically, involvement of local stakeholders was expressed in:
Series of initial meetings to identify the overall areas of development and a vision for the
protected areas, identification of information gaps
Involvement of local stakeholders in information inventory and preparation of site information
forms
Pathfinder workshops where the site information forms were presented to local stakeholders and
recommendations for action discussed
Series of meetings at the stage when 5-year action plans were prepared on the basis of outcomes
of pathfinder meetings
Agreement with each local stakeholder of final management plans before their adoption by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. The central government is not
adopting management plans before these are agreed to by the absolute majority of local
17
stakeholders. This is an indication of substantial decision-making powers, which are in fact in the
hands of local decision makers, but which they have so far not managed to use them properly to
make their voice heard at the national level.
The strategy was used at the PDF A stage with regard to the Mid-Pripyat and Prostyr reserves.
Specifically,
- Two meetings were held with local stakeholders to identify the vision for the Mid-Pripyat and
Prostyr areas.
- Before and after the workshops a series of bilateral consultations took place with local forest
enterprises and collective farms to discuss both the strategy of action for the sites, as well as
forms of participation of local stakeholders in the project.
- Most of the information collected during the PDF A stage was collected locally by local
stakeholders on request of the project.
The PDF B and the full stage will continue in the spirit of local ownership and broad participation in
decision-making. Apart from the planning stage, the experience of UNDP has also proved that local
enterprises (collective farms, ameliorative companies, local scientific institutes) are also best placed to
actually implement conservation activities. A collateral benefit of it, apart from awareness raising and
income generation, is that when involved in implementation, chances of reverting to environmentally
harmful practices of the past are extremely low. The project will continue building on this strategy.
Expected scenario in the absence of the GEF project
In the absence of the GEF intervention all of the baseline activities described above will continue as
currently planned. The resulting overall scenario may be briefly described as the one where national
priorities are being realized with insufficient account of the need to preserve globally important
biodiversity of Polesie.
The Dnieper Basin Strategic Action Program, and specifically the Regional Biodiversity Strategy for the
Dnieper Basin will largely remain paper work. The transboundary cooperation between Belarus and
Ukraine for biodiversity protection will remain sluggish. The knowledge about and the monitoring of
Polesie values will remain limited and insufficient to produce backgrounds for cross-sectoral integration
and integrated management.
Poor protected area management capacity on the one hand combined with lack of efforts for awareness
raising and involvement of local people on the other will result in continued illegal tillage on the territory
of protected areas, poaching, illegal fishing, overgrazing, destruction of vegetation layer in forests,
excessive collection of wetland and forest resources. Continued biodiversity-risky behavior among local
land-users and local people, such as burning of vegetation, will continue undermining trophic system and
vegetation composition, contributing to eventual unprecedented changes in the population density of key
globally threatened species.
Slow agriculture optimization in Polesie will result in habitats of globally important biodiversity suffering
from progressive encroachment of agricultural deserts and shrubs, with valuable species eventually losing
population to the point of total disappearance.
Lack of capacity to elaborate and test special forest management planning and certification procedures
specifically for protected areas will provide for continuation of logging of valuable biotopes, fires, and
biological pollution, eventually resulting in loss of habitats for globally threatened birds, and a substantial
decrease of unique oak and alder ecosystems.
18
The full-length levees – unattended through innovative technologies – will continue to limit the
opportunities for habitat extension. Shortages of shallow areas will result in substantial loss of fish stock,
with some already rare species under threat of disappearance within 10 to 15 years.
Expected scenario in the presence of the GEF project
The proposed GEF project will enable conservation of globally important biodiversity of Polesie while
realizing key national objectives, building on innovative and participatory approaches. The most
important provisions of the Regional Dnieper Basin Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in respect to
priority sites in Belarus will be implemented. Biodiversity concerns will be integrated into activities of
local land-users and replicated in similar conditions in and outside Belarus. Key threats to the biodiversity
of Polesie will be eliminated.
Transboundary cooperation between Ukraine and Belarus will be improved through establishment of
Prostyr-Pripyat-Stokhid transboundary protected area.
The capacity of national scientists for research and integrated monitoring at key Polesian sites will be
strengthened.
The capacity for management of the reserves will be established and strengthened to the lowest possible
level. This way, through participatory elaboration and implementation of management plans, local
decision makers and the public will be involved in planning for and management of the Polesian protected
areas. Biodiversity-risky behavior will be eliminated.
Agriculture in the reserves and on adjacent areas will allow both for economically profitable land use and
conservation of biological diversity. Zoning of various land-use types will exclude negative impact on
biodiversity.
Operation of water facilities by local amelioration companies (especially water uptake and pumping) will
be fully compatible with biodiversity conservation interests. Extreme local floods will be eliminated, and
fire frequency will be low.
Special forest management planning principles will be applied to protected areas. Certification standards
will be completed with special provisions for protected area management. Having been successfully
applied to Mid-Pripyat forest tracts, these will be replicated in similar conditions throughout Belarus.
Illegal logging, fires, biological pollution and other negative impacts on forest biodiversity will be
reduced substantially.
Habitat extension opportunities will be increased significantly through summer polder solutions, which
presuppose placement of regulated gates within the full-length levee at pre-specified locations. Altitude
and duration of flooding downstream will be decreased, giving room for shallow areas upstream and
decreased flood altitude downstream, thus also contributing to better human security. Increased area of
shallow water will maintain fish stocks in the river and prevent rare fish species from disappearance.
9. Expected outcomes of the project
Project Strategy
In order to effectively integrate biodiversity conservation concerns into land-use practices in the Polesie
for the benefit of preserving its global values, the proposed project will work to improve the quality of
19
key policies for each sector (agriculture, forestry, flood defense) in parallel to establishment in a
participatory manner of sound protected area management at the target sites.
State programs and principles in agriculture, forestry, and flood defense will be revised and/or extended
to cover biodiversity conservation effectively. As can be seen from the Baseline description, the two
programs targeted and the Concept of Use of Drained Lands in Agriculture, on which they are based, are
already very strongly environment-biased, and serve as a key policy baseline which should not be
replaced, but rather amended and extended to strengthen specifically the biodiversity component and
improve their enforcement mechanisms. This is the planned objective of the proposed project on the
policy level in terms of agriculture in the Polesie. This will require close liaison of national and
international experts with local and central authorities. State program tools, once revised, will be readopted, and this will constitute one of the key elements of the project sustainability strategy.
In parallel to sectoral policy changes, as a means to involve local stakeholders in land-use decision
making, as well as to set up an effective local infrastructure for implementation of conservation activities
during and beyond the project, management plans for each target sites will be developed, and
management units established for their implementation. Management plan preparation will be built on the
participatory strategy applied in the UNDP project Management Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire
Biodiversity described in the baseline. It will benefit from extensive information collection during the
PDF B stage.
Implementation of concrete measures per each sector and across sectors will follow the management
plans, run in parallel to the policy component activities (mutually reinforcing each other) and be
coordinated operationally by the local protected area management units, with support from the project
management unit during the course of the project. Continued implementation of the management plans
and supervision of the protected areas beyond the project will be run by the management units with
support from budget sources as agreed during the course of project implementation.
In attainment of all of its outputs the project will rely on the past and contemporary baseline described
above. As has been said, the project should be perceived as a link between the "strategic planning phase"
and "concrete action" at key Polesian biodiversity sites. Within the limited resources currently available
in Belarus and to Belarus, the project strives to achieve maximum benefit for the global environment
without trying to cover planning for and implementing action in the whole of the Polesie – which is a
different scale of resource need, currently unattainable. However, the project has been designed in a way
so as to make its outputs stand as a key contribution to the Polesie Bionetwork idea, currently under
development with assistance from UNESCO, whereby a plan of development and watershed management
is to be developed and adopted for the whole region.
In order to improve the level of cooperation with Ukraine, the project will presuppose close cooperation
with Ukrainian counterparts on establishment of the transborder Pripyat-Stokhid-Prostyr reserve.
Thus, the project's key success and – to large extent sustainability – drivers are:
Modified sectoral policy tools to reflect biodiversity concerns
Local decision making and protected area management structures with secured funding beyond
the project
Contribution to the Polesie Bionetwork idea development and implementation
Transboundary cooperation
Some additional arguments for the project strategy stem from the project context, described in more detail
at the beginning of the document.
20
Specific project outcomes to achieve the GEF scenario are represented below:
Project outcomes
Strengthened Protected Area management
1.1 Target reserves are operated by separate management units. These are made up of local expertise and are
integrated into the national system of nature protection. This according to law means upgraded levels of
site protection from unregulated to regulated national reserve. Management units involve local people to
monitor activities at protected areas.
1.2 Management units operate according to integrated 5-year management plans, approved by the central,
local authorities, local land-users and discussed widely with the general public.
1.3 State funding committed to financing of the management units upon project end.
1.4 Intersectoral coordination committees established as a foundation for the National Ramsar Committee,
and their experience replicated.
1.5 Improved scientific monitoring and research.
1.6 Prostyr-Pripyat Stokhid transboundary protected area established and in operation.
Integration with agriculture
2.1 Implementation of sustainable agricultural policy for Polesie strengthened. Biodiversity components in
the agricultural policy enhanced. (For that purpose the State Program on Sustainable Agriculture will be
revised and expanded to strengthen the biodiversity components).
2.2 Agricultural land use at target sites benefits biodiversity, as well as local land-users: arable farming is
replaced by grass-lands20. Environmentally friendly alternative livelihoods (traditional haymaking, reedbed management) are introduced.
2.3 Reduced drainage of target areas caused by anthropogenic activities, including operation of water uptake
facilities.
2.4 The experience of the project on sustainable agriculture policy replicated for the Polesie region.
Integration with the forest sector
3.1 Forest lands belonging to Zhitkovichi forest enterprise (99,400 ha in and adjacent to the Mid-Pripyat
reserve) fully certified according to national and international standards, experience shared and
incorporated into the process of development of national policy in the area of certification to boost
adjustment of national policy to international standards21.
3.2 On other forested areas of the project sites: special forestry planning principles enforced as a first step to
certification; replication of experience from Zhitkovich forestry started at later project stages using
national funds.
3.3 The experience of the project on sustainable agriculture policy replicated for the protected areas
experiencing similar challenges. National capacity for this is built so that all future certification and forest
management plans take into account biodiversity and wetland wetland conservation needs.
Integration with flood-defense measures
4.1 State Program on Flood Defense revised to reflect biodiversity principles and under implementation by
the state (Belmeliovodkhoz Concern). Summer polder agricultural systems enabled, fish stocks stabilized,
human security increased.22.
20
Identification of the location, scale and procedures for changes in land-use per each site will be done at the PDF B stage.
Detailed plan of activities to achieve this outcome will be drawn at the PDF B stage.
22 The revision of the Program will concentrate not on the flood-defense tools to introduce those of them, which are beneficial
both to the biodiversity and human security (i.e. no lowering of embankment is foreseen, rather “breaking it up”; close-to-channel
embankment is sought to be replaced by close-to-dwelling protection, etc.)
21
21
Clarification on the strategy to achieve some of the outcomes
The description of the overall project strategy provided above gives an idea of how most of the outcomes
will build into a “bigger picture”. At the same time, it is important to clarify how the outcomes
themselves are going to be achieved. Since the format of the project concept does not allow to specify all
the numerous activities to achieve each outcome and sub-outcome:
For outcome Strengthened Protected Area management the key tools would be providing technical
support and enabling the necessary legal, administrative and policy framework for local experts to be
selected as personnel of protected area units. Once enrolled, appropriate training will be applied to
strengthen their capacity and ensure that they have full capacity for integrated implementing management
plans of their respective areas. Meetings and workshop with central authorities, as well as training the
management unit personnel into “trainers” of their peers at other areas will ensure sustainability and
replication of the selected strategy.
A participatory procedure (pathfinder workshops, consultations and field visits) following an in-depth
study of scientific, economic, financial, and legal aspects for each site will be employed to prepare
management plans. The plans will be agreed with all stakeholders and subsequently approved by the
Ministry of Natural Resources, making them binding for the target sites and their respective management
units.
On the local level, while working on management plans, the project will initiate establishment of informal
local intersectoral committees to oversee management plan implementation in a participatory way. The
committees would include representatives of management units, nature conservation inspections, district
authorities, local forestry, agriculture and water management sectors and key land users. They will not
only oversee implementation of management plans and advise as to its correction if needed, but also serve
a forum for wider inter-institutional coordination for wetlands management.
The pilot committees established in the project will be replication through exchange visits, workshops and
publications. But more importantly - and this is how the project can strengthen national capacity – they
can lay the basis and serve as source field structure for the future National Ramsar Committee.
Establishment of permanent monitoring plots and their legal inclusion into the National Monitoring
network, crosscutting workshops and seminars for participating experts will serve to improve scientific
monitoring and research.
Finally, on the Pripyat-Stokhyd, legal work and close cooperation with the Ukrainian counterparts
(envisaging working meetings, meetings for drafting and approval of memoranda and cross-border
agreements) will be extended from the PDF A further through the PDF B and into the full stage so that by
the end of the project the basis is fully prepared for the first Belarus-Ukraine transboundary protected
area.
On the outcome of Integration with agriculture, apart from participatory work to amend the Programs, the
idea is to provide a mechanism to change farming practices through a step by step approach. To finalize
this, while preparing the project through the PDF B stage, current end use at each project site will be
assessed and optimal land use schemes developed together with collective farms (which is an integral
element of management plan preparation). As shown above, at the PDF A stage, a shift from the currently
less productive and at the same time environmentally damaging activities, to more profitable and
environmentally friendly ones was discussed and agreed with all land users at the potential target sites.
They will further participate through the whole chain of necessary activities of implementation: survey
22
the area, introduce new technologies through necessary construction and technology shifts, training and
capacity building for collective farms on the newly established schemes, monitoring.
The project sites will serve as pilot sites for wide-scale replication of the approach, which will be sought
in the final stage of the full project through sharing of experience (a publication will be produced on
changing from unprofitable and unsustainable to profitable and sustainable farming practices on wetland
areas) and work with Ministries. The experience of the project sites will be used as a basis for the State
Programs, the amendment of which is sought in the full project, thus contributing to wide-scale
replication of the new farming practices.
The outcomes on Integration with forestry will include employing a piloting-upscaling model:
internationally-acknowledged procedures for certification will be applied (to be defined during the PDF B
stage) at the selected sites, with replication achieved through sharing of experience (workshop, seminars)
and production of corresponding publications.
Finally, the improvement and “ecologization” of flood defense will be achieved through work to improve
the corresponding state program, and locally through engineering and technical construction work, with
subsequent capacity building for local users, to enable effective flood protection, new methods of farming
and conserve biodiversity.
Part 3 of the graphic project concept in the annex presents the relationship between project outcomes and
root causes of biodiversity threats targeted by the project.
10. Project sustainability and replication potential
Key to project sustainability is integration of biodiversity concerns into the main economic sectors. Once
the integration is achieved at the policy level and pilot/validation activities receive replication, the project
may be considered to be sustainable, since the financial and administrative ownership for the follow up
will in that case rest with national and local stakeholders upon project end.
A table in Annex X summarizes sustainability mechanisms for each of the project outcomes.
Replication potential. The main strategy of the project is to integrate biodiversity concerns into key
economic activities at protected areas. The policy changes introduced for each sector (agriculture,
forestry, flood defense) will ensure that they are legally obligatory for all of the country’s protected areas.
Pilot/validation elements will serve to validate/confirm that proposed concrete – and in many aspects
innovative – mechanisms and tools are favorable for replication not only because the Government has
established so through its policies, but also because this is advantageous to the stakeholders’ nonenvironmental interests. The project model will also be shared with Ukraine and Russia as part of
continued Dnieper Basin cooperation. Specific replication plans will be drawn up for key project elements
at the PDF B stage.
11. Eligibility
Belarus ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 8 September 1993.
The country is eligible to receive assistance from the United Nations Development Programme, GEF and
the World Bank. The project for which entry to work program is being requested is fully in line with
guidelines set for the Operation Programme OP2 “Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems”.
Finally, Belarus is a Contracting Party of the following international treaties relevant to the project:
23
CITES (1973)
Ramsar Convention (1971);
UN Convention to Combat Desertification;
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Water Resources, Helsinki (1992).
12. Stakeholders involved in the project and proposed implementation arrangements
Identification of stakeholders was done through several rounds of consultations in the project target area
and Minsk during the PDF-A stage. The development of this project concept counted with the assistance
of several governmental, scientific and economic agencies in Belarus with mandates over Polesie. The
following is a list of stakeholders divided by subgroups:
Project initiator group:
BirdLife Belarus, NGO and implementing agency of the PDF-A stage in Belarus
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, executing agency of the PDF A stage, key
central governmental body involved in biodiversity policy in Belarus
Institutes of Zoology of the National Academy of Sciences involved in research on fauna of Belarus;
Other national governmental institutions:
State Committee on Forestry of the Council of Ministers,, key governmental institution developing and
monitoring forest policy in the country
Ministry of Agriculture, key governmental institution developing and monitoring policy for state
agriculture
Belmeliovodkhoz Concern, state agency in charge of State Program for Flood Defense
Other scientific and applied research institutions:
Institutes of Botany of the National Academy of Sciences, involved in research on flora of Belarus
Central Scientific Institute for Complex Use of Water Resources, a key institution involved in scientific
and applied studies of water resources, their quality and use;
Belgiprozem, manages the Program on optimization of grass-lands;
Belgiprovodkhoz enterprise, leading institute dealing with hydrological research and elaboration of TORs
for technical and engineering water-use and anti-flood facilities in Belarus;
Polesiegiprovodkhoz institute, in charge of hydrology research and water-use planning in the area of the
Polesie;
Belnitszem, involved in land-use planning and cartography in Belarus;
Universities
Belarusian State University (BSU). The Geography Department and specialized companies of the BSU
are involved in landscape studies and planning and elaboration of GIS;
Local stakeholders, authorities and land-users
District Inspections of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the districts involved. These
are local (district) branches of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of
Belarus in charge of nature conservation in each respective district.
Land-use departments of the District Executive Committees of the districts involved. These departments
are responsible for land-use planning at local level;
Forest enterprises active in the targeted sites
Collective farms active in the targeted sites
Local drainage companies, local branches of Belmeliovodkhoz
Public at large, consulted through workshops, numerous field visits
24
International organizations (apart from UNDP)
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB, UK), is a key international stakeholder in the
project. The valuable expertise of RSPB has enhanced the project design significantly. This support
will continue through PDF-B and full stage
Michael Otto Foundation has actively co-financed numerous activities in the Polesie and is expected to
continue with support in the future.
The project will be executed nationally by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection. A steering group is envisaged to monitor project success and correct project strategy, if
necessary. The PDF B stage will enable to see whether any of the already existing Polesie-related
structures (such as the Scientific and Technical Council on Polesie) can be assigned to fulfill this role,
which would enable better cross-fertilization and enhance national ownership. The mechanism of liaison
of the Steering Group with the project management units to be introduced in the project will be developed
in the PDF B stage.
It is proposed that the project work through subcontracts, as appropriate. Specific activities can be
subcontracted to non-governmental organizations, research institutes, collective farms, etc. – those who
through a standard UNDP bidding procedure will confirm their best ability to deliver the outcomes to the
needed level of quality and efficiency. (Building on the available UNDP Belarus experience with
biodiversity projects in Polesie it can be said that local stakeholders – including those mentioned above
such as local drainage companies, collective farms – are normally best suited to undertake specific
protected area management assignments. They possess local knowledge, local expertise and best available
human and technical resources to do practical actions on the ground.)
Roles and scope of participation of various stakeholders in the project will be further finalized at the PDF
B stage.
13. Information on project proposer
The proponent team for the project was made up of three agencies: the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, National NGO BirdLife Belarus and Institute of Zoology of the Academy of
Sciences. By agreement, the NGO is serving as initiator and proponent for the purposes of the current
project proposal. The agency counts with substantive experience and expertise in the design and
implementation of donor-funded projects. Its brief profile is presented in Annex XI. Support letter of the
GEF Operational Focal Point is presented in Annex XIII.
14. Financing plan of full project
As can be seen from the preliminary calculation of the project cost (see Annex XII), the overall project
budget is estimated at US$ 6,730,000 over the course of 5 years. Government co-financing (baseline part)
will amount to US$ 3,547,000. Of the total incremental cost (US$ 3,183,000) the following is expected to
be covered from external co-financing:
- Human Security Trust Fund: USD 970,000
- UNDP, Darwin Initiative, Michael Otto Foundation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds:
USD 400,000
25
The incremental cost sought to be financed with GEF resources is USD 1,813,000. The financial ratio of
GEF to non-GEF project resources is thus 1,813,000 : (6,730,000 – 1,813,000) = 4,917,000, which is 1 to
2.7.
The baseline/alternative cost analysis will be finalized at the PDF B stage to arrive at maximum possible
accuracy building on confirmed expenditure and cost data relevant to the project.
15. IA coordination and Linkages to GEF and IA programs and activities
One of the focal areas of the Second UNDP Regional Cooperation Framework for Europe and the CIS
(2002–2005) is Environmental Governance. Its objective is to ensure that natural resources are managed
in ways that promote human development and minimize negative environmental impacts of economic
activities. Environmental governance activities will focus on several policy areas, including the
management of protected areas, drought prevention and mitigation, and related environmental
management concerns. The environmental governance program area will work in transboundary
development programs that mainstream environmental concerns, participation and advocacy in subregional, regional and global environmental arenas, including the Rio+10 process, on issues that relate to
institution building, harmonizing environmental legislation, and broadening public participation in
environmental policy processes, and building stakeholder capacity in environmental governance. This
project has been designed having the environmental governance program as a conceptual framework for
financial and technical assistance. In addition, the framework of assistance of the UNDP Country Office
in Belarus closely follows the objectives set by the Millennium Declaration. The project’s activities,
which are expected to result in the conservation of the resource base upon which many communities
obtain their income, are in line with the activities of UNDP office towards the Millennium Declaration
goals.
UNDP Belarus is fully involved in the management of the GEF project entitled Preparation of a Strategic
Action Program (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation
Mechanisms. This full regional (Belarus-Ukraine-Russian Federation) GEF project RER/98/G31, which
started in September 2000, aims to develop a program of measures and their respective implementation
mechanisms to protect Europe’s third largest river, the transboundary Dnieper, to which Pripyat is one of
its biggest tributaries. This project was designed as the most important follow-up step in implementation
of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy, prepared in the framework of said project.
This project has also been designed to complement and benefit the following initiatives assisted by UNDP
Belarus:
Development and internalization of the National Sustainable Development Strategy within the
context of the Republic of Belarus. The project will assist the Government of Belarus in
establishing the conditions for sustainable economic, social and environmental development;
Management Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire Biodiversity in Belarus and Integrated
Biodiversity Conservation Management Planning. The second stage of UNDP assistance to
Polesie management will serve as co-financing to the proposed project. Project activities include
public environmental awareness and support to national and local governments in managing
internationally valuable natural sites;
Establishment of an Environmental Management and Monitoring System in Belarus for
Rehabilitation of the Dnieper River Basin. The goal of the project is to enable the Republic of
Belarus to participate fully and effectively in the regional GEF project “Dnieper Basin
Environment Program” through national capacity building;
Public Awareness & Environmental Information: Phase 1 of a NGO-based cross-border initiative
in the Polish-Belarusian border region at the Bialowieza-Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park
area. The project aims to strengthen environmental protection in the Polish-Belarusian border
26
area through increased cross-border cooperation and public awareness and participation in the
management of Belavezhskaya Pushcha National Park and its adjacent areas.
Development and Introduction of Biodiversity Education in Secondary Schools in Belarus. The
project aims at assisting the Ministry of Education to design and integrate a biodiversity module
into secondary school curriculum in Belarus.
16. Proposed project development strategy
In 2001 the project received PDF-A resources for preparation of the next stage. The PDF-A was entitled
“Integrated biodiversity conservation and wetland management for the Mid-Pripyat reserve and key
adjacent territories”. It was reviewed and commented by the GEF Secretariat in the first quarter of 2001.
Following an analysis of operational and policy coordination possibilities, Belarus and Ukraine are now
developing and presenting to the GEF coordinated project proposals which enable cost-efficient and
focused implementation of the Dnieper project recommendations on the one hand, but also have a linking
element on the other. With this proposal Belarus is requesting PDF B funds to clarify the outstanding
deficiencies and prepare a full stage project. The PDF B process in Belarus will be coordinated with
development of the Ukrainain GEF project through the mechanisms established by the Dnieper project
described in the Context section of this document.
17. Response to Reviews
The present project concept integrates comments made by the GEF Secretariat two times during the
course of project elaboration from the PDF A stage (see Annex for details).
27
ANNEX I: Biodiversity significance of key sites in Polesie
Site name
MidPripyat
reserve
(90,447 ha)
Brief description of the site
General. The Mid Pripyat Reserve is the most valuable part of the
Pripyat river, which is the last unregulated lowland river system of its
size in the European continent and constitutes a prime example of the
complete range of Central European riverine ecosystems. The site
covers that part of the Pripyat river floodplain which is located
between the mouth of the Yaselda river and the mouth of the Stviga
river (120 km). The floodplain varying from 4 to 14 km in width is
flooded every year in spring. Areas with natural vegetation (forests,
meadows, mires, shrubs and waters) cover about 69,800 ha, or 92 per
cent of the area of the Reserve. Forests cover 22.7 per cent of the area
of the Reserve, meadows and mires cover 38.1 per cent, shrubs cover
12.3 per cent, waters cover 6 per cent of the Reserve’s area.
Land use. Fishing is practiced by local population all the year round.
The floodplain is the main source of timber used as a construction
material and as a fuel. Massive floodplain meadows of the Pripyat are
used as pastures and for haymaking. Apiculture is still quite widespread in the area.
About 14 per cent of the site is used in agriculture, mainly for
haymaking and cattle pasturing. Separate, mostly elevated, floodplain
parcels are illegally plowed by local people, although plowing of land
on the territory of the Reserve is prohibited by special regulations
established for land-users of the Reserve. The use of forests in the
Reserve occurs in the Pinsk, Stolin, Luninets, and Zhitkovichi forests.
Prostyr
reserve
(Area:
3,440 ha)
General. The reserve includes one of the largest floodplain fens
located in between the Pripyat and the Prostyr rivers. It is a mosaic of
eutrophic and mesotrophic lowland mires dominated by sedge and
reeds, with scattered willow shrubs and open mineral islands.
Land use. The reserve is used exclusively for haymaking and cattle
pasturing (about 15% of the area).
Values
Biodiversity. 725 plant species have been registered on the territory of the Reserve. 11
Red Data Book plant species have been recorded in the Reserve, some of which had
been formerly believed to be non-existent in the Pripyat region.
Among terrestrial vertebrate animals 36 mammals, 182 bird species (of which 155 are
breeding), 6 reptiles, 10 amphibians, and 37 fish species have been registered
altogether. 52 National Red Data Book bird species (of which 39 are breeding), 3
National Red Data Book mammal species, and 3 National Red Data Book
amphibians occur on the site. The status of 14 National Red Data Book species is
fully dependent on the condition of the Mid-Pripyat Reserve
The Mid-Pripyat Reserve is also an internationally important site in that it hosts a
number of rare and disappearing European bird species. Most important is that the
sites hosts great populations of the following globally threatened species: Aquatic
Warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola) (150-400 individuals), Greater Spotted Eagle
(Aquila clanga) (15 pairs), Corncrake (Crex crex) (500-2000 individuals), Great snipe
(Gallinago media) (50 individuals). Sporadic nesting of Ferrugenous duck Aythya
nyroca and irregular stop-overs of Lesser white-fronted goose Anser erythropus were
also registered on the site. More than 1 per cent of the European population of the
following bird species breed or stop here during migration: Bittern Botaurus Stellaris
(300 males), Black Stork Ciconia nigra (50-70 pairs), Black tern Chlidonias niger
(500-1000 pairs). For 27 bird species the area supports more than 1 per cent of their
national populations.
The floodplain of the Pripyat river has a special international value for a number of
waterfowl species during their spring migration. The overall number of geese
migrating along the Pripyat floodplain is estimated at 50 thousand individuals. The
same indicator for Widgeon (Anas penelope) is estimated to be 30,000.
Biodiversity. It is known that the site hosts 307 plant species, two of which are
included in the National Red Data Book of Belarus. Seven National Red Data Book
bird species have been recorded on the site. The site is of great value for conservation
of Corncrake Crex crex (100 pairs and more), and the Aquatic warbler Acrocephalus
paludicola (50-300 pairs). The number of the latter is largely dependent on the height
and duration of spring floods.
28
Site name
Sporovsky
reserve
(Area:
19,384 ha)
Brief description of the site
General. The Sporovsky reserve lies in the floodplain of the Yaselda
river, which is one of the largest tributaries of the Pripyat. It comprises
one of the largest, least modified fen floodplain mires in Belarus and
Europe. This seasonally flooded site comprises a large flat alluvial
plain with a lake, river valleys, over-valley terraces and unique mineral
islands. Mires represent a continuous tract (75% of the whole area)
extending along a 35 km stretch of the Yaselda river. The vegetation is
dominated by sedge communities and wet meadows, with associated
reedbeds, Salix thickets and agricultural grasslands. The outer edges of
the floodplain are surrounded by open or forested elevations.
Hydrology. The hydrology of the reserve is defined by the hydrological
behavior of the Yaselda river. The seasonal water regime in the mire is
influenced by: spring flooding, low flows in summer followed by late
summer / autumn flood events. These conditions are followed by low
winter flows as a result of freezing of the catchment area. The general
duration of flooding is about 2-3 months, with the water level rising
from 15-25 to 100-120 cm. Drainage of the river catchment basin and
its channel canalization up to the Reserve borders, together with the
building of the ‘Selets’ complex comprising a water reservoir and a
fish farm, have caused changes in the stream-flow of the Yaselda river.
In years with low water levels, spring flooding is practically absent.
Canalization of the channel has resulted in deep long-term flooding of
adjacent areas when high summer rainfall occurs. The combination of
nutrient enrichment from fish farm discharges and low spring flows has
resulted in enhanced macrophyte growth which has increased the
unevenness of the channel and has influenced channel water levels.
Water levels between Peschanka and Staromlyny villages have been
raised by 1.0m.
Values
Biodiversity. The fauna assemblage of the site includes 24 mammal, 123 bird, 6
reptile, and 8 amphibian species. The site comprises an extensive area of suitable
breeding habitat for the globally threatened Aquatic warbler Acrocephalus paludicola,
and the density at this site is the highest known in the world. Approximately 9% of the
European breeding population of the bird is found here. The site supports a total of 17
Red Data Book bird species for Belarus, including two other globally endangered
species (Corncrake and Great snipe), an internationally important population of
breeding Bittern, and nationally important breeding populations of Black stork, Black
tern and Savi’s warbler.
The site supports a rich non-avian biodiversity (a total of 542 vascular plant species)
with 18 Red Data Book plant species for Belarus, including many globally threatened
orchids, one Red Data reptile for Belarus, two European Red Data book invertebrates,
at least 10 Red Data invertebrate species for Belarus, and a nationally important
population of otters. The site supports an internationally significant proportion of the
Caricetum elatae vegetation community, and nationally important stands of the
Molinetum caeruleae and Corynephoretum canescentis communities.
Social and cultural values. The site hosts a number of archeological monuments.
Land-use. The main type of land-use in the Reserve is haymaking,
which is carried out on about 30% of the site. Some parts of the site are
used as pastures (about 10% of land). Commercial artel fishing on the
Sporovskoie Lake and hunting occur across the land in accordance
with national legislation. Clean-cultivated (e.g. beetroot, potato) and
cereal crops farming is practiced on neighboring lands, which are
mostly drained. The Yaselda region is also distinguished by low living
standards and lack of infrastructure. The migration of young people to
cities decelerates the process of regional development. The young
29
Site name
Brief description of the site
generation leaves agricultural districts for large cities, hence the
gradual aging of the local population occurs. A potentially useful
solution to these problems could be the development of agricultural
and ecological tourism.
***
Values
The site is an Important Bird Area and a Ramsar site.
Zvanets
zakaznik
(Area:
15,873 ha)
A management plan for the site was developed and is under
implementation through a UNDP project, serving as co-financing to the
proposed GEF initiative.
General. The Zvanets mire is one of the largest mesotrophic mires in
Europe remaining in a close to natural condition. The territory of
Zvanets zakaznik is a lake alluvial plain, which in the south gradually
merges with the first upper-floodplain terrace of the Pripyat River. It is
located in the interfluve of the Dnieper-Bug Canal and its tributaries,
Belooziorsk and Orekhovo Canals. Open fens are absolute dominants
by area, 11,150 ha (70.25%). The western part is characterized by an
abundance of mineral islands with alternating small open or partially
overgrown areas with shrubs and sedge fen mires. The central and
southern parts of the mire are dominated by open fen mires with shrubs
covering about 10-30%. Mineral islands are scattered all over the mire
complex, but their area is small (0.2 to 1 ha). In the east mineral islands
dominate by area. Natural forest vegetation here forms narrow strips
along the slopes of the islands. The eastern part contains the largest
island, i.e. the Zvanets island. The northern part of the zakaznik is
greatly impacted by the presence of the Dnieper-Bug Canal. The share
of open fens is the lowest here. Willow shrub proportion is the highest,
the area being strongly waterlogged. Lower islands give rise to
Pubescenso–Betuletum Caricosum, higher areas are covered by
fragmented nemoral vegetation.
Hydrology. The hydrological regime of the area is influenced by
amelioration polder systems, from which excess water is pumped into
the Dnieper-Bug Canal (DBC), Belooziorsk Canal or Orekhovo Canal
during floods. The rivers of the district are characterized by high spring
flooding, low level of water during summer and fall no-flood periods
almost annually interrupted by rainfall events, and a prolonged winter
no-flood period. In especially dry years the groundwater table can drop
Biodiversity. The vertebrate fauna of the zakaznik is characterized by high diversity
and includes 24 mammal, 110 bird, 4 reptile and 9 amphibian species.
23 plants, 21 birds, 2 mammals, and 18 insect species occurring on the site are listed in
the National Red Data Book of Belarus. 6 insect species of the site are also included in
the European Red Data Book
The site is of great importance for the following internationally significant species:
Greater spotted eagle Aquilla clanga (2 pairs), Corncrake (50-100 males) Common
snipe Gallinago gallinago (500-1000 males), Aquatic warbler Acrocephalus
paludicola (the site is the largest single habitat of this bird in Europe, 3000-6000
singing males), Bittern Botaurus stellaris (100-300 males), Montagu’s harrier Circus
pygargus (10-20), Spotted Crake Porzana porzana (500-1000), Water rail Rallus
aquaticus (500), Curlew Numenius arquata (50), Short-eared owl Asio flammeus (100200).
10 vegetation communities formerly widely spread over Polesie but now rare for
Belarus and Europe are found on the site.
Quite a large group of plants among those recorded in Zvanets belongs to the category
of rare and/or protected. One of the identified species is included in the European Red
List of Animals and Plants and is considered globally threatened. Altogether, 67 of the
higher vascular plants identified on the site require various forms of protection.
Social and cultural values. There are no archeological, cultural, historic or any other
protected monuments on the territory of the zakaznik. The Dnieper-Bug Canal (DBC)
and the Belooziorsk Canal, however, represent certain historic value.
30
Site name
Brief description of the site
up to 0.5 below surface. Spring melt usually starts in late February –
early March. In some years, the start date may be shifted by 10-12
days. The water level is normally the highest in late March – early
April. The spring water level fluctuation amplitude is defined by the
dryness degree of the particular spring. The mean spring water rise
over the average no-flood level is about 1.0 m. A normal annual
discharge for the rivers of the district in question is considered to be
3.5 l/s per km2. The variance coefficient and the skewness coefficient
for the annual discharge are 0.28 and 0.56 respectively.
Water quality. The level of nitrogen, phosphorus, organic substances,
and mineralization is slightly higher than the background values. The
main source of pollution are agricultural fields including those on the
drained lands. According to the data of the Second DBC Geological
and Hydrogeological Expedition, in 1957-1958 mineralization of
groundwater at the whole mire complex was 300-500 mg/l; the same
parameter for the mineral islands was recorded at 200-300 mg/l; for
Zvanets it was the highest: 500-1000 mg/l.
Land-use. The mineral islands of the western part of the site are
characterized by a high degree of transformation; arable farming is
very common on the islands. Mineral islands in the central and
southern parts of the site are the least transformed and are used by local
inhabitants only as haymaking fields. Most of the island area in the
eastern part is used for arable farming by local population, mainly to
grow potatoes. Most of the islands in the northern part are used for
haymaking, although in the past they were all plowed.
***
Values
The DBC was constructed in 1775-1783, the Belooziorks Canal in 1905-1910. Ancient
embanking facilities from oak, and parts of old sluices have remained on some parts of
the canals. These are examples of hydrotechnical facilities dated late 19 – early 20th
century.
Some of the existing economic activities are also a part of the traditional culture. Up to
late 1950s there were many so-called one-house villages on mineral islands in the
western and southern part of the now protected area. At present there are practically no
such villages on the site, but arable farming on mineral islands for domestic purposes
is still practiced by the inheritors of the former land-owners. Apiculture is another
traditional type of economic activities. Bee-holes were dug inside large ancient oaks,
the latter presenting significant historic, esthetic, and scientific value.
Historic and ethnographic sites are also found in close vicinity of the zakaznik. Galik
village is located on the northern border of the protected area. In 1942 during World
War 2 it was burned down. A small obelisk in the memory of the victims was mounted
in the center of the restored village. Yamnik village, especially its southern part has
retained almost all historic features typical for the Polesie region. Reed-roofs,
traditional hedges, “crane-wells” are nicely matched by nests of white storks on old
trees and house roofs.
The site is an Important Bird Area and a potential Ramsar site.
A management plan for the site was developed and is under
implementation through a UNDP project, serving as co-financing to the
proposed GEF initiative.
31
ANNEX II: Project target areas
32
33
ANNEX III: Country driven-ness
Key documents mentioned in the main text contain some specific elements justifying support for the
proposed initiatives. Specifically,
The National Progress Report on Sustainable Development of the Republic of Belarus states: “The
most important future objectives of long-term sustainable development for Belarus are:
…
Transition to a socially-oriented economy based on sustainable development principles and
restriction of environmentally unsound technologies,
Development of environmentally safe production patterns, the use of resource conservation and
environmentally sound technologies, development of the framework for ecological services,
International cooperation for conservation, protection and rehabilitation of ecological systems
Raising public awareness on sustainable development issues
Development and promotion of local Agenda 21s.
…
The National Sustainable Development Strategy-2020 will focus on harmonization of environmental,
economic and social priorities of development …”
The National Strategy and Action Plan on Conservation of the Biological Diversity in Belarus
The main types of natural complexes covering rare and sensitive species of flora and fauna and natural
landscapes and requiring top-priority protection, are represented by wetlands of the Belarusian Polesie;
mesotrophic mires of Belarusian Lake District; European broad-leafed forests; taiga, spruce and smallleafed forests. Special attention should be given to ecosystems of low anthropogenic impact as they
reflect the historical distinctness and the natural structure of the biological diversity of the country.
The most endangered species on the territory of Belarus (…) are representatives of aquatic species and
mature forests. Most of the endangered species in Europe, with considerable populations in Belarus,
belong to wet floodplains and floodplain forest environments. The availability of vast wet floodplains in
the territory of Belarus, mostly in Polesie, is unique for the conservation of European biological diversity.
Since reserves and national parks play a special role in the conservation of genetic resources, the
inventory and monitoring of biotic groups should be compulsory in such territories. For the purpose of
monitoring, the core zones of the protected areas require paramount attention.
Effective conservation of biological diversity is impossible without ecologically sound territorial
organization and planning in the region. … Measures need to be identified to reduce negative
consequences of different forms of economic activity on the biological diversity. … The development of
methodology for ecological and economic evaluation of biological diversity is one of the most complex
tasks. Such an approach will make it possible to create special economic mechanisms for the conservation
of biological diversity with due account of the specific place of environment in economic relations.
Measures for the conservation of biological diversity in the agricultural context should go along the
following main lines:
The quality of large uniform agricultural territories as habitats of animals and plants could be improved
by their ecological planning and by balanced alternation of annual and perennial crops. … Measures may
be foreseen to stimulate agricultural agents who care to protected wild animals when using mechanized
methods of work.
34
The basic principle in forestry should be organization of continuous and sustainable forest use. This
practice is widely accepted in the world and ensures the conservation of biological diversity … While
planning main felling activities it is necessary to leave areas of forest that are important for biological
diversity and areas that are valuable for their ecological, biological and genetic features … Handing over
forest lands currently managed by collective farms to forest enterprises will permit to organize the
conservation of biological diversity in a more orderly way, as the latter employ qualified professionals…
In the field of water management and land reclamation … it is necessary to use two-way regulation of
the water regime to preserve the optimum level of soil moisture. … Efforts should be made to increase the
productivity of lands that have been introduced into cultivation and degraded. This is particularly
pertinent for Polesie. This approach would help avoid unjustified fallowing of natural complexes leading
to further shrinkage of biological diversity.
Draft Elements of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy developed under UNDP-GEF project
Preparation of a Strategic Action Program (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and Development of
SAP Implementation Mechanisms23
… The Strategy defines priority ecosystems in the Dnieper basin, which present the highest value
for conservation of biodiversity. Specifically, the following habitat types are of priority:
Water ecosystems:
Natural river floodplain communities
Last stage eutrophic lakes of glacial origin
Floodplain lakes in the valleys of large and mid-size rivers.
Forest ecosystems:
Upland old (90-240 and more years old) oak forests bearing nemoral biotic plant and animal
complexes
Floodplain old oak forests
Old (older than 60 years) black-alder communities with biotic complexes typical of fen mires
Gray older communities in the vicinity and outside of the uniform occurrence range.
Underbrush and brush communities
Willow shrub in river floodplains
Communities dominated by Betula humilis Schrank on transition mires.
Wetland ecosystems
Open sedge fen mires including calciphilous wet communities and acidophilic fen mire
communities
Transition mires, including grass communities
Meadow ecosystems
Hygromesophilic floodplain communities.
… The strategy defines 25 biodiversity hot spots in the Dnieper Basin requiring priority attention.
The list includes:
23
Extract translated from Russian draft text of the Belarus-specific part of the Strategy, prepared by the group of national
biodiversity experts employed in the Dnieper project. The elements are currently under finalization and will be passed on to the
Biodiversity Thematic Center in Russia for integration into the Regional Strategy, expected to be finalized in early 2003.
35
In Belarus:
Mid-Pripyat National Reserve
Prostyr National Reserve
Sporovski National Reserve
Zvanets National Reserve
… The strategy defines key actions towards sustainable development and conservation of biological
diversity in the Dnieper basin. These include (per sector):
Agriculture
Environmental optimization of land use in the Dnieper basin, including plans for co-development
of anthropogenically transformed areas (such as dwellings; industrial, agricultural and
recreational infrastructure; transport and engineering infrastructure) and natural areas (especially
protected natural areas, water conservation zones, etc.). This will insure sustainable use of natural
resources alongside with conservation of biodiversity.
Introduction of environmentally safe, but economically profitable, rules and procedures for use of
drained areas in order to hinder soil mineralization processes. (Priority should be given to
meadow agriculture).
Elaboration and implementation of a basin-wide program on withdrawal from economy of
degraded drained peat lands, which no longer present a perspective for agriculture, i.e., rewaterlogging or reforestation of these areas. These activities should be based on the outcomes of
national inventories of amelioration facilities and extracted peatlands, as well as drained
forestlands.
Forest Sector
Activation of development and introduction of forest certification at the national and regional
levels. Forest regulating agencies in the three countries should cooperate with NGOs and
international organizations to elaborate and implement training programs in certification for
forest workers; this should be accompanied by production of the necessary literature.
Review of forest management plans to integrate biodiversity and landscape conservation
concerns.
Special inventory of known and potential habitats of threatened flora and fauna species.
Elaboration of measures for conservation of the identified species. Training of foresters and other
involved stakeholders in biodiversity-wise practices.
Improvement of national forest monitoring systems, better focus on biodiversity conservation.
Improvement of protected area networks
Development of Dnieper basin environmental network to be an integral part of Pan-European
Econet.
Full inventory of all protected areas in the region, including clarification of their size and status,
protection and economic regimes, their current state and representativeness. Elaboration of
proposals to reorganize some of the existing protected areas and introduce core conservation
zones.
Establishment of transborder protected areas.
Introduce management units for those protected areas that are of international importance but
currently lack own administrations.
36
Introduction of legal norms and economic mechanisms to ensure integration of conservation of
protected areas into regional development plans.
37
ANNEX IV: Composition of the National Commission on Sustainable Development
(In no priority order except first 6 persons)
Vladimir Drazhin, Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus, Head of the Commission
Nikolai Zaichenko, First Deputy Minister of Economy, Deputy Head of the Commission
Vasily Podoliako, First Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, GEF
Political and Operational Focal Point, Deputy Head of the Commission
Alexander Sytchiov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Head of the Commission
Alexei Raiman, First Secretary of the Department for Humanitarian, Environmental, and Scientific
Cooperation, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of the Commission
Alexander Ratchevski, Head of International Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, Secretary of the Commission
Anatoly Bogdanovich, Deputy Director of the Institute of Economic Studies under the Ministry of
Economy
Piotr Zeletsov, Director of International Department, Ministry of Industry
Boris Ivanov, Deputy Minister of Education
Igor Katchanovski, Head of Department for Environment and Forestry of the Agro-Industrial Sector,
Council of Ministers of Belarus
Valeri Kliuchenovich, Deputy Minister of Health
Lioudmila Lozlovskaia, Head of Economic Geography Chair, Belarusian State University
Elena Kolos, First Deputy Minister of Labor and Social Welfare
Vladimir Korduba, Vice-President of State Energy Concern
Alexander Kurlyko, Deputy Minister of Finance
Piotr Nikitenko, Director of Economic Institute of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanislav Nitchkasov, First Deputy Minister of Architecture and Construction
Viktor Melnikov, Head of Logistics Department, Ministry of Internal Affairs
Stanislav Nichiporovich, First Deputy Minister of Information
Valery Parkhots, Head of Economic Department, Minister of Defense
Vladimir Samosiuk, Head of Investment and Constructions Department, Minister of Agriculture and
Foodstuffs
Nikolai Smirnov, Chief Advisor, Department of International Cooperation, Council of Ministers of
Belarus
Igor Tushinski, Head of Department on Economic, Financial and Tax Law, Ministry of Justice
Vladimir Ulasen, Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications
Nikolai Ushkevich, Deputy Head of State Committee on Forestry under the Council of Ministry of
Belarus
38
ANNEX V: Participation of the Republic of Belarus in environmental conventions
Convention
Convention on Biological Diversity
UNFCCC
UN Convention to Combat Desertification
Ramsar Convention
Convention on Cross-Boundary Air Pollution on
Large Distances
Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer
Montreal Protocol
Convention on Trade in Wild Flora and Fauna
Species under Threat of Disappearance, 1973
Convention on Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage, known as Paris Convention)
The Convention on the Protection of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (1979)
Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-Making and Access to
Justice on Environmental Matters.
Date of Ratification /Accession
Ratified 8 September 1993
Ratified 9 August 2000
Acceded by President’s Decree #393 dated
17 July 2001
Acceded by President's Decree No 292, dated
25 May 1999
Ratified as of 13 January 1980
Ratified as of 20 June 1986
Ratified 31 January 1988
Acceded 10 August 1995
Ratified as of 12 October 1988
Preparatory work to join the Convention.
Acceded by President’s Order No 726, dated
14 December 1999
39
ANNEX VI: Description of the Polesie region
The large relatively isolated biogeographical complex Polesie has an area of 13.2 million ha. It occupies
the south of Belarus, the north of Ukraine, and partially the east of Poland and the west of Russia. It
belongs to the Southern warm unstably wet agroclimatic region, characterized by formation of a
moderately continental climate with soft and short winters. The average January (coldest month)
temperature is -5.3°C; the average July (warmest month) temperature is +18.6°C. The average year
temperature is +6.9°C. Annual precipitation figure for the Polesie region is 590-600 mm. Stable snow
cover keeps for 75 days from last decade of December till beginning of March.
The relief of the area was defined by the Dnieper and Sozh glaciers, and specifically by the melting
glacial water. Polesie is a relatively flat area with absolute altitudes above sea level of 100-150 meters.
The territory is characterized by low sloping and high standing level of groundwater. These unique
conditions, together with sufficient annual precipitation and favoring temperature amplitude led in the
past to formation in this part of Europe of large open wetlands, mostly lowland mires (fens) with poor
peat layer (1.1 – 1.8 m). By its landscape structure, genetic and morphological qualities the site belongs to
azonal nature complexes, which makes its biological and landscape diversity outstanding and requiring
special attention.
Polesie covers about 30% of Belarus, and some 17% of Ukraine. The Belarusian Polesie - 6.1 mln ha accounts for 46% of the overall Polesie area, with the remaining part located in Ukraine. It occupies the
territory of more than 30 administrative districts of the Gomel, Brest and partially Minsk and Mogiliov
oblasts in Belarus, and most of Ukraine's Volyn, Rivno, Zhitomir and Chernigov oblasts, as well as some
districts in the Lviv, Khemnitsk, Kiev and Sumy oblasts. Polesie contributes 80% of the total discharge
into the Dnieper river.
Large natural wetlands of Polesie, which up 1960 covered 44% of the area, were barriers for economic
and social development of the region during Soviet times. In 1960s, the Soviet government embarked on
a large scale ameliorative drainage campaign, which was intended to provide solution to excessive
waterlogging, thereby improving the agricultural performance. The campaign has paid off poorly, causing
grave environmental problems throughout the region. By now, more than 1.7 million ha of Belarusian
Polesie has been drained; about 10,000 km of rivers were rectified; 492 pump stations were built, 12
water reservoirs and ponds with a total volume of 631 million c.m. have been constructed for flow
regulation. The history of amelioration knows no other examples of ameliorative transformations of the
scale and degree observed in the Polesie.
Large-scale drainage brought significant changes into lives of local people. It enabled construction on
drained lands of roads, new large enterprises, and dwellings. Land productivity rose greatly in the first
several years following the drainage, thereby turning Polesie into a significant agricultural area. 75 to 85
per cent of all Belarus’ ripe and green feeding stuffs, as well as roughage, were produced in Polesie.
However, the situation has changed drastically in the last decade. Both in Belarus and Ukraine
agricultural use of drained lands is no longer as productive as it used to be. Several subsequent years of
exploitation brought about a significant decline in harvest on a large share of the drained lands. Further
use of those tracts for agricultural purposes required introduction of fertilizers, implementation of
complex mechanisms to regulate the water regime, sometimes even presupposing irrigation, which led to
overdrying of many lands. As time went by, a large number of drainage facilities (initially of poor
construction quality) were going out of order, and re-appearance of wetlands became quite common on
numerous drained areas. Today in Belarus drainage systems servicing more than 500,000 ha need capital
reconstruction; drainage facilities on another 200,000 ha require substantial maintenance works.
40
Drainage of Polesie mires has led to a significant drop of the groundwater table, decrease in the amount of
precipitation, soil erosion, and increase in the runoff of biogenic elements into natural water bodies and
ground water aquifers. Annually about 1.5 million tons of mineral and up to 700,000 tons of aggressive
water-soluble organic substances originating from drained mires flow into the Black See via rivers Pripyat
and Dnieper. Because of the fact that the drainage campaign took no account of ecological and natureconservation requirements, the subsequent destruction of natural habitats and rise in the intensity of
economic activities caused a substantial decline in the biodiversity and in populations of many animal and
plant species. Transformation of wetlands has led to a catastrophic drop in the number of near-water
animals, especially waterbirds. Currently about 50 per cent of Belarusian waterbirds are considered to be
rare or threatened because of drainage.
In terms of land-use, agricultural production still plays the key role in the region’s economic
development. More than 1,200 Belarusian collective farms are located in Polesie. More than 600
Belarusian private farmers produce about 5% of the agricultural output. Agricultural activities continue on
drained lands with ever-declining efficiency. This is true for crop production, which is a dominating
agricultural activity, represented mainly by grain production and grass-seeding on drained peatlands, the
level of mineralization of which grows every year resulting in drastically declining soil fertility. An ever
growing area of lands is being annually withdrawn from agriculture.
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station explosion affected the region in a dramatic way. 69% of lands in
the Gomel oblast (all of which is in Polesie) has been contaminated, in Brest oblast this figure is 13%.
More than 1.8 million ha of agricultural lands have contamination exceeding 1 Ku/sq.km for Cs 137. In
Belarus about 300,000 of agricultural lands of Polesie were withdrawn from agriculture of the region for
good.
The density of the population is the highest in the Pripyat floodplain. In Brest oblast alone (Belarus),
about 100,000 people live in the floodplain of Pripyat and its tributaries, as well is in the first overfloodplain terrace (the total population of Belarus is about 10,000,000, with about 1.9 million people
living in the capital).
The Pripyat river basin is a key ecological and landscape element of the Polesie and its main waterway.
The Pripyat is the second largest tributary of the Dnieper by its length, and the largest by the catchment
size. The river is 761 km long, with 261 km flowing through Ukraine. The catchment area is 121,965 km2
with 52,700 km2 in Belarus. There are more than 10,000 streams and rivers flowing into the Pripyat. The
largest left-bank tributaries of the Pripyat are rivers Yaselda, Lan’, Sluch, and Ptich. The key right-bank
tributaries are Stokhod, Styr’, Goryn’, Stviga, Ubort’, Slovechna. Floodplains of the Pripyat and its
tributaries are discharge areas for the groundwater aquifers, and this, in combination with low channel
gradient and poor outflow defines permanently high standing groundwater level, some 0-1.0, sometimes
to 2.0 meters above soil.
The Pripyat and its tributaries belong to the flatland river type with dominating snow feeding. In Belarus,
bearing the main part of the Pripyat channel, dynamics of the in-year water level fluctuations reveal a
relatively low-level and quite large-scale spring flood, short summer no-flood period, which is still almost
every year interrupted by rainfall floods, and much more discernible autumn and winter no-flood periods,
attributed mainly to a peculiar combination of rainfalls and thaws. The flooding period varies greatly:
from 40-45 days on small rivers to 3.5-4 months on the Pripyat itself. On the Pripyat and most of the
tributaries the flood peak is normally observed at the end of March – beginning of April. The average rise
of the water in spring (relative to the lowest summer level) is 3.5-4.5 m on the Pripyat proper, 1.5-3 m on
left-bank tributaries and 1-2.5 m on right-bank tributaries. Water rising during rainfall events (as
compared to that during normal annual floodings) is irregular and in some instances it exceeds spring
floodings (years 1952, 1960, 1974, 1993). Rainfall events and normal floodings lead to inundation of the
41
whole floodplain including dwellings, public and administrative buildings, communication facilities. The
largest area ever inundated during spring floodings in Belarus was 425,000 ha. Spring flow of the Pripyat
constitutes about 61 per cent of its yearly figure; for the summer-and-autumn and winter flows the shares
are 23 and 16 per cent correspondingly.
The middle Pripyat covers the central part of the Belarusian Polesie. The structure of the valley here has
three subsequently ascending over-floodplain terraces. The width of the first over-floodplain terrace
fluctuates from 4-5 to 10-18 km. This part of the Pripyat floodplain hosts the biggest natural alluvial
landscape plots not just in Belarus but in the whole Europe. Structural and functional features of the
floodplain landscapes result for the most part from the alluvial character of the Pripyat river and its main
tributaries. One of the most peculiar features of this area is presence of a large ancient lake-type
enlargement, which is flooded every year. Two landscape structures are distinguished within the MidPripyat area. These are: (1) floodplain landscape complexes with lowland hypnum-sedge mires, black
alder grassy-and-sedge forests in broad-coomb areas; and (2) flat-crested landscapes with
mesohydrophilic meadows, oak-forests on soddy-gley and gley soils, as well as with forb-and-sedge
mires. Each of the two types of landscape complexes has its own micro- and mesorelief.
The soil cover of the Pripyat floodplain and its over-floodplain terraces is characterized by extreme
diversity and complexity. It formed and developed under conditions of annual floods and deposition of
new alluvial sediments on the surface. The alluvial sediments are dominated by sands, sandy loams,
loams, with substantial siltation in some of the depressions. Vast wetland plots are typical for this area.
Acid soils of high and medium degree cover 19-24 per cent of the territory. They have a relatively high
humus content (3-4 per cent), which drops down only in near-channel soils (about 1 per cent). Floodplain
peat-and-wetland type soils cover more than 50 per cent of the floodplain area and are characterized by
high ash content. All floodplain soils are poor in mobile nutrients (this is observed at 80 per cent of the
area). The soddy-podzolic, mainly sandy, soils of the over-floodplain terraces are characterized by
elevated acidity, low humus content and unstable water regime.
The table below summarized globally important biodiversity of the Polesie region.
The IUCN-protected species of Polesie
Species, Latin
Species, English
Birds
Acrocephalus paludicola
Aquatic warbler
Aquila clanga
Greater spotted eagle
Aythya nyroca
Ferruginous duck
Crex crex
Corncrake
Gallinago media
Great snipe
Glareola nordmanni
Black-winged pratincole
Haliaeetus albicilla
White-tailed eagle
Mammals
Barbastella barbastellus
Western barbastelle
Lutra lutra
Common otter
Bison bonasus
European bison
Castor fiber
Eurasian beaver
Desmana moschata
Russian desman
Dryomys nitedula
Forest dormouse
Glis glis
Fat dormouse
Lynx lynx
Eurasian lynx
Micromys minutus
Harvest mouse
Protection status
(E) VU
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E) LR/nt
(E)
(E)
(E) VU
(E)
(E)
(E) NT
(E) VU
(E) LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
(E)
(E) LR/nt
42
Species, Latin
Muscardinus avellanarius
Myotis bechsteini
Myotis dasycneme
Myotis myotis
Mustela lutreola
Nyctalus lasiopterus
Nyctalus leisleri
Reptiles
Emys orbicularis
Amphibians
Bombina bombina
Hyla arborea
Fishes
Acipenser ruthenus
Aspius aspius
Eudontomyzon mariae
Lampetra planeri
Gymnocephalus acerina
Misgurnus fossilis
Pelecus cultratus
Phoxinus percnurus
Cancers
Astacus astacus
Nexapods
Aeshna viridis
Buprestis splendens
Dytiscus latissimus
Carabus intricatus
Cerambyx cerdo
Coenonympha oedippus
Cucujus cinnaberinus
Formica aquilonia
Formica rufa
Formica uralensis
Lycaena dispar
Maculinea alcon
Maculinea arion
Maculinea nausithous
Maculinea teleius
Osmoderma eremita
Buprestis splendens
Lycaena dispar
Species, English
Common dormouse
Bechstein's bat
Pond bat
Greater mouse-eared bat
European mink
Giant noctule
Lesser noctule
European pond turtle
European fire-bellied toad
European common tree
frog
Asp
Ukranian brook lamprey
Weatherfish
Swamp minnow
Protection status
(E)
(E) VU
(E) VU
(E)
(E) EN
(E) LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
(E)
(E) LR/cd
(E)
VU A1c+2d
(E) DD
(E) DD
LR nt
DD
(E) LR/nt
DD
(E) DD
VU B2 bce+3bcd
Red wood ant
Alcon large blue
Large blue
Dusky large blue
Hermit beetle
Goldstreifiger
Large copper
LR/nt
VU A1c
VU
LR/nt
VU A1c+2c
LR/nt
VU A1c
LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
LR/nt
LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
(E) LR/nt
(E) VU
(E) VU
(E) LR/nt
43
Species, Latin
Species, English
Protection status
Phyllodesma ilicifolia
Small lappet moth
(E) VU
Spiders
Dolomedes plantarius
Great raft spider
(E) VU
Annlides
Hirudo medicinalis
Medicinal leech
(E)
Molluscs
Myxas glutinosa
Glutinous snail
(E) DD
Pseudanodonta complanata
LR/nt
Unio crassus
LR/nt
Cited by: IUCN 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded 27 December 2002.
Internationally important flora species
Aldrovanda vesiculosa
Arnica montana
Caldesia parnassifolia
Cypripedium calceolus
Liparisloeselii
Najas flexilis
Pulsatillapatens
Saxifraga hirculus
Thesium ebracteatum
Trapa natans
Botrychium simplex
Botrychium multifidum
Botrychium matricariifolium
Lycopodium annotinum
Lycopodium clavatum
Salvinia natans
Jurinea cyanoides
Dracocephalum ruyschiana
Angelica palustris
Moehringia lateriflora
Cinna latifolia
Agrimonia pilosa
Habitat directive
II
V
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Bern annexes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
V
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
44
ANNEX VII: Resolution and Action Plan of the Second International Conference on Conservation of
Floodplains and Fen Mires of the Belarusian Polesie
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus
United Nations Office in Belarus
National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species (UK)
Michael Otto Foundation for Environmental Protection (Germany)
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (UK)
APB-BirdLife Belarus
RESOLUTION
of the
Second International Conference on the Ecology and
Conservation of Floodplains and Lowland Mires in the Polesie Region
May 22-24, 2002
Minsk, Belarus
The Second International Conference on the Ecology and Conservation of Floodplains and Lowland
Mires in the Polesie region was held in Minsk on May 23-24, 2002, with participation of skilled experts
and representatives of ministries and agencies, international conservation organisations and foundations
who came together to review the action plan for further activities on conservation and sustainable use of
the region's natural resources.
The Conference participants emphasise the uniqueness of Polesie's intact mires and floodplain
ecosystems, which are crucial for the conservation of the global and European natural heritage. The
conservation of floodplains and mires in Polesie shall be considered a significant contribution to the
sustainable development of Europe.
The Conference participants have highly appreciated the progress demonstrated by Belarus and Ukraine
in the implementation of the final document of the First International Conference on the Ecology and
Conservation of Floodplains and Lowland Mires in the Polesie region.
The Conference participants have looked into the current status of Polesie environment, considered its
major issues and defined priority objectives for ensuring conservation and sustainable use of the region's
unique natural resources
Realising the fact that the majority of present problems in Polesie stem from adverse hydrological
changes, the Conference participants have agreed that the adjustment of the basin-based water
management system for Pripyat and the environmental assessment of all natural wetlands and drainage
facilities shall be given top priority in conservation and sustainable use of the region's natural resources.
Large-scale drainage campaigns and other economic activities in the Polesie region cause accelerated
peatlands degradation and intensified threats to the biodiversity. Therefore, a National Action Plan to
Combat Land Degradation as well as rehabilitation of parts of anthropogenically disturbed peatlands shall
be put high on the conservation agenda.
Acknowledging the importance of Polesie forests for biodiversity conservation, the Conference
participants attach utmost priority to the their evaluation and monitoring, and adoption of environmentally
compatible forestry techniques and methods that are listed in the Action Plan of the present Resolution.
45
Expressing support for the activities of Belarus, Ukraine and Poland on the preservation of natural
ecosystems of the Polesie region, the conference participants recommend the establishment of
international transboundary protected areas.
The Conference participants view an inventory of the existing and potential protected areas is crucial for
the conservation of the unique natural complexes of Polesie. Such an inventory will then form a basis for
a Scheme of Efficient Distribution of Nature Protected Areas for 2006-2012. The identification of
potential protected areas shall to be guided by the results of the search for Ramsar sites and Important
Bird Areas.
The Conference participants consider management planning and implementation an effective means of
conservation and sustainable use of protected areas. The implementation of the first management plans
for key fen mires in the Polesie region is to be a top objective, with potential for further replication on
other protected sites.
Future development plans for Polesie shall take into account both socio-economic and environmental
issues in the region.
Recalling the international importance of the Polesie region and the urgent need to elaborate scientifically
grounded management plans for protected areas, the Conference participants call for extending and
intensifying research into the status and evolution of vegetation and landscape complexes, flora and fauna
of the mire and floodplain ecosystems.
Organisation and development of ecotourism infrastructure in Polesie can play a key role in nature
conservation. Ecotourism can provide funding in support of conservation organizations and nature
protection in Polesie.
Nature conservation organisations acknowledge the importance of national efforts and initiatives in
Belarus, Ukraine and Poland toward nature conservation in the Polesie region; a substantial part of the
remaining fen mires and parts of the floodplains have been designated as protected areas. The Second
International Conference on the Ecology and Conservation of Floodplains and Lowland Mires in the
Polesie Region, held in Belarus, is an example of such initiatives that contribute toward the conservation
of nature in Europe.
Convinced that the conservation efforts by the countries of the Polesie region should be supported by
international co-operation, the Conference participants appeal to international conservation agencies for
assistance in securing international support, particularly financial, for the implementation of the attached
conservation plan for Polesie fen mires and floodplains.
The Conference participants recommend that a steering group be set up consisting of representatives of
governmental and nongovernmental organisations, including international ones, with a view to decide on
future conservation activities in the region. A number of co-ordination committees in specific subject
areas should also be set up.
The Conference participants express their sincere gratitude to the Michael Otto Foundation for
Environmental Protection, United Nations Office in Belarus, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species and OMPO for their support of conservation activities in
Polesie and for their initiative to run the present Conference, as well as to conference hosts – Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus, National Academy of
Sciences of Belarus and APB-BirdLife Belarus.
46
Action Plan
for the Conservation of Polesie Floodplains and Fen Mires
1. Sustainable use of Polesie water resources
Adjustment of the basin-based conservation-minded scheme of management of Pripyat water resources
with due regard to biodiversity conservation and economic development in the region;
Design and implementation of activities within the National Program on Installation of Engineering
Facilities for Protection of Dwellings and Agricultural Lands from Floods in Critical Locations of the
Polesie Region, for 1999-2004 shall be primarily guided by the principles of biodiversity
conservation;
Hydrological assessment of the most valuable protected areas and working out of recommendations on
optimisation of their hydrological regime;
Comprehensive inventory of all Polesie wetlands;
Assessment of current hydrological status of the most valuable nature protected areas of Polesie and
elaboration of recommendations for improvement of their hydrology;
Estimation of the status of small rivers of the Polesie.
2. Prevention of land degradation
Estimation of the current level of land degradation in Polesie, as well as relevant environmental and
social-economic threats to the region's sustainable development;
Elaboration of a regional scheme of wise use and conservation of Polesian lands, as part of the National
Action Program to Combat Land Degradation;
Improvement of the structure and contents of the land-cadaster data on the degraded lands in Polesie;
Introduction of environmentally friendly rules and regulations for the use of drained wetlands with a view
to slowing down of peatlands mineralisation;
Elaboration and implementation of projects on removing from economic activities and reswamping or
reforestation of inefficient drained areas and anthoropogenically disturbed peatlands.
3. Improvement of forest management
Estimation of the present-day status of vegetation of floodplain forests, meadows and mires of Polesie;
Ensuring optimal forest distribution across the country;
Restoration of oak woods and other deciduous forests that underwent degradation in the 20th century;
Raising the share of selective forest logging up to 50% of the overall cutting areas over 10 years, and their
complete prohibition in floodplain forests;
Promotion of conservation-minded forest planning and management, as well as utilization of meadows
and mires, in order to protect rare and threatened species and communities of plants and animals;
Initiate and implement a pilot project on environmentally-minded forest management in one of forest
enterprises in the Pripyat Polesie.
Removal of all raised bogs and valuable wetlands of other types from the list of lands subject to drainage;
47
4. Improvement of network of protected areas
Comprehensive inventory of all protected areas to refine their borders and status, as well as to assess their
current status;
Ensuring a national protection status for the areas of international importance for biodiversity
conservation (Ramsar sites and Important Birds Areas);
Establishment of transboundary protected areas with Poland and Ukraine;
Elaboration of the region’s ecological network as part of National Ecological Network of Belarus;
Elaboration of a Network of Efficient Distribution of Nature Protected Areas for 2006-2012.
5. Management of protected areas
Establishment of management units for internationally significant protected areas;
Implementation of management plans for key fen mires of Polesie – Zvanets, Sporovo and Dikoe;
Management planning for the most valuable and critical nature protected areas;
Conservation-oriented planning of social-economic development of the regions.
6. Environmental Research and Monitoring
Development of a national environmental monitoring system in terms of maximal coverage of floodplain
and mire ecosystems and rivers in the basis of Pripyat and Bug;
Elaboration of National Action Plans for Conservation of Threatened Species based on the survey of their
ecology and identification of their habitats;
Scientific and administrative backup for environmental conventions;
Study of invasive and introduced species, development of recommendations for reducing their negative
impact on indigenous flora and fauna.
7. Development of international conservation initiatives since the First Polesie Conference in 1997
Set up an agency to coordinate and promote Polesie conservation. The agency shall comprise
representatives of governmental institutions, international development organizations, National
Academy of Sciences of Belarus, national and international NGOs.
Further coordination and cooperation between government agencies, National Academy of Sciences of
Belarus and NGOs involved in nature conservation activities in Polesie;
Ensure further implementation of the Biodiversity Convention, Ramsar Convention and Memorandum of
Understanding on Conservation of the Aquatic Warbler as part of the Bonn Convention;
Envisage Third International Polesie Conference for 2007, vesting its preparation with APB-BirdLife
Belarus;
Support the idea of a conservation fund “Polesie” to assist in the solution of environmental issued in
Polesie;
Set up a Coordinating Board affiliated with the United Nations Office in Belarus, to coordinate
international projects aimed at conservation of Polesie.
48
ANNEX VIII: Graphic project concept
Part 1. Threats to biodiversity at target sites and their root causes
ROOT CAUSES
DIRECT THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
SITES
Exclusion of local stakeholders
Exclusion of local stakeholders and
public from land use and
development decision making
Illegal activities,
including burning
of vegetation in
spring, poaching,
etc.
Cessation of hand hay-making and
subsequentLow
encrroachment ofpublic
shrubs
awareness
Land degradation, loss of biotopes: e.g. burning of upper soil layer when the
groundwater table is below surface leads to serious alterations in the composition of
vegetation and insects, subsequently results in worsening of the habitat for a number of
globally threatened birds, including the Aquatic warbler, Great snipe, Corncrake
Mid-Pripyat
Sporovsky
Zvanets
Prostyr
Habitat conditions are worsening for Corncrake, Great snipe, Aquatic warbler, other
fauna and flora species occurring on open fens and floodplain meadows
Mid-Pripyat
Sporovsky
Zvanets
Environmentally detrimental
activities on degraded agricultural
fields (continued arable farming with
ever decreasing productivity)
Shrinking area of natural open habitats drained by
peripheral territories
Disruptions of hydrological regime at adjacent
protected sites
Resulting changing vegetation on drained lands leads
Inundations during vegetation period lead to drastic
to shrub encroachment
worsening of hydrochemical indicators of water
quality in the mire, resulting in abnormal vegetation
successions (rapid proliferation of narrow-leafed cattail replacing sedge) with subsequent changes in the
species composition of insects and birds.
High untimely floods lead to significant or complete
destruction of populations of globally threatened birds,
such as Aquatic warbler, Greater spotted eagle, Great
snipe, as well as rare plant species.
of the groundwater table in spring below
Loss of keyDeclines
biotopes
surface increase the danger of fire many-fold. This in
turn, destroys populations of numerous birds, including
the globally threatened Aquatic warbler, Great snipe,
Corncrake.
Mid-Pripyat
Sporovsky
Zvanets
Prostyr
Unsustainable agriculture
Drainage systems in agricultural
lands and environmentally
inappropriate agricultural practices
Water management servicing
agricultural activities (water uptake
and pumping) on adjacent areas in
incompatible with biodiversity
conservation
Unsustainable forestry
Forest policies and management
plans do not take into account
biodiversity needs
(continued on next page)
Logging of the
most
significant
for
biodiversity
forest types, such
as ancient oak, ash,
and alder forests.
Impossibility
to
restore
forests
(naturally
or
artificially)
Fires
Biological
and
technogenic
Sporovsky
Zvanets
Mid-Pripyat
Sporovsky
Zvanets
Prostyr
49
ROOT CAUSES
DIRECT THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
SITES
(continued from previous page)
Environmentally detrimental flood-defense
Currently flood defense activities
are performed without account of
the need to preserve globally
important biodiversity
Disruptions in the hydrology of the
areas as a continuing result of fulllenth embankment of about half of
the mid-Pripyat floodplain
Ineffective protected area management
Ineffective protected area
management, especially lack of
human and technical capacity at
district environmental inspections
to enforce protection regime and
timely address threats from
surrounding activities
Negligence to violations of protected
regime, including such as poaching,
burning of vegetation, illegal fishing,
over-pasturing of cattle, destruction
of vegetation layer, excessive
collection of wetland and forest
resources
Decreasing area of floodplain lakes, fens, and alder
forests valuable for a number of threatened bird
species, such as Aquatic warbler, Corncrake, Great
snipe as a direct result of hydrological disruptions.
Elevated water level in the middle reaches results in
deterioration of conditions for waterfowl (shallow
water areas decreased and there is a deficit of suitable
breeding places).
Worsening of conditions for fish spawning as a result
of loss of shallow areas.
Significantly higher level and duration of floods.
Land degradation,
loss of biotopes
and direct destruction
of speciesof the rivers’
Vegetation
overgrowth
and silting
floodplains.
Mid-Pripyat
Prostyr
Mid-Pripyat
Zvanets
Sporovsky
Prostyr
50
Part 2. Summary of baseline situation
PAST BASELINE
PRESENT-DAY BASELINE
Cross-fertilization with agriculture
Drainage of Polesie and extensive arable
agriculture and forestry, 1960-1980s
Concept of Development of Drained Areas and
measures on effective sustainable agriculture
Polesie biodiversity is given special
attention for the first time upon country's
independence in 1991.
State Program on Inventory of Drained Areas of
Belarus
Establishment and enlargement of protected
area netwrok in Polesie, 1980-2000s
Cross-fertilization with forestry
Overarching programs
Programs of environmental and hydrological monitoring, 1980s – till present time
First International Conference on
Conservation of Floodplains and Fen Mires
of the Belarusian Polesie, 1997
UNDP 1999 – 2002 project Management
Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire
Biodiversity
Second International Conference on
Conservation of Floodplains and Fen Mires
of the Belarusian Polesie, 2002
Program on transfer of forest lands from collective
farms to forestries
Rethinking flood defense measures
Awareness campaigns, 1997-1998
UNDP-GEF Regional Dnieper Project, 2000
- 2003
Elaboration of National Forest Certification
system
MNREP-UNESCO Initiative on Polesian
Bionetwork
Continued work on mathematical hydrological
model and GIS for Pripyat basin
The State Program on Installation of Technical
Facilities for the Protection of Dwellings from
Floods in the Critical Locations of the Polesie
Region, for 1999-2004
51
Part 3. Contribution of project outcomes to elimination of root causes of biodiversity threats
PROJECT OUTCOMES
ROOT CAUSES
Protected area management and involvement of local people and decision makers
Target reserves are operated by separate management units. These are made up of local expertise and are integrated into the national system
of nature protection. This according to the law means upgraded level of site protection from unregulated to regulated national reserve.
Management units involve local people to monitor activities at protected areas.
Management units operate according to integrated 5-year management plans, approved by the central, local authorities, local land-users and
discussed widely with the general public
Improved scientific monitoring and research
Ineffective protected area management,
especially lack of human and technical capacity
at district environmental inspections to enforce
protection regime and timely address threats
from surrounding activities
Exclusion of local stakeholders and public from
land use and development decision making
Prostyr-Pripyat Stokhid trandboundary protected area established and in operation
Implementation of sustainable agricultural policy for Polesie strengthened. Biodiversity components in the agricultural policy enhanced. (For
that purpose the State Program
Sustainable Agriculture will be revised and expanded to strengthen the biodiversity components)
Cross-fertilization
withonagriculture
Agricultural land use at target sites benefits the biodiveristy, as well as local land-users: arable farming is replaced by grass-lands.
Environmentally friendly alternative livelihoods (hand hay-making, reed-bed management) are introduced
Drainage systems in agricultural lands and
environmentally inappropriate agricultural
practices
Reduced drainage of target areas caused by anthropogenic activities, including operation of water uptake facilities
Mid-Pripyat forests certified.
Forest policies and management plans do not
take into account biodiversity needs
Sustainable forestry principles introduced at other sites and replication of Mid-Pripyat experience is on-going for national funds
Cross-fertilization with the forest sector
State Program on Flood Defense revised to reflect biodiversity principles and under implementation by the state (Belmeliovodkhoz Concern).
Summer polder agricultural systems enabled, fish stocks stabilized, human security increased
Currently flood defense activities are performed
without account of the need to preserve globally
important biodiversity
Cross-fertilization with flood-defense measures
52
State Program on Flood Defense revised to reflect biodiversity principles
and under implementation by the state (Belmeliovodkhoz Concern).
Negative floodplain (encroachment and siltation) processes prevented
Win-win systems of agriculture on summer polders enabled through
placement of regulated gates on pre-specified locations of the full-length
levee.
Currently flood defense activities are performed
without account of the need to preserve globally
important biodiversity
Fish stock stabilized; rare fish species preserved.
Smoothed altitude and duration of flooding meaning reduced human
security threat.
53
ANNEX IX: Brief summary of the Integrated management of key biodiversity sites of Polesie Project
Background
The international (Darwin-RSPB-UNDP) project Management Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire
Biodiversity in Belarus (BYE 99/003, 1999-2002) with a total funding of about $300,000 was the first
initiative aimed at assisting APB-BirdLife Belarus and the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus in elaboration of integrated management plans for
key internationally important biodiversity sites of Polesie, namely zakazniks Sporovsky, Zvanets, and
Dikoe. The project was implemented by National NGO ABP-BirdLife Belarus under coordination of the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus and UNDP, in partnership with
RSPB and the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.
For three years, Belarusian NGOs, scientists, officials, land-users and other stakeholders have been
working on compilation of background data, evaluation of the sites and development of 5-year prioritized
action plans for zakazniks Sporovsky, Zvanets and Dikoe. The participatory approach involved multistakeholder consultations at every stage of plan development. As a by-product, the project has managed to
significantly raise the awareness of local and central authorities and land-users, as well as general public,
of the values Belarus disposes of in the Polesie area, for conservation of which it bears the responsibility
in front of the international community. Numerous articles, TV and radio reports, posters, publications,
calendars served well their function of PR products. By now the Aquatic warbler, a small bird previously
known only to a limited group of ornithologists which is one of the key threatened species of the
mentioned sites, has become a symbol of nature conservation activities in the Polesie area.
As a result of the project, the capacity of the country to develop integrated management plans for
specially protected natural areas has been increased many fold. The coordination between the Ministry of
Natural Resources, National Academy of Sciences, various research institutes, NGOs, local land-users
and other stakeholders involved in elaboration of management plans has increased significantly. It can be
said now that the country possesses good capacity for elaboration of integrated management plans for
specially protected areas.
By March 2002, the management plans for Sporovsky, Dikoe and Zvanets have been adopted by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus. However, adoption of the plans
alone does not resolve the issue of their implementation. The Ministry has requested support for financial
resources, administrative and technical expertise in managing the second stage of the work program,
namely implementation of urgent measures prescribed by the management plans. The present project will
thus focus on site-specific activities aimed at the establishment and maintenance of sustainable
management of the key Polesie biodiversity sites.
In 2000, Belarus has received a preparatory grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for a
project targeting the Mid-Pripyat Reserve. By 2002, a PDF B grant has been prepared for submission to
the GEF. This GEF project will introduce changes to key economic sectors and anti-flooding measures
with the objective of making them compatible with biodiversity conservation in the Polesie area in
Belarus. It will complement these measures by strengthening cross-border cooperation with Ukraine.
The present project will complete the GEF initiative in that it will aim to realize the urgent measures of
the key areas of influence for the Mid-Pripyat area (zakazniks Sporovsky, Dikoe and Zvanets).
Sporovsky, Dikoe and Zvanets will not be covered under the PDF B but rather used as model sites for
management planning for the rest of the project target sites of the GEF project, thus serving as a cofunding to it’s full stage.
54
The development objective
The development objective of the project is to secure conservation and sustainable management of
Polesian biodiversity through assistance to the Government of Belarus in implementation of
integrated management plans for key protected sites and facilitation of better coordination of
various stakeholders involved in management and conservation of natural resources.
Strategy
The project will assist the Ministry of Natural Resources and APB in implementation of practical natureconservation activities in the internationally valuable Polesie area through realization of the urgent
measures of the management plans for zakazniks Sporovsky, Dikoe and Zvanets. The project will be the
logical second step in the overall strategy of achieving sustainable ecosystems management in Belarus,
the first one being the Darwin-RSPB-UNDP project Management Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire
Biodiversity in Belarus (1999-2002), which resulted in production and adoption by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of management plans for zakazniks Sporovsky, Dikoie,
and Zvanets.
The project will build on the capacity for management planning achieved at the first stage and strengthen
the practice of management planning for protected areas in Belarus, by providing overall, technical and
financial support at a time when the three first management plans ever produced for Belarus are going to
be implemented. At this critical stage, it is extremely important to insure the excellence of coordination
and dialogue between all stakeholders (government, NGOs, commercial sector) at all stages of plans’
implementation, as well as smooth administration of specific plan implementation processes. The extent
to which the practice of management planning can further be replicated both inside and outside the
country depends greatly on the success of implementing the first three management plans. Through donor
coordination, administrative, financial and advisory assistance to APB, as well as to specific project
stakeholders, the project will strive to insure that this success is achieved, presented to the national and
international community in a transparent manner, and replicated both nationally and internationally.
Specifically, the project will focus on implementation of those measures for zakazniks Sporovsky, Dikoe
and Zvanets that have priority #1 in the 5-year action plans of the Management Plans (see Outputs and
Activities subsections for more detail). The assistance will be directed to:
Establish and maintain a hydrological regime optimal for biodiversity and people
Elaborate and enforce regimes of ecologically sustainable nature use
Establish management units for Zvanets and Sporovsky
Establish a monitoring system that would allow to do objective and timely assessment of all
activities
Involve local stakeholders in implementation of the management plans
Identify and fill the gaps in the existing regulatory and policy framework for wetland biodiversity
management
Raise public awareness of and participation in biodiversity protection
Increase the capacity of the government and local agencies in managing specially protected
natural areas in an integrated manner.
Study opportunities for integration of biodiversity into income-raising activities such as
ecotourism, as well as other local economic activities contributing to sustainable development of
the target sites.
55
Finally, at all three stages the government of Belarus will be assisted in realization of its international
environmental commitments, specifically the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar
Convention, and the Convention on Land Degradation.
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS, INDICATORS AND ACTIVITIES
Immediate Objective
The immediate objective of the project is to implement the urgent measures of the management plans for
zakazniks Sporovsky, Dikoe and Zvanets developed under project BYE99/003.
Outputs, indicators, activities
Detailed description of the background for and the consequences of each of the suggested activity on
biodiversity, people and economy of the target sites is presented in the management plans. The proposed
project covers all activities under #1 priority.
Output 0. Project Management Secured
Activities
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Indicators
Project planning, monitoring, management
and administration
Appointment of key project staff, including
Project Manager and Chief Technical
Advisor
Preparation and signing of agreements
between partners, terms of reference for
project staff and subcontractors
Establishment of a project Steering
Committee
Finalization of project workplan
Management and administration structure in
place and working successfully
Written terms of reference for staff prepared and
agreed. Key personnel appointed
Steering committee meetings held biannually
Production of technical reports bi-annually
Minutes of steering committee meetings
available
Reports produced and accepted
Formal agreements and letters of understanding
signed between partner organizations
Project Steering Committee established
Project workplan finalized
Output 1. The hydrological regime is optimal for maintenance of biodiversity, lives of people,
operations of enterprises
Activities
Indicators
1.1
1.2
Adjustment of the operating regulations
for drainage facilities and building of
water-regulating structures at the
Radostovo site (Zvanets)
Adjustment of the operating regulations
for drainage facilities and building of
water-regulating structures at the Travy
site (Zvanets)
Operational rules for the existing drainage
facilities at the Radostovo site adjusted.
Water regulating structures constructed.
Operational rules for the existing drainage
facilities at the Radostovo site adjusted.
Water regulating structures constructed.
56
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
Activities
Indicators
Adjustment of the operating regulations
for drainage facilities and building of
water-regulating structures at the
Orekhovo site (Zvanets)
Building of water-regulating structures at
the Kirov collective farm site (Zvanets)
Withdrawal of a part of the amelioration
system from intensive agricultural use and
construction of necessary water-retention
constructions at the Novoselki site
(Zvanets)
Closing of the unnamed amelioration
system, located on the territory of the
Zvanets
Relieving the negative effect of the
Novoselki fish-farm operation on the
Zvanets mire
Diminishing the drainage effect of the
Yamnik system on the mire (Zvanets)
Operational rules for the existing drainage
facilities at the Radostovo site adjusted.
Water regulating structures constructed.
Building of water-retention structures on
all of the mire drainage ditches located
within the Zvanets zakaznik
Repairs of sluice at Selets complex
(Sporovsky)
Modification of Selets operating rules &
regulations (Sporovsky)
Regular checks of the functionality of the
new operating guidelines for Selets
(Sporovsky)
Regulation of water level in Sporovsky
fen mire by construction of an adjustable
sluice on Yaselda river (Sporovsky,
second stage, continued from BYE99/003
activities)
Closing the unsanctioned drainage system
construction by the Krasny Partizan
collective farm (Dikoe)
Alleviation of the draining effect on the
Dikoie Mire of the Upper Yaselda
drainage system by construction of dams
at the VP-2 canal and the Yaselda canal
(Dikoe)
Maintenance of an optimal water level in
the part of the Dikoie mire adjacent to the
Upper Yaselda drainage system by means
of pumping water from pond #8 (Dikoe)
Water regulating structures constructed.
Lands withdrawn from intensive agriculture and
are under protection.
Water-retention constructions built
Unnamed amelioration system closed.
The influence of the Novosiolki fish-farm on the
Zvanets mire relieved, which is seen from
monitoring reports.
The drainage effect of the Yamnik system on the
Zvanets mire diminished, which is seen from
monitoring reports.
Water-retention structures on all of the mire
drainage ditches constructed.
Sluice repaired
Operating rules and regulations of the Selets
complex modified and approved in new edition.
Protocols of the checks
Hydrological monitoring data confirming
optimal water regime in the Yaselda river.
Krasny Partizan drainage system closed.
The influence of the Upper Yaselda drainage
system on the mire reduced, which is confirmed
by monitoring reports
Hydrological monitoring data confirming
optimal water level in the mire adjacent to the
drainage site.
57
1.17
1.18
Activities
Indicators
Alleviation of the draining effect of the
“Dikoie” peat extraction site drainage
network (Dikoe)
Closing of the Viunovka drainage system
(Dikoe)
The influence of the "Dikoe" peat drainage site
on the mire reduced, which is confirmed by
monitoring reports.
Viunovka drainage system closed.
Output 2. Principles of ecologically sustainable forestry introduced into forestry planning at
Zvanets zakaznik
Activities
Indicators
2.1
Elaboration of a set of principles of
ecologically sustainable forestry for
inclusion into the regular forestry planning
at Zvanets zakaznik
Forestry planning protocol is compatible with
biodiversity conservation needs at the Zvanets
zakaznik
Output 3. The hydrological regime and water quality monitored on project sites and surrounding
areas to check for their optimality and compatibility with established standards
Activities
Indicators
3.1
Monitoring of water levels at the three sites.
Monitoring data available
Output 4. Key biodiversity indicators monitoring to insure the sustainability of the targeted
ecosystems
Activities
Indicators
4.1
Monitoring of key biodiversity indicator
species (Aquatic Warbler) through field
visits at six permanent monitoring plots
within the three sites
Monitoring data and reports available
Output 5. Management offices established for zakazniks Sporovo and Zvanets
Activities
Indicators
5.1
Establishment of Zakasnik Management
Offices at zakazniks Sporovsky and
Zvanets and providing facilities for their
operations
Management units established and functioning
A management team will act on behalf of
the state (it will be affiliated with Brest
Regional Committee for Natural Resources)
and comprise a head and 2 employees
(professionals in nature conservation
control). The team will oversee the
implementation of any activity in the
Zakaznik.
58
ANNEX X: Sustainability indicators for each project outcome
Project outcomes
Sustainability indicators
Improved protected area management
Target reserves are operated by separate Operation of management unites and implementation
management units. These are made up of local of the reserve management plans beyond the project
expertise and are integrated into the national system will be funded by the state24. Special budget will be
of nature protection. This according to the law means allocated for public awareness work. Apart from
upgraded level of site protection from unregulated to introduction, the personnel for the units will be
regulated national reserve. Management units carefully selected, trained and monitored over the
involve local people to monitor activities at protected first years of their work. Subsequently they will fully
areas.
transfer on under the jurisdiction of the local
branches of Ministry of Natural Resources become
legitimate elements of the national enforcement
system of protected area management in Belarus. It
is envisaged that once successfully introduced and
operated for some time, the management unit
personnel will serve as a local source of technical
training and advice to other areas, thus improving
the overall national capacity for sustainable
protected area management. (The issue will be
elaborated further at the PDF B stage).
Management units operate according to integrated 5year management plans, approved by the central, Significant reduction in biodiversity-risky behavior
local authorities, local land-users and discussed (e.g. burning of vegetation). Proper upkeep of
widely with the general public
protected areas in accordance with the established
regime and management plans beyond the project.
Improved scientific monitoring and research.
National Environmental Monitoring Network
System officially upgraded to include new
monitoring plots. Funding will be allocated for
maintenance of new monitoring plots from the
budget of the National Environmental Monitoring
Network. The Academy of Sciences through its
institutes (Institute of Zoology, Botany) will
continue monitoring of the sites beyond project
Prostyr-Pripyat Stokhid transboundary protected area scope.
established and in operation.
Special budget lines in the budget of the Prostyr
reserve upkeep will be allocated for maintenance of
transborder cooperation, with this obligation on both
side strengthened through subsequent preparation by
the Governments of documents for designation of
Prostyr-Pripyat-Stokhid as a transborder Ramsar site
***
24
The protected area management is currently fully administered and financed by the state. The project does not deal with the
issue of privatization since it is a very complex and separate policy task.
59
Project outcomes
Sustainability indicators
Overall: A Conventions Center, establishment of
which is sought upon the completion of the National
Capacity Self-Assessment25, will take up from UNDP
the role of coordinator in fund-raising for Polesie
initiatives. Under the overall supervision of the
Commission on Sustainable Development this
mechanisms will coordinate all stakeholders inside
the country, establish and maintain links with the
outside world to make sure Polesie values are
received the necessary support nationally and
internationally
Cross-fertilization with agriculture
Implementation of sustainable agricultural policy for The State Program on Sustainable Agriculture
Polesie strengthened. Biodiversity components in the revised and expanded to strengthen the biodiversity
agricultural policy enhanced.
components
Agricultural land use at target sites benefits the
biodiversity, as well as local land-users: arable
farming is replaced by grass-lands. Environmentally
friendly alternative livelihoods (hand haymaking,
reed-bed management) are introduced.
Collective farms will continue with land use types
established by the project upon its completion since
this is not only beneficial to the environment, but
also economically more profitable than the previous
use types. Alternative biodiversity-friendly income
generation mechanisms established by the project
will continue: their core will be the mutual benefit of
the involved parties, such as for example reedReduced drainage of target areas caused by harvesting companies and collective farms.
anthropogenic activities, including operation of Operational policies of local amelioration companies
water uptake facilities.
modified;
technologies
modified
to
be
environmentally-friendly; awareness raised among
company personnel on biodiversity values:
operations of these companies no longer present a
threat to habitats
Cross-fertilization with the forest sector
Special forestry planning principles enforced at Special forestry planning procedures will be adopted
target sites.
by the State Forestry Committee as a policy
document obligatory for use at especially protected
areas.
Forest lands within the targeted protected areas
certified.
Maintenance of appropriate forest condition will be
carried out by the forest enterprises since upon
certification: this element build not only on the
biodiversity concerns but also on the fact that forest
enterprises will derive an additional market
advantage of selling certified timber.
Cross-fertilization with flood-defense measures
25
Belarus has received approval for NCSA project from the GEF Secretariat. Polesie is given special attention there as a region
of convergence of all environment-related conventions.
60
Project outcomes
State Program on Flood Defense revised to reflect
biodiversity principles and under implementation by
the state (Belmeliovodkhoz Concern). Summer
polder agricultural systems enabled, fish stocks
stabilized, human security increased
Sustainability indicators
The revised State Program will be implemented by
the state with its funding upon project completion.
Maintenance of the regulated gates within the system
will be allocated necessary funding from local landusers.
61
ANNEX XI: Brief Profile of BirdLife Belarus
PROFILE OF APB-BIRDLIFE BELARUS
GENERAL BACKGROUND
APB-BirdLife Belarus (Akhova Ptushak Belarusi) is a fast growing nongovernmental membership
organization working towards conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development in Belarus. The
organization was established in April 1998 (re-registered by the Ministry of Justice September 30’ 1999).
APB is a not-for-profit organization established on the voluntary basis with the purpose of study and
preservation of rare bird species of Belarus, their habitats, as well as biodiversity of Belarus in general.
Our mission is to become a well-respected forum for the public, politicians, scientists, conservationists
and all others who want to see Belarus preserving its unique natural heritage and developing in a
sustainable way for the sake of present and future generations.
Specifically, the goals of APB are:
Study and preservation of wild bird species
Participation in restoration of populations of rare bird species, as well as species known to have
been nesting in the region before
Participation in detecting, preservation and restoration of habitats important for life of birds
Involvement of people in practical activities aimed at preservation of wild bird species and their
habitats; facilitating more active participation of the public in nature preservation activities
Facilitation of wise use of natural resources.
In attaining its goals APB employs the following tools:
study and preservation of birds, their natural habitats, condition and dynamics of avifauna of
Belarus; restoration of disturbed habitats and preventing degradation of especially valuable
natural areas;
rehabilitation of birds, breeding and introduction of rare and disappeared nesting species;
dissemination of knowledge and information about birds, threats to their existence, possibilities of
their preservation;
organization of ornithological conferences, meetings, discussions, lectures, contests, exhibitions,
courses, field trips and other events to promote ornithological and nature protection ideas;
organization and development of ecotourism;
publishing and economic activities in accordance with the active legislation of the republic of
Belarus;
establishment of local and other branches.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP
The highest authority of APB is its Annual Assembly of Members. The Annual Assembly convenes to
hear issues of statutory importance.
Among other things, every three years the Annual Assembly elects the President (Head of APB), the
National Board (10 members including the President), the Treasurer, and the Checkup Committee of
APB.
62
The National Boards acts on behalf of the Annual Assembly in between its sessions. The Board is entitled
to appoint the Executive Director, who, in turn, appoints Secretariat of APB, comprised of paid personnel
who act on behalf of the organization on a day-to-day basis.
Volunteers from APB members are invited to assist in many APB projects and programs. The experience
of volunteer work in APB’s activities has so far been very successful.
Being a national union, APB works on a nation-wide basis. As of October 1’ 2002, five regional APB
offices operated in Brest, Grodno, Vitebsk, Mogilev and Berezinksy Reserve.
APB is actively involved in international nature conservation activities, particularly through partnership
within BirdLife International.
MEMBERSHIP
APB has been quite successful in enrolment of members. As of October 1, 2002, APB had over 600
members. Analysis of APB’s membership structure shows the main group of people joining APB is
university students. Nature amateurs (other than students) make up the second largest group, other
important groups being scientists, university lecturers, school children and journalists.
APB devotes considerable time and effort to working with its present members and enrolment of new
ones. Upon registration each member receives a set of materials (3 APB Information Bulletins per year, a
colorful APB poster, a sticker, a badge and annual colorful bird magazine produced by APB). As
indicated above, volunteers from APB members assist in may of APB’s project and programs.
RECENT PROGRAMS/PROJECTS/ACTIVITIES
The list of recent APB activities includes:
A three-year project “Management Planning for Conservation of Fen Mire Biodiversity in
Belarus” (funded by the Darwin Initiative, RSPB, UNDP; in cooperation with the National
Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, local
authorities). The project ran from April 1999 until June 2002. The project has successfully
delivered management plans for three Polesie mires of global importance (Sporovo, Dikoe, and
Zvanets), which were approved and adopted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection of Belarus.
As follow-up to the above project, another joint initiative by UNDP, Michael Otto Foundation for
Environmental Protection, RSPB, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of
Belarus and APB (Integrated Management of Key Biodiversity Sites of Polesie) was launched
on October 1, 2002. Building on the capacity achieved at the previous stage, the new three-year
project aims to implement the most urgent recommendations listed in the management plans for
the three sites.
The two-year project “Building on EU experience in local communities and administrations
networking in conservation important areas in Belarus” recently approved for funding by
TACIS is intended to revive the pre-transition partnership of local environmental initiatives and
authorities through establishment of a network of local environmental clubs supported by local
authorities, drawing on the EU experience. The project targets rural schoolteachers (living on or
around environmentally significant areas) who will play a key role in the establishment and
functioning of local initiatives. Training visits and workshops will be resorted to in order to
63
ensure transfer of experience from APB's partner in the UK – RSPB – to local education
administrators, project regional coordinators and, through them, to local leaders on sites.
The six-month project “Restoration of hydrological regime and prevention of fires in
hydrological Zakaznik “YELNIA”, an IBA and potential Ramsar Site” was carried out with
financial support from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS) under the Global Peatland
Initiative, managed by Wetlands International in cooperation with the IUCN-Netherlands
Committee, Alterra, the International Mire Conservation Group and the International Peat
Society. The project has fully met all of its objectives by effectively closing drainage ditches and
canals around the Yelnia bog, thereby preventing excessive outflow of water and ensuring
gradual restoration of the natural hydrological regime in the area, as well as minimizing the risk
of future wildfires.
Integrated Biodiversity Conservation and Wetland Management for the Mid Pripyat
reserve and key adjacent territories The preparatory stage of this GEF-funded project is
designed to develop a full-stage project proposal in order to preserve the globally significant
biological diversity and attain sustainability of resource use at Pripyat river through extension and
promotion of status of the existing protected areas, elaboration and implementation of integrated
management plans for identified protected areas in the Pripyat river floodplain and key adjacent
sites, building on the strategic management planning approach, in-project trained personnel, and
best practices record developed during the project.
Renaturalization and sustainable management of peatlands in Belarus to sequester CO2, combat
land degradation, and ensure conservation of globally valuable biodiversity, PDF A. The
proposed GEF project will build on the national and international experience to pilot on wetland
reinstallation on degraded peatlands as a mechanism to fight climate change and recreate natural
habitat for a range of threatened wetland species. A PDF A application is currently pending
approval by GEF.
Restoration of natural hydrological regime on key breeding site of globally threatened species
Aquatic Warbler in Sporovsky Zakaznik. The project, funded by Michael Otto Foundation for
Environmental Protection, has improved the hydrological regime in Sporovski Zakaznik by
removing floating vegetation dams from the Yaselda riverbed.
The project “First Stage of National Wetlands Inventory in the Republic of Belarus” aimed to
analyze the system of collection of data and control over wetlands in Belarus, summarize the
available data on the current status of all types of wetlands and work out an action plan for a
national wetlands inventory. The project was carried out with financial support from the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS) under the Conservation and Wise Use of Wetlands – Global
Programme, managed by Wetlands International.
Public Awareness & Environmental Information: Phase I of an NGO-based cross-border initiative
in the Polish-Belarusian border region at the Bialowieza-Bialovezhskaya Pushcha National Park
area. Funded by DANCEE, the project operates in the transborder IBA Belovezhskaya Pushcha
National Park. The project will provide training and education material for teachers in the region.
Options for the establishment and functions of Nature Information Centre will be studied. The
project will take first steps towards establishing a framework for providing nature interpretation
and eco-tourism services in and around the BBNP with cross-border opportunities, organising
training courses for forest rangers in order to enable them to work as nature interpreters, the
establishment of nature interpretation trails, small-scale libraries at forest offices in the BPNP.
A census of Greater and Lesser Spotted Eagles in Belarus. The two-year research project,
funded by the RSPB, aimed to analyze the status of the species in Belarus and develop
recommendations on their conservation. About 80 pairs of the GSE have been located in Belarus
since the start of the project so far.
The long-term project Monitoring of Belarusian Population of the Aquatic Warbler is funded
by RSPB. Population data are collected annually on seven main breeding sites of Aquatic
Warbler, a globally threatened species.
64
Second International Conference on the Ecology and Conservation of Floodplains and
Lowland Mires in Polesie was held May 22-26 in Minsk. The conference has proved an
important international conservation forum that attracted the attention of top European
conservationists, major national and international governmental agencies, NGOs, academia and
scientists, who came together to discuss progress towards conservation objectives, the current
situation in the region and most importantly to make decisions for future conservation actions.
As part of the above conference, the book titled "Treasures of Belarusian Nature. Areas of
International Significance for Biological Diversity" was published. The book is a unique
publication for Belarus in that it features all areas in the country that are of international
significance for biodiversity conservation. These include Ramsar sites, potential Ramsar sites,
Important Bird Areas (IBAs), National Parks and reserves. This richly illustrated publication can
serve as an effective tool of attracting international community attention to the Belarusian
wildlife and the need for urgent conservation actions.
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACTS
For further information, please contact Alexander Vinchevski or Dmitry Goloubovsky at APB,
Makayonka str. 8 - 42, Minsk (PO Box 306, Minsk-50). Tel/Fax: (+375 17) 263-06-13. E-mail:
APB@tut.by
65
ANNEX XII:. Provisional Financing Plan for the full stage
The figures below are based on the documents of state programs, work plans of enterprises targeted by the
project, data on national budget allocations for activities presented as present-day baseline throughout
the project proposal. October 2002 exchange rate for Belarusian Ruble was used for conversion. The PDF
B stage will enable more accurate estimates.
Baseline for 2003 – 2008
State Program on Inventory of
Drained Areas in Belarus
Sources: state budget
Measures for Sustainable
Agriculture, 2000-2005
Sources: state budget allocations
relevant for project themes
(parallel co-financing)
Elaboration of forest certification
standards
Source: Forestry Committee
Program on transfer of forests from
under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Agriculture into the
jurisdiction of the Forestry
Committee
Source: State Forestry Committee
GIS modeling, for years beyond
2002
Source: state funding, international
projects other than GEF (e.g. the
Pripyat element of the Tacis
project, see reference in text)
The State Program on Installation
of Technical Facilities for the
Protection of Dwellings from
Floods in the Critical Locations of
the Polesie Region, for 1999-2004,
expected to continue beyond
Amount,
USD
0
200,000
350,000
Alternative for 2003-2008
NA
State activities extended and
amended. Operation of water
facilities by local amelioration
companies (especially water
uptaking and pumping) is
compatible with biodiversity
conservation interests.
Sources: state budget, GEF
Special forest management
planning principles are applied to
protected areas. Certification
standards completed with special
provisions for protected area
management. Mid-Pripyat forests
certified
Source: State Forestry
Committee, GEF
Amount,
USD
Incremental Costs
0
0
240,000
40,000
980,000
598,000
30,000
0
32,000
30,000
GIS modeling, for years beyond
2002
Source: state funding,
international projects other than
GEF
State Flood Defense Program
revised and its implementation
continues with government
funding only, grounds prepared
and successful pilots are in place
to demonstrate win-win systems
of agriculture on summer polders
66
Baseline for 2003 – 2008
Source: Belmeliovodkhoz Concern
Amount,
USD
1,700,000
Allocations for management of key
Polesian biodiversity sites in
traditional ways, including
involvement of local stakeholders
and decision makers
Source: Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Protection
450,000
Allocations for international
cooperation in Polesie, including
establishment of transborder
protected areas
Source: MNREP
115,000
Allocations for National Scientific
Monitoring, Polesie budget lines
Source: MNREP, National
Academy of Scneicnes
TOTAL
670,000
3,547,000
Alternative for 2003-2008
Source: Belmeliovodkhoz, GEF,
Human Security Trust Fund
Improved management of key
Polesian biodiversity sites as a
result of introduction and
application of integrated
management planning and
implementation, including public
involvement and awareness
raising
Source: GEF, Darwin Initiative
for Survival of Species, RSPB,
UNDP, Michael Otto
Foundation, MNREP as cofinanciers to the project
Transboundary cooperation
between Ukraine and Belarus
improved through establishment
of Prostyr-Pripyat-Stokhid
transboundary protected area
Source: MNREP, GEF
Scientific monitoring system
builds on new capacity and
produced information necessary
for integrated management
planning at reserves and crossfertilization of biodiversity
concerns into key economic
sectors.
Source: MNREP, National
Academy of Sciences, GEF
Amount,
USD
3,000,000
Incremental Costs
1,300,000
1,405,000
955,000
205,000
90,000
870,000
200,000
6,730,000
3,183,000
As can be seen from the table above, the overall project budget is estimated at US$ 6,730,000 over the
course of 5 years. The government co-financing (baseline part) will amount to US$ 3,547,000. Of the
total incremental cost (US$ 3,183,000) the following is expected to be covered from external cofinancing:
- Human Security Trust Fund: USD 970,000
- UNDP, Darwin Initiative, Michael Otto Foundation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds:
USD 400,000
The incremental cost sought to be financed with GEF resources is USD 1,813,000. The financial ration of
GEF to non-GEF project resources is thus 1,813,000 : (6,730,000 – 1,813,000) = 4,917,000, which is 1 to
2.7.
67
The baseline/alternative cost analysis will be finalized at the PDF B stage to arrive at maximum possible
accuracy building on confirmed expenditure and cost data relevant to the project.
68
ANNEX XIII: Letter of Support from GEF Operational Focal Point
69
ANNEX XIV: Link of the project to the emerging biodiversity guidelines on the biodiversity focal areas
The proponents of the project believe that it falls under Strategic Priority 1 and should therefore be
eligible for GEF support under the new guidelines.
As has been pointed out in the text of the project concept, Polesie is a stand-alone unique biogeographical
area covering all of the south of contemporary Belarus, northern Ukraine and adjacent areas in Poland and
Russia, and characterized by specific geological, morphological and hydrological features. The project
does not intent to modify the overall national system for protected are management, but rather to deal
directly with a set of interlined (within Belarus, as well as from Belarus to Ukraine) protected areas, at the
same time producing strategic implications that will be used by the Government for the replication (this
way meeting the national priorities in moving towards integrated protected area management nationwide).
At the same time, support will be extended to the other three protected areas in Polesie in enhancing a
bionetwork (initiative supported by UNESCO at its very early stage because of the scale and complexity
of the issue) as well as linking this project with an initiative under elaboration on the other side of the
border in Ukraine, as has been shown in the project text.
The core objective of the project is to enhance sustainability of the protected areas and even by focusing
on mainstreaming biodiversity concerns in ongoing economic sector activities within the reserve
boundaries, the project does not focus on introducing these into the wider production landscape, which
falls in line with the SP 1 guidelines. The intended replication strategy mentions that similar approaches
will be promoted to other protected areas around the country, thereby seeking to enhance the entire
national system of protected areas.
One of the critical elements, that will be addressed very carefully at the PDF B stage is the sustainability
of the protected areas. The project clearly attempts to improve the PA sustainability at the individual PA
level. Apart from introduction of management units, the personnel for the units will be carefully selected,
trained and monitored over the first years of their work. Subsequently they will fully be transferred on
under the jurisdiction of the local branches of Ministry of Natural Resources become legitimate elements
of the national enforcement system of protected area management in Belarus. It is envisaged that once
successfully introduced and operated for some time, the management unit personnel will serve as a local
source of technical training and advice to other areas, thus improving the overall national capacity for
sustainable protected area management. Workshops with participation of local protected area personnel,
Ministry of Natural Resources, national and international experts will assist smooth inclusion of this new
element (protected area management) into the national system of protected area management in Belarus,
enhancing its capacity and improving the enforcement of legal procedures within protected areas. The
issue will be elaborated further at the PDF B stage.
During the PDF B stage the project outcomes and their indicators will be finalized and developed in a
manner so as to allow tracking of progress towards reaching impacts under SP1.
70