BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY
FOR THE
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA REGION
DISCUSSION DRAFT
March 2003
Comments on this draft report should be sent to Mr. Phillip
Brylski, by email: Pbrylski@worldbank.org or by mail
(World bank, 1818 H Street, Washington DC, 20443)
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit
Europe and Central Asia Region
World Bank
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CAS
CBD
CDF
CEM
ECA
ECSSD
ESW
EU
FAO
FSU
FY
FYR
GEF
IBRD
IDA
IDF
IUCN
NEAP
NGOs
NIS
NRM
NTFP
OECD
PA
PEBLDS
PRSC
PRSP
TEV
WDI
WWF
Country Assistance Strategy
Convention on Biological Diversity
Comprehensive Development Framework
Country Economic Memorandum
Europe and Central Asia
Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable
Development Unit
Economic and Sector Work
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization
Former Soviet Union
Fiscal Year
Former Yugoslav Republic
Global Environment Facility
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
International Development Association
Institutional Development Fund
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
National Environment Action Plan
Non-Governmental Organizations
Newly Independent States
Natural Resource Management
Non-Timber Forest Product
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Protected Area
Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit
Poverty Reduction Strategy Program
Total Economic Valuation
World Development Indicators
World Wildlife Fund
2
Table of Contents
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
Regional Biodiversity ................................................................................................................. 5
The Bank’s Contribution to Biodiversity Conservation: The Last 10 Years .............................. 6
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 14
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Background ................................................................................................................... 14
Objectives of the Strategy and Framework ................................................................... 15
Key Biodiversity Challenges in the ECA Region ......................................................... 17
Organization of the Report ............................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 2. Biodiversity: status and trends in the Region ................................................. 19
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Biodiversity in ECA’s Subregions ................................................................................ 20
Species Richness and Endemism in ECA ..................................................................... 30
Agricultural Biodiversity .............................................................................................. 31
Economic Importance of Biological Resources ............................................................ 33
Biodiversity Conservation in the Region ...................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 3. The Bank’s Contribution to Biodiversity Conservation in ECA: the last 10
Years ............................................................................................................................................. 41
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Support for Policy and Investment Program Planning ................................................. 41
Portfolio Review .......................................................................................................... 44
Projects for Conservation of Globally Significant Ecosystems ................................... 60
The Millennium Development Goals and Biodiversity ............................................... 60
Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 4. Meeting the Challenge: A Strategy for Conserving Biodiversity in ECA ..... 72
4.1
Strategy Objectives ....................................................................................................... 72
4.2
Support to Policy and Investment Planning .................................................................. 72
4.3
Subregional Priorities .................................................................................................... 73
4.4
Sectoral Priorities .......................................................................................................... 79
4.5
Strategy Implementation Instruments: Lending, Economic Sector Work, and
Partnerships ............................................................................................................................... 82
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.
The ECA region covers 17% of the world’s land area, divided among 27 countries.1 The
Region supports eight percent of the world’s population (470 million people, 35 percent of who
live in rural areas), and accounts for 23 percent of the world’s forest area, 19 percent of its arable
land, and 12 percent of its annual renewable freshwater resources. The region’s biodiversity
contributes to its economic development needs but also to global biodiversity assets.
2.
The purpose of this strategy is three-fold. It aims to document the Bank’s assistance
program to biodiversity conservation and users in ECA and the lessons learnt. It aims also to
illustrate the role that sound ecosystem management plays in broader economic development,
including infrastructure, rural development, tourism, land, water, crops, and forest management.
Finally, it maps a future approach for the Bank in continuing to support biodiversity conservation
and use in ECA countries. This final point is especially important in the light of the new focus on
the Millenium Development Goals. One of the MDGs is to integrate the principles of sustainable
development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources,
and two of its indicators are biodiversity-related: the proportion of land area covered by forest
and the coverage of protected areas. Contributing effectively to this goal, and measuring results,
will be a challenge.2
3.
The framework for biodiversity conservation in ECA is based on two of the Bank’s core
mandates: eliminating poverty in an environmentally sustainable way; and conserving global
public goods. Hence our support strategy aims to (i) support biodiversity conservation when it
would otherwise be adversely affected by economic growth ; (ii) make better use of biological
assets that contribute to economic growth and poverty alleviation; and (iii) support conservation
of globally significant ecosystems. Activities which contribute to biodiversity conservation often
work within the framework of these three pillars simultaneously. The audience for this strategy is
both regional Bank staff and management and stakeholders in our client countries3.
4.
Biodiversity is the sum total of all organisms, their variability, and biological processes.
It encompass genes, populations, species, habitats, and ecosystems and the natural processes that
sustain them. In contrast, biological resources are individual elements of biodiversity, like genes
or species. Biodiversity conservation underpins sustainable economic development and helps
address social needs and safeguard environmental services. Protecting wild nature is therefore
2
The paper does not seek to establish specific baselines or monitoring measures for the biodiversity MDG.
That work poses specific methodological challenges and was not anticipated at the time of the concept
review. It would need to be the subject of separate analytical work.
3
A corporate biodiversity strategy was issued in 1996 and a strategy for the East Asia Region was issued in
1993. This is the first biodiversity strategy for the Europe and Central Asia Region.
only a part of biodiversity conservation. People use biological resources directly, for example as
food, fuel, textiles, and drugs, and benefit from it indirectly through its roles in ecological
services such as nutrient cycling, and climate regulation.
5.
Biodiversity, and the sustainable uses of biological resources4, presents particular public
policy challenges to classical economic and discounting approaches. Decisions regarding
biodiversity and broader natural resource management can have cross-sectoral impacts (for
example, a decision to protect a naturally flowing river and its wildlife may impede development
of hydro-electric power). They can have spatial impacts (emissions from industry can affect
forests far away from the factory); and inter-temporal impacts (temperate forests are often
managed according to 100 or even 120 year cycles). Ecosystems and species have “existence”
values which are very hard to quantify but which can be irreversibly damaged or destroyed. These
four features are often used to demonstrate the “public good” element of biodiversity
conservation and the need for public intervention as well as market-based instruments for sound
management.
Regional Biodiversity
6.
ECA contains nearly 100 distinct eco-regions, and in the neighborhood of 15,000
vascular plant species and 1600 vertebrate animal species. Globally significant ecosystems are
found in South east Turkey, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, the Danube and Volga delta
wetlands, the Caucasus, Carpathian, Balkan, Altai and Tien Shan mountain ecosystems, the Karst
ecosystems of the Northern Adriatic, the Lake Baikal area, Karelia, and the Russian far east.
These are all included in World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Global 200 list of ecoregions that are a
priority for conservation action. Many of the world’s food crops originated in ECA, and the
region still contains the wild relatives of these cultivated species that feed the world, including
wheat, barley, chickpeas, and lentils, apples, cherries, apricots, walnuts, pistachios and
pomogranates, as well as vegetables, medicinal herbs, and flowers.
7.
Prior to the economic transitions of the 1990s, many ECA countries had a strong tradition
of protected area management, and some had also incorporated the concept of landscape
conservation into the broader management of land, water and forest resources. Approaches to
protected area management differed. In Central Europe, the Former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and
Turkey, protected areas were managed along traditions similar to those in Western Europe, with
settlements and some economic activity in these areas. The Former Soviet Union countries had a
network of protection categories which included strict protection. As in many OECD countries, in
most arable land areas there was little attention to biodiversity considerations. Specialized crop
and livestock production was encouraged, resulting in monocultures of crops and multiplication
of a few livestock breeds, resulting in reduced crop and livestock diversity. Also, under the
‘virgin lands’ program in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), large areas of marginal steppe lands
were brought under cultivation, eroding biodiversity in this part of the region. However, an
extensive network of ex-situ collections of economically important plant species was also
developed in the region.
8.
The first years of transition saw a deterioration in the institutions and financing
mechanisms for conservation management, both in the production and in the protected area
landscape. An increase in poverty combined with a breakdown in law and order led to pressure on
4
Sustainable management has many definitions. In this paper we use the definition developed by the
Brundtland commission of the late 1980s: managing natural resources for the benefit of present day users,
without harming the potential for future generations also to benefit from them.
5
natural resources in many countries, from poaching and illegal harvesting. It is estimated that
Tajikistan and Armenia have both lost over 10% of their forest cover since 1990, while in the
early 1990s the population of the endangered Siberian tiger fell to about 200, one third of its level
in the 1980s. This period also saw the loss of already collected germplasm due to the collapse of
support to gene banks and live collections. Hastily implemented land privatization, land
fragmentation, and the lack of access to finance or technologies for sustainable land management,
also contributed to poor management of biological resources on farm-land and pastures.
Deterioration of structures for water management has also contributed to degradation of
wetlands, to pollution of water bodies and loss of wildlife, and to declines in tourism revenues.
Declining resources for fire and pest management has led to loss of fragile ecosystems as well as
of commercially valuable forest land. In many countries, while arable land was privatized, land
with “common good “ functions or ecosystem values was left in a management and financing
vacuum.
9.
Civil society institutions are gradually being strengthened in ECA but environmental
institutions and NGOs face particular challenges. Environmental activism played an important
part in the democratization movement in the 1980s, and ecological NGOs have continued to focus
on the important areas of environmental advocacy and pressure for increased transparency of
public institutions. The challenge ahead for them, in addition to this work, will be to focus more
on conservation action on the ground, and on partnerships with public and private sector
organizations, including community participation. They need, in-particular, to help fill the gap
left by under-funded public sector institutions and to help local communities meet both their
conservation and development needs.
The Bank’s Contribution to Biodiversity Conservation: The Last 10 Years
10.
The Bank has contributed to biodiversity conservation both through support for the
preparation of strategies and plans, and through project assistance, both on a grant basis through
the Global Environment Facility, and with loans and credits. This approach has, however, been
quite a narrow one. For example, policies or strategies for the conservation of biodiversity have
not adequately influenced other Bank analytic and lending work, such as Public Expenditure
Reviews, country economic work or adjustment operations, even though conservation
management is closely tied to better public expenditure management and broader institutional and
governance issues. Most country and sector analytic work tends to focus on economic policies
and institutional performance, rather than natural-resource based issues. Agricultural analytical
work, for example, has rarely considered biodiversity management issues, such as the
conservation of crop genetic resources or threats posed by present land use patterns or invasive
species.
11.
Biodiversity strategies have been supported in 12 countries, focusing (like National
Environmental Action Plans and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers) on participatory approaches
to identify issues and priorities. Agencies involved have often included Ministries of agriculture,
water and forests, parliamentary committees and border agencies as well as environmental
agencies and NGOs; Ministries of Finance and Economy have less often been involved. Most
have emphasized the need for improvements in policy and institutional frameworks, enhanced
trans-boundary cooperation, improved protected area networks, better biodiversity inventories
and information systems, and the need for an appropriate incentive framework for incorporating
biodiversity considerations into economic decision making. While these planning processes have
had substantial local ownership, they have not sufficiently been mainstreamed into the Bank’s
broader CAS and development agenda. They have, however, contributed to knowledge building,
knowledge sharing and priority definition within the conservation arena.
6
12.
Investment assistance has included lending, and grants, mostly through the Global
Environment facility (GEF). An analysis of project assistance indicates that a total of 45 projects,
comprising US$ 1 billion, include biodiversity conservation activities contributing 20% of total
financing. Financing related to forest biodiversity has accounted for 60% of the total, followed
by wetland and marine ecosystems (24%), mountain ecosystems (12%) and arid and agroecosystems (4%). This composition reflects the importance of forests in ECA, but it also indicates
that support to mountain, agricultural, and arid and steppe ecosystems has been less than it should
be, given the economic and global importance of these areas. The reasons for this may be (i)
support to ecosystem conservation is generally regarded, in the Bank Forest Policy, as an integral
part of sound project design; (ii) institutional responsibilities for forest management in ECA
countries are generally clear, while there has very often been an institutional vacuum with regard
to responsibility for management of mountain, pasture, steppe and semi-arid ecosystems. Support
to wetland and marine ecosystem management has been assisted by the focus on the regional seas
programs, but probably needs to be expanded also, given the importance of wetlands for local
livelihoods (fishing and pasture) as well as for wildlife.
13.
The Bank also undertook an analysis of the extent to which biodiversity has been
mainstreamed in projects in agriculture, forestry, irrigation, natural resource management and
water/wastewater treatment. Generally the agriculture and water management projects, have
included fewer biodiversity mainstreaming elements than the forestry and watershed management
projects. There have been notable exceptions, however. The Syr Darya Control and Northern
Aral Sea project supports recovery of critical wetlands and the Aral Sea and the Estonia
agriculture project includes a wetland management strategy. The newer generation of agricultural
projects, such as the Ukraine land titling project, the Romania and Georgia agricultural services
projects, the proposed Kazakhstan Drylands Management Project, as well as the GEF supported
agricultural pollution control projects in Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Moldova and Georgia, are
taking greater advantage of opportunities to incorporate land and crop conservation elements in
them. Biodiversity is also being mainstreamed into the forthcoming Uzbekistan Drainage,
Irrigation, and Wetlands Improvement Project through investments to conserve the Badai Tugai
nature reserve, one of the few remaining tugai (riverine) forests on the Amu-Darya. Finally, while
some wastewater treatment projects under preparation, such as the Albania Integrated Water and
Ecosystems Management Project, include wetland restoration or management elements. Future
agricultural services projects could also consider the value of supporting recovery of gene banks
for storage of wild relatives and land races of crops, both in-situ (in the landscape) and ex-situ (in
research institutes).
14.
Rural and NRM staff in the Bank, together with client country institutions, are
increasingly working together in achieving conservation outcomes in rural areas outside
protected areas. There is much more to be done, however, in broader policy and programmatic
lending. The challenge will be for those working on biodiversity to demonstrate the broader links
between biodiversity conservation, its economic benefits, and reform of public institutions and
expenditure patterns. The links are clearly there (e.g. in forestry and protected area management
in Turkey and Russia) but need to be highlighted in CAS development and dialogue.
15.
Direct support, for protected area management, mostly through GEF grants, has focused
on promoting community participation in protected area management, development of land use
plans, on moving towards a sustainable use and away from a strict protection approach in the CIS
countries, on balancing the need for short term revenues with longer term sustainable use, on
public awareness and information and monitoring. There have been exciting initiatives in
community development and private sector partnerships but they need to be better disseminated
7
and marketed. And major challenges remain in building protected area management institutions
in countries where salaries are low and governance is difficult.
16.
The Bank has not yet moved far with region-specific approaches to resolving the
shortages of funding for conservation management inside protected areas and more generally in
natural resources management in ECA (in contrast to Latin America). As the economies of the
countries of the region recover it will be important that more financing from both private and
public sources be directed to conservation management.
17.
One area which has also been particularly challenging concerns monitoring of
biodiversity trends and outcomes. Bank support has focused on the most urgent priorities:
arresting deterioration of ecosystems and on involving local people in their management. There
has been support also to development of monitoring and information systems. But objective
measurement of trends is difficult, in part because of the multiplicity of species and ecosystems,
and in part because of scientific controversies surrounding the value of measuring ecosystem
health (difficult) as opposed to trends in indicator species (less difficult but also less scientifically
rigorous).
18.
The biodiversity portfolio to date is still quite “young”, and there are relatively few
completed projects. Measurement of longer term impacts is difficult. Support to protected area
networks in Central Europe and to coastal and marine wetlands in the Baltics and the Danube
Delta (the oldest generation of biodiversity projects) has, however, been quite successful both in
supporting sound management of these ecosystems with community participation, and in
promoting transboundary cooperation. The completed forestry loans (to Poland and Belarus) have
helped support landscape approaches to production forest management, while support to
watershed management and in-situ gene conservation in Turkey has also been successful. The
new generation of agricultural services projects in Croatia, Georgia, Romania, and Azerbaijan are
providing some support for conservation and use of biodiversity by farmers. Our support to
protected area management has also promoted transboundary cooperation, both through separate
though linked operations, as in the North Carpathians and Danube Delta, and through subregional projects, as in Lake Ohrid and the Central Asia Biodiversity project covering the West
Tien Shan.
The Way Forward
19.
Building on experience, our strategy will have the following elements:
Thematic Areas

Incorporating issues with respect to biodiversity conservation and management into Bank
analytical work where relevant, including agricultural and environment reviews, but also
public expenditure, governance and economic reports. This would lead the way for
support for institutional and policy changes to improve biodiversity management which
could in the future form elements of programmatic support

More focus on “mainstreaming” biodiversity conservation and management into Bank
investment operations, including land reform and agricultural services, but also irrigation
and drainage, water and wastewater, in addition to flood, riverbasin, forestry and
watershed management.

Greater support for conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity native to the region.
8

Continued support to strengthened protected area and landscape management, focusing
on community participation, with approaches to land use which combine conservation
with sustainable use

Development of sustainable financing mechanisms which, recognizing the public good
aspect of biodiversity conservation, include public funding, while promoting gradual
development of other sources of finance (including partnerships, the private sector and
voluntary organizations)

Greater support to cost-effective approaches to ecosystems and biodiversity monitoring
and information management. This is needed to improve monitoring of project results
and outcomes.

Promoting transboundary cooperation on ecosystems management, both as a “good” in
itself, and as a means towards broader international cooperation in other areas

Broaden our involvement with other institutions and civil society organizations through
more proactive engagement and action.
Sub-regional and ecosystems focal areas

In the Balkans our support to ecosystems conservation is just beginning, with operations
just beginning in Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Bosnia. Given the global
significance of the Balkan mountain ecosystems and the economic potential of the
landscape, for tourism, forestry, agriculture, and livestock production, “niche” products
and watershed protection, as well as the value of trans-boundary cooperation, we need to
strengthen our program there.

In Albania our support to ecosystems conservation needs to be part of our community
driven development agenda, within the broader framework of improving governance and
public sector management. The focus should be on coastal areas and mountains.

In Croatia where public commitment to ecosystems conservation, both in coastal areas
and mountain ecosystems, is high, future support should focus on incorporating
biodiversity into investment and policy-based lending, in water/wastewater, agriculture
and food safety, forestry and broader water resource management. There is also scope in
Croatia for moving forward with conservation endowment fund financing, involving
NGOs and the private sector

In Turkey the challenge is to move towards a modern, participatory approach to
ecosystems conservation involving also civil society and decentralized decision making.
Second, we need to promote cooperation among ministries so that the external impacts of
decisions in one sector (in particular tourism related and water developments) are better
considered. Priorities include coastal areas, significant landscapes near cities, and river
basins. A third challenge is to incorporate agro-biodiversity management in the
production landscape, given Turkey’s exceptional richness in the wild relatives of food
crops. Fourthly forest management needs to be better adapted to particular ecosystems,
focusing on landscapes rather than on production values where these better reflect the
potential. Future support to Turkey, given these “systemic” issues, may best be provided
through a mix of modest investment combined with broader policy based lending
9

In the Caucasus our assistance to ecosystems conservation is still at an early stage, and
poses a particular challenge given the global significance of these ecosystems, and the
problems with poverty and natural resource degradation, governance and weak public
institutions. In addition, some public and civil society organizations have in the past
equated ecosystem conservation with strict protection from any form of economic
activity. A combination of approaches is necessary. First, we need to combine support to
ecosystems conservation with local initiatives to support sustainable livelihoods.
Participatory natural resource management operations combining GEF, IDA and other
grant support offer the best approaches. Second, NGOs to date in the Caucasus have had
an advocacy role and have not yet worked much “on the ground” to support conservation
initiatives. We need to support efforts to strengthen them, in particular regarding practical
work in the field. Thirdly, Azerbaijan and Georgia’s people, economies and ecosystems
can benefit from the energy and energy transit investments, but these developments need
to include measures to mitigate environmental damage and enhance related ecosystems.
Transparency and development of partnerships with local organizations on the part of the
private sector developers is crucial. Finally, support to stronger, adequately financed,
accountable public institutions responsible for natural resource management needs to be
incorporated into our broader economic and structural reform agenda.

In Central Asia, our support to date has focused on two ecosystems: the western Tien
Shan, where are supporting a trans-boundary project in this mountain ecosystem, and the
Amu Darya and Syr Darya Delta and northern Aral Sea, where we are focusing on
restoration of wetlands. Both of these activities have a strong focus on enhancing local
livelihoods, and in the case of the Tien Shan have been highly successful in promoting
trans-boundary cooperation.. We need to move forward on several agendas. First, as in
the Caucasus, community-based approaches combining improved ecosystems
management with local income generating activities have the greatest chance of success.
We are beginning to adopt this approach in Tajikistan. Second, we should incorporate
ecosystems restoration into our land and water management projects, as we are doing in
the proposed Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation, and Wetlands Improvement Project. Third,
we need to support strengthened public institutions as part of the broader governance
agenda . Fourthly, biodiversity conservation can provide an opportunity for involving and
strengthening civil society institutions. Finally, given the resource constraints within the
countries, there needs to be a stronger push to develop external partnerships to help
finance biodiversity conservation.

Kazakhstan faces different challenges in ecosystems conservation. As a middle income
country with stronger public institutions, there is greater public commitment to, and
finance for, environmental protection, than in many other countries of the region. There
are, however, several challenges. The globally significant steppe ecosystems need a
management strategy that combines sustainable production (for both domestic livestock
and wildlife) with conservation, such as the one being developed under the proposed
Kazakhstan Dryland Management Project. Investment will be needed to implement that
strategy. Third, the forest ecosystems, in the east, north-east and south-west, need special
restoration and management approaches. Fourthly, the investments to restore the lower
Syr Darya and northern Aral Sea need to be continued. Finally the Caspian and inland
rivers and lakes have unique opportunities to combine sustainable management with
income generation from commercial and recreational fisheries.
10

In Russia, because of its size and global significance regarding forests, and arctic, tundra
and steppe ecosystems, a special approach combining private and public sector
partnerships both domestically and internationally is needed. Russia’s system of
protected areas, both federal and regional, needs to be strengthened through landscape
such as conservation corridors, and supporting landscape approaches which combine
sustainable utilization with conservation especially in forest ecosystems. Better forest
management more generally, including planning, utilization, fire and pest management
will play a key role in biodiversity conservation in Russia. There is scope for building on
the work started in having local enterprises “champion” particular conservation areas or
species, and scope also for encouraging the NGO community to build on its work
regarding ‘action on the ground” in addition to advocacy. The focus of conservation
activities will vary depending on the location. In Karelia, where population and economic
activities are more intense, the challenge will be to combine more intensive management
of economic activities with tourism, recreation and landscape management. In the AltaySayan and the Sikhote Alin the focus will be, rather, on sustainable livelihoods, tourism
and forest fire and conservation management. Russia, with a great tradition in
conservation of agro-biodiversity, also needs to re-establish its genetic resource
monitoring systems both in-situ and ex-situ. The Bank needs to support these programs
where opportunities arise, focusing above all on improved public sector management.

In Ukraine and Belarus there has been modest support to date to wetland and forest
conservation, but in Ukraine this has not yet been “mainstreamed” into broader forest and
water resource management (there has been more progress in Belarus in part because
public institutions have been more stable). The main challenge for Ukraine, which
contains important wetland, steppe and forest ecosystems, is to incorporate biodiversity
conservation values into land use planning as it proceeds with land privatization. This is
particularly a challenge for steppe ecosystems, but also for coastal areas. To date the bank
has not started to work with Ukraine on incorporating conservation and sustainable land
use into the broader economic reform and restructuring agenda. A second challenge
concerns incorporation of biodiversity into agricultural practices. A third challenge will
be to support improved forest and mountain conservation and use in the Carpathians, an
area with a high incidence of rural poverty. Renewal of support for regional collaboration
in the Carpathians will also be important. Finally, Ukraine’s Black Sea and Azov Sea
contain some of the best preserved wetlands in the region, and will need continued
support.

For Moldova, densely populated, rural and with much highly degraded land, the
challenge is to conserve remaining valuable forest ecosystems, while working with local
populations to increase income generating opportunities from these. The second
challenge is to incorporate conservation into farming practices. Financial incentives will
be necessary given the trade offs between short term costs and long term benefits.

The Bank’s program of support to Romania has included conservation in the Danube
Delta, one of Europe’s largest wetlands, conservation management of forest and montane
ecosystems, and mainstreaming of conservation values into forest land use planning. In
many ways Romania, with relatively strong public institutions, a commitment to
decentralization and an active NGO community, can provide a model for other countries.
The next areas of focus need to be incorporation of biodiversity into agricultural land use
practices (Romania had a tradition of conservation of landraces before 1990, but this has
deteriorated along with the weakening of its agricultural research institutions), the
development of sustainable financing initiatives to support protected area management,
11
and an approach to river basin and flood management which incorporates conservation
values. Improved ecosystem governance could also be incorporated into broader
economic reform work. A combination of loan financing with concessional funding from
other partners is likely to be most successful.

The Bank should focus less on support for biodiversity conservation in Central Europe
and the Baltics than it did in the 1990s, because these EU accession countries have
access to other sources of financing, and are no longer a focus of broader Bank support.
There are, however, three areas for continued future collaboration. First, where there is a
demand for major investment loans, in such areas as flood management, wastewater
treatment or agricultural safety/quality standards, the Bank should explicitly encourage
incorporation of biodiversity conservation elements into project design. In agriculture this
could include support for management of invasive species, organic farming, greater use
of landraces and environmentally sensitive farming. This is also consistent with European
Union policy, which is attaching growing importance to environmental conservation in
productive activities. Second, there is great opportunity for Central Europeans to share
experience with other ECA countries, since many faced similar challenges in the
transition. Bank involvement can facilitate these exchanges (The World Bank Institute,
Global Distance Learning, and participation in European workshops and conferences can
help facilitate this). Finally, in forestry there are opportunities for continued
collaboration through partnerships such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Alliance for
Forest Conservation, which support forest certification and collaboration between the
private sector and civil society in forest management incorporating conservation values.

Regional Seas, international waters and cooperation in Transboundary ecosystem
management : The Bank should also continue to assist with better management of the
Baltic, Black, Caspian and Aral Seas and their watersheds, and with transboundary lakes
such as Ohrid, Skodra and Baikal, where there is demand from our clients. These pose a
particular challenge in terms of assistance instruments. In general, consistent with the
principle “think global, act local” analysis and broad planning at the river basin or
ecosystem level is likely to lead to successful implementation if this is handled at the
national level through individual initiatives, with opportunities for sharing experience.
Multi-country projects, with important exceptions, face complex implementation
challenges. However, there are also advantages. For example the Central Asia
Biodiversity project has now reached a stage where the focus is very much on crosscountry assistance and knowledge sharing. The Bank should not shy away from the
opportunities that such transboundary projects present. Future possibilities include the
Balkans, the Carpathians and the Caucasus as well as extension of the work in Central
Asia.
Measuring the Success of our Work
20.
Individual investment operations (both in productive sectors and in protected areas)
include conservation outcome indicators. Broader ecosystem health indicators (like poverty
reduction) are difficult to link directly with Bank assistance programs. Nevertheless, we will need
to help our countries to establish simple, monitorable indicators to measure progress with
achieving biodiversity outcomes. ECA will measure the success of the strategy by the following:

In the sub-regions outlined above, new lending and CAS objectives reflect the priorities
summarized in the strategy
12

Analytical work in agriculture, water resources, forestry and environment, as well as
broader country economic and governance work, includes analysis of the links between
public policies and biodiversity conservation and use.

New sector work should reflect the priorities outlined and be operational. Taking into
consideration work supported by other agencies, it should also establish the analytical
base for measuring progress towards meeting the biodiversity conservation millennium
development goal

Operations and sector work addressing biodiversity conservation and management should
meet or exceed quality review standards for the Bank.
13
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
21.
The Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region covers 17 percent of the world’s land area,
divided among 28 countries. The region has 8 percent of world population (470 million people,
35 percent of whom live in rural areas), 23 percent of global forest area, 19 percent of the arable
land, and 12 percent of the annual renewable freshwater resources. Two key characteristics of the
Region’s biodiversity are its importance to the area’s sustainable development needs and its
contribution to global biodiversity assets. Many of its ecosystems have been influenced by human
use for thousands of years.
ECA Countries
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bosnia-Herzogovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
the Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
The Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
FYR Macedonia
Moldova
Poland
Russia
Romania
Serbia and Montenegro
The Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
22.
ECA also contains 89 distinct ecoregions and on the order of 15,000 vascular plant
species and 1,600 animal species. Globally significant ecosystems include Southeast Turkey; the
Mediterranean and the Black Seas; the Volga delta wetlands; the Caucasus, Carpathian, Balkan,
Altai, and Tien Shan mountain ecosystems; the Lake Baikal area; and the Russian Far East. These
are all included in the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Global 200 list of ecoregions that are a
priority for conservation action. The principal ecosystems are illustrated in Maps 1 and 2. ECA
also contains a substantial part of the world’s agricultural resources; cultivated species that now
feed the world, including wheat, barley, chickpeas, and lentils, originated in the ECA Region and
their wild relatives are still found there. Key fruit and nut tree species, including apples, cherries,
apricots, walnuts, and pistachios, also originated in ECA.
23.
The Region has a diverse population and a wide range of national income levels—gross
national product, for instance, ranges from US$300 in Tajikistan to US$10,000 in Slovenia. Each
of the 28 countries has faced upheaval since beginning the transition to a market economy in
1991, and many have faced dramatic declines in gross domestic product (GDP) and increased
poverty (for example, GDP in Armenia is only 20 percent of pre-independence levels). All of the
countries have been trying to adapt rapidly to the breakdown of centrally planned economies and
14
the formation of newly independent states. With regard to human resources, most of the countries
have well-educated populations with strong technical skills and stable or even declining
populations. In general, the countries geographically closest to Western Europe have had the
fewest difficulties in adapting to the conditions of a market economy.
1.2
Objectives of the Strategy and Framework
24.
This strategy has three main purposes:

It summarizes the main challenges in ecosystem management in the Region, the Bank’s
assistance program to biodiversity conservation and use in ECA, and the lessons learned
thus far.

It illustrates the role that sound ecosystem management plays in broader economic
development, including agriculture, infrastructure, rural development, tourism, land, and
water and forest management.

It maps a future strategy for the Bank in continuing to support biodiversity conservation
in ECA countries. This final point is especially important in the light of the new focus on
Millennium Development Goals, one of which includes as a target integration of the
principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reversal of
the loss of environmental resources. Two indicators are biodiversity-related: the
proportion of land area covered by forest and the coverage of protected areas.
Contributing effectively to this goal, and measuring results, will be a challenge.5
25.
The framework for biodiversity conservation in ECA is based on two of the Bank’s core
mandates: eliminating poverty in an environmentally sustainable way and conserving global
public goods. Hence the support strategy aims to support biodiversity conservation when it would
otherwise be adversely affected by economic growth, to make better use of biological assets that
contribute to economic growth and poverty alleviation, and to support conservation of globally
significant ecosystems. Activities that contribute to biodiversity conservation often work within
the framework of these three pillars simultaneously.
26.
Biodiversity, and managing and using biological resources sustainably,6 presents
particular public policy challenges to classical economic and discounting approaches for four
reasons:

Decisions regarding biodiversity and broader natural resource management can have
cross-sectoral impacts (a decision to protect a naturally flowing river and its wildlife
may impede development of hydroelectric power, for example).

Decisions can have spatial impacts or externalities (as when emissions from industrial
processes affect forests far away from a factory); decisions made based on private
5
This paper does not seek to establish specific baselines or monitoring measures for the biodiversity
Millennium Development Goal. That work poses specific methodological challenges and was not
anticipated at the time of the concept review. It would need to be the subject of separate analytical work.
6
Sustainable management has many definitions. This paper uses one based on the World Commission on
Environment and Development’s 1987 definition: managing natural resources for the benefit of present-day
users without harming the potential for future generations also to benefit from them.
15
profitability can have unintended external impacts that would not be captured by
traditional financial analysis.

Decisions have inter-temporal impacts (forests are often managed according to 100- or
even 120-year cycles); this time dimension renders conventional approaches to economic
analysis that discount future values inadequate for decisionmaking.

Ecosystems and species have “existence” values that are hard to quantify but that can be
irreversibly damaged or destroyed. Furthermore, markets do not generally exist for these
values, though they may critically affect human well-being. (Rust-resistant wheat strains
or naturally occurring organisms used in the manufacture of medicines are examples.)
27.
These four features are often used to demonstrate the “public good” element of
biodiversity conservation and the need for public intervention as well as market-based
instruments for sound management.
28.
Since sound biodiversity conservation and use require public intervention, they are also
linked to a third priority area for the Region: strengthened public institutions and public resource
management. And since sound conservation management requires a high level of commitment
from local communities as well as public and private agencies, biodiversity management is linked
with two additional focal areas of the transition agenda: strengthened civil society and community
institutions and transparency, accountability, and reduced corruption.
Box 1. What Is Biodiversity and What Is It Worth?
Biodiversity is the sum total of the variability and biological processes of all organisms. Its
level of organization includes genes, populations, species, habitats, and ecosystems and the
processes that support them. In contrast, biological resources are individual elements of
biodiversity, like genes or species. Agrobiodiversity is any component of biodiversity that has
potential impact on environmental sustainability of agricultural systems. Components of
agrobiodiversity include plant and animal species, varieties, breeds, wild ancestors of crops,
forage, and trees. Soil flora and fauna are also integral parts of agrobiodiversity.
Biodiversity conservation is not just an exercise in protecting nature or an impediment to
economic development. On the contrary, biodiversity conservation underpins sustainable
economic development as well as helping to address social needs and safeguard
environmental services. People use biodiversity directly, as food, fuel, textiles, and drug
compounds, and benefit from it indirectly through its roles in ecological services such as
nutrient cycling and climate regulation. Two characteristics of biodiversity make it difficult to
set priorities on and justify investments in its proper management and protection. First, for
most biodiversity goods and services there is no market that can be used to determine cost or
price, and estimating these and quantifying the economic and financial costs of its
degradation and disappearance are extremely difficult. Second, overexploited ecosystems
(such as an overharvested forest) take decades to regenerate, and therefore conventional
economic discounting methods are not adequate instruments for making investment or
management decisions.
Efforts to value biodiversity have suggested its enormous economic importance. One estimate
of the gross value of the world’s ecosystem services is US$16–58 trillion annually (compared
16
with a global GDP of about US$43 trillion).7 Nonetheless, natural habitats continue to be
converted to developed uses at an unsustainable rate. Is this because the economic value of
converted habitats is higher than natural ones? A recent review concluded that the loss of
ecosystem services from the conversion of natural habitats to agriculture, aquaculture, and
forestry was greater than the financial benefit of the conversion. Why does conversion of
natural habitats continue? The principal cause is market failure, because the benefits of
ecosystem services are “externalities” (not quantified and not marketed) and their loss is not
the concern of those who would gain the immediate private benefits (as opposed to public or
global benefits). Another element of market failure is that the private benefits from habitat
conversion and overuse are often exaggerated by government-sponsored incentives and
subsidies (such as tax breaks or public-sector financing).8
1.3
Key Biodiversity Challenges in the ECA Region
29.
The challenges in biodiversity conservation management in the ECA Region differ from
those in many other parts of the world, and these challenges are linked to the experience of the
transition. Many ECA countries have a strong tradition of protected area management, and some
have also incorporated the concept of landscape conservation into broader management of land,
water, and forest resources. Approaches to protected area management differed. In Central
Europe, the Former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Turkey, protected areas were managed along
traditions similar to those in Western Europe, with settlements and some economic activity in
these areas. The Former Soviet Union countries had a network of protection categories that
included strict protection. In general, however, there was also a tradition of public access to the
countryside. As in many western industrial countries, in most arable land areas there was little
attention to biodiversity considerations.
30.
The first years of transition saw a deterioration in the institutions and financing
mechanisms for conservation management, both in production and in the protected area
landscape. Increasing poverty combined with a breakdown in law and order led to pressure on
natural resources in many countries from poaching and illegal harvesting. It is estimated that
Tajikistan and Armenia have both lost more than 10 percent of their forest cover since 1990,
while in the early 1990s the population of the endangered Siberian tiger fell to about 200, one
third of its level in the 1980s.
31.
A challenge in Former Soviet Union countries was that the protected area regime focused
on strict protection with insufficient attention to the development of sustainable use mechanisms.
Protected area management staff carried out research and did not have much experience in
working with local populations on sustainable use practices. In societies with strong police
enforcement and without much “activism” by local communities, this approach did ensure
biodiversity conservation. It has not proved sustainable, however, in the newly emerging
democracies, where “enforcement” approaches have weakened but have not yet been replaced by
approaches based on stakeholder consensus. Civil society organizations during the 1990s have
also been developing, and many have focused so far more on advocacy than on fundraising for
conservation or on working with local communities on land use practices that combine
conservation management with sustainable development.
R. Costanza et al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital,” Nature 387
(1997): 253–59.
8
A. Balmford et al., “Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature,” Science 297 (2002): 950–53.
7
17
32.
Hastily implemented land privatization, land fragmentation, and lack of access to finance
or technologies for sustainable land management also contributed to poor management of
biological resources on farmland and pastures. Pastureland in particular has faced a management
vacuum. In some cases, where responsibility for management has been transferred to financially
strapped local authorities, grazing of animals has been allowed well beyond carrying capacity in
order to maximize revenues. Privatization of forestlands in Southeast Europe has also been
problematic; forest owners typically receive small areas, less than 1 hectare, and have no
experience in forest management. Former collective farm forests have also frequently faced a
management vacuum. Declining resources for fire and pest management have led to loss of
fragile ecosystems as well as of commercially valuable forest land
33.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, much of the state support for natural
resources management and for biodiversity protection, particularly for the network of strict nature
reserves and off-site collections of plant genetic resources, declined dramatically and in some
cases collapsed entirely. The transition period has led to disarray over mandates and governance
regarding conservation, due to a lack of resources to pay salaries and upkeep of facilities. Such
setbacks reflect a general decline in government capacity to deliver the full range of social and
economic services.
34.
Techniques for “biodiversity valuation” (see Box 1) need to be better developed and
applied in decisionmaking on land and resource uses in ECA, and new markets need to be created
for biodiversity values and products.
35.
The ECA Region contains a network of valuable genebanks, many threatened by erratic
funding for maintenance and staff or for further collections and scientific work. Chronic budget
shortfalls over the last decade are undermining one of the world’s oldest genebanks—the Vavilov
Institute (then the All-Union Institute of Applied Botany and New Crops) was established in
1924, before similar institutions were established in Western Europe or North America.9 It
contains one of the largest collections of seed crops and their near relatives (over 300,000
accessions, representing 2,000 species), and survived World War II intact because loyal staff
refused to eat the precious “seed corn” while the city was under siege. The Vavilov genebank
served as the hub in a network of genebanks in the former Soviet Union, but now that cohesion
and coordination has broken down. Many former satellite genebanks in the ECA Region are also
threatened.
1.4
Organization of the Report
36.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the biodiversity of the Region, describing the main
ecosystems and their functions. Chapter 3 reviews the experience of Bank lending and nonlending
to improved conservation management over the last 10 years, and draws out the main lessons.
And Chapter 4 provides a strategy for future assistance in the light of these lessons, including
major themes, areas of focus by sub-region, and implementation and monitoring mechanisms.
9
Igor G. Loskutov, Vavilov and His Institute (Rome: International Plant Genetics Research Institute: 1999).
18
CHAPTER 2. BIODIVERSITY: STATUS AND TRENDS IN
THE REGION
37.
This chapter provides a brief overview of biodiversity (ecosystem, species, and genetic
levels) of the ECA Region, describes major threats, and summarizes conservation activities,
including the management of protected natural areas.
38.
The Region is characterized by great geographic and biological diversity. It covers 17
percent of the world’s land area and possesses 23 percent of its forests and 12 percent of its
freshwater resources. Species diversity is lower than in the tropics, but ecosystem and habitat
diversity remain high due to the significant variation in geographic characteristics and to the
immense size of the Region, its geological history, and its changing landscapes—a unique
combination of mountains and plains and diverse climatic conditions.
39.
Lying within the Palaeoarctic Realm, the Region includes the world’s largest contiguous
steppe and intact forest ecosystems; five seas (Aral, Baltic, Black, Caspian, and Lake Baikal),
with a combined area of 1.3 million square kilometers; and 21 major mountain chains. It includes
altitudes of 132 meters below sea level in western Kazakhstan to peaks greater than 7,000 meters
in the Pamir and Tien Shan Mountains of Central Asia.
40.
Map 1 (Terrestrial Ecosystems Map) shows the Region’s highly diverse 89 terrestrial
ecosystems, from tundra in the far north to deserts in the south, with forests and steppe
(grasslands) in between. These ecosystems, many of which are waiting to be adequately described
and have their conservation status determined, support a large number of habitats and an
impressive range of species, with 87 vertebrates and 129 higher plants being endangered or
vulnerable.
41.
A number of ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia are recognized internationally as
sites of global importance for conservation of biodiversity because of their highly distinctive and
ecological processes. These sites have been determined to be some of the richest, rarest, and most
biologically important and outstanding examples of the world’s diverse habitats and are included
in the Global 200 ecoregion priority setting exercise of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
In the ECA Region, 15 terrestrial, 7 freshwater, and 5 marine ecoregions are included, many
subject to rapid loss and threats to their integrity (see Map 2).
42.
Estimates of the number of species and endemic species for the ECA Region are shown
in Annex 1. Russia holds some of the world’s most important repositories of biological
diversity—with more than 1,300 vertebrate species and more than 11,400 plant species. Central
Asia, with its long agricultural history and cultural diversity, has been designated a center for
crop genetic diversity; animal genetic diversity (wild and domestic) is also significant.
19
2.1
Biodiversity in ECA’s Subregions
43.
For convenience, the ECA Region may be divided into six geographic regions:






Russian Federation
Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine
Central Europe and the Baltics (Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovenia,
Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia)
Romania and the Balkans (Albania, Bosnia–Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia,
Serbia and Montenegro)
Turkey and the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia)
Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and the Kyrgyz
Republic)
Russian Federation
44.
Russia is the largest
country in the world, covering
17 million square kilometers—
7,000 kilometers from east to
west—and spanning 11 time
zones. The climate ranges from
arctic to temperate to
subtropical. Russia has 18 out
of the 26 global priority areas of
the ECA Region (out of 200
priority areas worldwide).
45.
Although temperate and
savanna ecosystems do not have as many species as the tropics do, Russia’s sheer size makes it
one of the most important countries in terms of number of species: an estimated 11,400 species of
vascular plants, 269 mammals, 628 birds, 58 reptiles, 41 amphibian species, almost 400 species
of coastal sea fish, and 290 freshwater fish. Of the 11,400 plant species, 1,363 have known social
or economic importance, including 1,103 species that are used in scientific and traditional folk
medicine and 350 as food.10 The dominant biodiversity features of the Region are as follows.
Mountain and Forest Ecosystems. Russia has 22 percent of the world's total forest area (7.6
million square kilomenters), which accounts for 15 percent of the world’s terrestrial carbon
pool. Its forests fall into three broad groups (see Map 1): the taiga forests of larch and spruce
at higher latitudes and the coniferous forests of the Altai-Sayan and the Far East regions; the
mixed forests coniferous and deciduous forests of northwestern Russia, the Caucasus, and the
Far East; and the subtropical forests along the Black Sea.
Seven of Russia’s forest ecosystems are WWF Global 200 priority areas (see Map 2),
including:
 The birch forests in the Scandinavian Caledonides Mountain on the Barents Sea
10
A. Tishkov, “Biodiversity,” in CD-ROM Land Resources of Russia, 2002.
20



The taiga forests in three areas: in the Ural Mountains, which serve as the dividing
line of the “European Russia” and “Asian Russia”; in eastern Siberia, which forms
the largest wilderness in the world, covering about one-fourth of Russia; and on the
Kamchatka Peninsula in northwestern Russia
The mixed forest, steppe, and meadow ecosystem of the Altai Sayan in the Siberian
mountains in the transborder region of Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and China—
this is one of the world centers of plant diversity, with more than 800 forest plant
species and over 200 species of rare and endemic plants
The broadleaf and pine forests of the Far East, at the southeastern tip of Russia,
which are critical habitat for the Amur tiger, one of five remaining subspecies of
tigers worldwide
Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems. Russia has the richest wetland resources in
the world, with 120,000 rivers, 2 million lakes, and over 500 million hectares of wetlands of
various types. In addition to their high importance for biodiversity, these wetland ecosystems
play an important part in landscape stabilization, cleaning of pollutants from waterways, and
traditional land and resource uses by communities. Four of its freshwater ecosystems and
three of its marine ecosystems are WWF Global 200 priority areas: the Volga and Lena River
Deltas; the Russian East Rivers and wetlands; Lake Baikal (see Box 2); and the Bering,
Okhotsk, and Barents-Kara Seas. The 86,000-square-kilometer Volga Delta is the most
important, with its dense net of small rivers and small islands and its function as the world's
center of sturgeon biodiversity. The Volga Delta is used by 10–20 million migratory birds
each year. Russia’s 35 top wetlands of international importance support an estimated 35
million waterfowl annually.11 Russia possesses enormous renewable freshwater resources:
4,312 cubic kilometers , more than four times the rest of the other ECA countries combined.
The majority of these water resources are in remote areas, and less than 2 percent are used by
people. The threats to these ecosystems are pollution (industrial and municipal) and impacts
on fisheries, including the valuable sturgeon fisheries in the Volga and Caspian. The increase
in oil and gas extraction activities makes creation of protected areas on the Barents Sea coast,
the Chuckchee Sea, and parts of the Caspian Sea an urgent priority.
Steppe. The Russian steppe has been largely transformed by plowing for crop production and
intensive grazing, mining, and habitat fragmentation as a result of pipelines, roadways, and so
on. One of the best remaining steppe ecosystems is the Daurian Steppe ecoregion, a highly
diverse and undisturbed grassland that occupies the transborder region of China, Mongolia,
and Russia. Among the species supported by this ecosystem are six species of cranes—the
Siberian, Manchurian, hooded, white-naped, common, and demoiselle.
46.
Russia has a well-developed protected area network at the federal and regional levels,
covering 58 million hectares, or 3.1 percent of total land area. Although management has come
under pressure with a decrease in financing following the economic crisis, a great deal of progress
has been made to engage the local population in conservation management; at the same time, a
great deal still remains to be done.
Box 2. Lake Baikal: A Priority Target for Conservation
Lake Baikal is of global importance for biodiversity. At 30 million years of age, it is the
planet’s oldest lake, the deepest (at 1,637 meters), and one of the largest (at 31,500 square
kilometers). It contains 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, sustaining 2,600 species of
11
O. Morozova and A. Tishkov, “Wetland Ecosystems,” in CD-ROM Land Resources of Russia, 2002.
21
plants and animals, two-thirds of which are endemic. Underwater “reefs” of giant sponges, a
unique biological phenomenon, support a great diversity of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and
other invertebrates. Several large endemic fish inhabit the waters and form part of the prey of
the endemic Baikal seal, the only landlocked seal species in the world. The diversity of
adjacent landscapes—from alpine tundra and mountain and boreal coniferous forests to
steppe and semi-desert—together with the lake itself, constitute an area of exceptional
biological diversity, with 800 species of vascular plants and more than 200 species of
terrestrial vertebrates. The Baikal watersheds have a small human population, so pressure
from economic activities is less than in many other lake regions.
Nevertheless, there are threats from pulp, aluminum, and other industrial enterprises that
dump pollutants into the lake via its tributaries. Forest clearance, fires, agriculture, and
grazing also pose significant threats. Consequently, Lake Baikal is included in the Global
200 list of ecoregions requiring priority conservation efforts.
Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine
47.
This subregion has an area of 0.82
million square kilometers and a population
of 64 million. Most of the region lies
between 100 and 300 meters in elevation,
with maximum elevations a modest 2,061
meters in the Ukrainian Carpathians and
1,542 meters in the mountains of southern
Crimea. The steppe region in southern
Ukraine and Moldova has been under
cultivation for millennia, and forest cover
has declined the greatest in Moldova, the
least in Belarus, and an intermediate amount
in Ukraine. The dominant biodiversity
features of the region are as follows.
Forest Ecosystems. Forest covers
170,000 square kilometers, about 20
percent of the region. Belarus is the most forested (35 percent) and Moldova is the least (10
percent). Forests were heavily cut during and after World War II, and there have been
extensive reforestation programs since then. Many of the forests are relatively young. Some
old-growth forests are still found in the Ukraine Carpathian Mountains, and support for their
conservation was one of the first Bank projects in the region.12 An estimated 6 million
hectares of forests in northern Ukraine and southern Belarus are still radioactive as a result of
the Chernobyl disaster. Radioactivity is expected to adversely affect genetic diversity, but this
is not yet well understood. At the same time, wildlife such as moose, roe deer, boar, and otter
have increased in the contaminated zone where human use has been discontinued or greatly
curtailed.13 The richest plant diversity is found in the Carpathian Mountains and Crimea
12
The Ukraine Transcarpathian Biodiversity Project (Bank/GEF, US$500,000) supported establishment of
a trilateral biosphere reserve to protect old-growth forests in the transborder region of Ukraine, Poland, and
the Slovak Republic.
13
R. J. Baker and R. K. Chesser, “The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster and Subsequent Creation of a Wildlife
Preserve,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(5): 1231–32 (2000).
22
(2,012 and 2,200 vascular plants, respectively), and both are recognized as biodiversity
hotspots under the WWF Global 200 priority areas program. The old-growth European and
Mediterranean forests of southern Crimea are under severe fire threat. Other critically
important forests in the region include the ancient lowland forests of Belovezhskaya in
Belarus, which is shared with Poland (there called the Bialowieza), and the beech and oak
forests of the Codrii plateau in Moldova, covering 15 percent of the country’s forests.
Steppe Ecosystems. The steppe found in the southern part of the region and along the main
rivers (the Danube, Dniester, Dniepr, and Bug) represents the western limit the of the great
Eurasian steppe that stretches from the Black Sea to Central Asia and Mongolia. The plant
diversity in this ecosystem is especially rich, with more than 600 species, mainly
Mediterranean grasses and sagebrush; many of these species have medicinal uses. Steppe is
Ukraine and Moldova’s most endangered habitat.
Wetlands. The subregion is exceptionally rich in aquatic biodiversity. The southern part of
the region contains Europe’s largest complex of wetlands, which are associated with the
Black Sea and its main rivers. The focal areas include sites such as the Sivash—2,500 square
kilometers of shallow fresh and salt water communities and mudflats in northern Crimea
where the Black and Azov Seas intergrade—and the Danube delta, a 564,000-hectare reedbed
delta (about 25 percent in Ukraine and the rest in Romania) rich in birdlife and one of the
WWF Global 200. The Danube delta has been a source of natural resources and income to
human populations for over 500 years. Over the last 50 years, fish harvests have declined
significantly as a result of habitat loss and degradation, changes in Black Sea ecology as a
result of its eutrophication, and unsustainable harvesting. Two early biodiversity projects in
the region were Global Environment Facility (GEF) grants for biodiversity conservation and
use in the Ukraine and Romania Danube Delta biosphere reserves, which financed several
successful sustainable development activities. In the northern part of the region are the
Polessie wetlands of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.
Regional Seas. Ukraine and Moldova are included in the Black Sea Basin, and Ukraine
contains about 40 percent of the Black Sea’s coastline. Belarus lies in the basins of both the
Baltic and the Black Seas. The coastal wetlands of the Black Sea cover about 10,000 square
kilometers and provide important habitat for many rare and commercially valuable fish
species, including six species of sturgeon, four of which are endangered. The Black Sea fauna
contains 160 species of fish and four marine mammals (one seal and three dolphins), all of
which are either endangered or declining in numbers. Fisheries have collapsed over the last
decade as a result of habitat degradation and loss and of overfishing in the past. Additional
related problems for Black Sea biodiversity include pollution from point sources (municipal
wastewater, industry, and shipping) and non-point sources (agricultural runoff) and the
conversion of wetlands to agricultural lands, although state financing for habitat conversion is
much lower today than before the transition. The Danube River carries discharges from 10
riparian countries along its 2,700 kilometers and accounts for 50 percent of the nutrient
pollution load flowing into the Black Sea. Spawning grounds for fisheries are concentrated in
the shallow northwestern continental shelf. Reduction of nutrient flows into the Black Seas
has been identified as the highest priority for restoring its ecosystems. Balancing coastal zone
management with tourism, shipping, industry, urban development, and ecosystem
conservation has been difficult.
48.
The protected area systems in Ukraine and Belarus are well established, covering 4.1
percent of total land area in Belarus and 1.6 percent in Ukraine. The protected area network in
Moldova covers 1.2 percent. Ukraine’s priorities for improving its protected area network are in
23
the Carpathian Mountain forest ecosystems, the wetland and marine ecosystems on the Black and
Azov Seas, and the wetlands and forests of polessie wetlands in northern Ukraine. The polessie
wetlands also range into southern Belarus, and increasing their area under protection is a
conservation priority there. In Moldova, a national protected area network plan has been prepared
that calls for new protected areas throughout the country. A Bank/GEF medium-sized project is
assisting with one of Moldova’s conservation priorities: establishment of a national park in the
Lower Dniester River to protect globally significant wetlands and riparian forests. In all three
countries, there is inadequate funding for maintaining the protected area system.
Central Europe and the Baltics
49.
The total land area of this subregion is 710,000 square kilometers, about 2.9 percent of
ECA’s land area. It is mostly lowland and rich in biodiversity, especially in its extensive wetland
and forest ecosystems.
50.
The terrain is flat and heavily
forested over much of the subregion, with
extensive wetlands along the Baltic Sea.
The mountains include the Alps in
Slovenia, the Carpathians (which extend
from Slovakia and southern Poland to the
Tatra and Krkonose Mountains of
Slovakia and the Czech Republic,
respectively), and the Sumava mountains
of western Czech Republic. These
mountain forests are designated as a
Global 200 Priority Area by WWF.
Forest Ecosystems. The forests are mixed deciduous and conifer, with dominant species of
beech, pine, oak, and hornbeam. The Bialowieza Forest in eastern Poland, together with the
contiguous Belovezhskaya forest in Belarus, is the largest ancient lowland forest in Europe,
with stands of primeval forest (never harvested) and old-growth forest that serve as refuge for
certain plant and animal species that have been eliminated from or greatly diminished in other
places. In addition to its biodiversity values, the Bialowieza is a natural laboratory for studies
on sustainable forest management, ethnobotany and traditional uses, and individual species,
such as the European bison. There is a tradition of public access to forests in all of these
countries, and they are widely used for recreation, including hunting and the gathering of
mushrooms and berries. There are established game management regimes.
Wetlands. The wetlands along the Baltic coastline are also of biodiversity significance, and
the coastal areas and wetlands of Latvia play a critical role by providing habitats for large
numbers of migrant of bird species. Wetland and coastal ecosystems include the Mazurian
Lakes in northeast Poland, and the Gulf of Riga and Irbe Strait in Latvia. These are rich
habitats for breeding and migrating waterfowl and an array of aquatic life, especially in
Latvia, which still has extensive, almost untouched shorelines and is home to over 2 million
birds in the autumn and winter. Meadow ecosystems were once extensive in Lithuania,
covering 20 percent of the land area in the 1950s; since then, most have been transformed
into collective farms, and some are now abandoned.
24
These countries have well-established protected area systems covering 11 percent of the
subregion. In the Baltics and Poland, the threats to protected areas come from polluted water
(damaging aquatic ecosystems) and poorly managed tourist development along the coasts.
Romania and the Balkans
51.
This subregion covers 640,000 square kilometers: 370,000 square kilometers in the six
Balkan republics (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, and
Montenegro) and 270,000 square kilometers in Romania. The area is dominated by rugged
mountains, with scattered fertile valleys, and by coastal planes in Bulgaria (on the Black Sea),
Croatia and Albania (on the Adriatic), and Romania (along the Danube River and Black Sea). The
mountain ranges are complex, and include the Carpathians (Romania), the Balkan and Rhodope
Mountains (Bulgaria and Macedonia), the Dinaric (Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina), and the
Pindus and Albanian Alps (Albania). The Dinaric Mountains contain limestone karst ecosystems,
with caves and sinkholes that are especially important for aquatic biodiversity. Forest and aquatic
biodiversity values are high in the subregion. The Balkans acted as a refugium during the last Ice
Age, and therefore fish and plant species diversity is much higher than in northern Europe. The
forests are a mixture of European mixed forests and, on the peninsula, drier Mediterranean forests
with garrigue and maquis (shrubs). Up to 35 percent of the flora is endemic to the subregion.
52.
Albania contains an enormous richness of biological diversity for its size: some 30
percent of Europe’s plant species and 42 percent of its mammals. Serbia and Montenegro
represents only 1 percent of the land area in Europe but has over 20 percent of Europe’s species
of plants, amphibians, and reptiles. Croatia ranks second in Europe for the number of fish species,
and Bulgaria possesses a diversity of plant and animal communities. The karst ecosystems of
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina contain many endemic, rare, and threatened and relict species.
53.
In Bulgaria, forest land restitution programs are being implemented. In Albania, forests
and rangeland are also a direct source of livelihood for poor rural populations. The recreational
value of the mountains and shorelines is high. The coastlines of Croatia and Albania are of
outstanding natural beauty. Coastal land use planning in Croatia has generally found a good
balance between development and conservation, but Albania’s coastal biodiversity is threatened
by unmanaged growth. Bulgaria's coastline is also a tourist attraction. Parts are heavily
industrialized, but there is progress in developing coastal land use planning with conservation of
natural habitat.
Turkey and the Caucasus
54.
This subregion, with
an area of about 950,000
square kilometers and a
population of 80 million, is a
biodiversity hotspot; it
contains four globally
significant forest and aquatic
ecoregions that are included in
the WWF Global 200 priority
areas. The subregion is
mountainous, with elevations
averaging over 1,000 meters
and mountains of the Greater
25
Caucasus rising to over 5,000 meters. Georgia and Azerbaijan have important coastal and marine
ecosystems on the Black and Caspian Seas, respectively, and Turkey has over 6,200 kilometers of
shoreline along its four coasts (the Black, Marmara, Aegean, and Mediterranean Seas). The
ecosystems are the most diverse in ECA, due to the fact that the subregion lies at the crossroads
of three biogeographic provinces: Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. The main
ecosystems of the region are as follows:
Forest and Mountain Ecosystems. The mountain and forest ecosystems of the Caucasus and
Central Asia are the most diverse in ECA. In Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, forest
ecosystems cover only about 12 percent of the countries; in Georgia, they cover 43 percent.
The forest ecosystems have remarkably high levels of endemism, and the two main ones are
Global 200 priority ecoregions: the forests of the Caucasus and northern Turkey and the
Mediterranean forests, woodlands and maquis (shrub) ecosystem that covers much of Turkey.
The mountains contain wild tree relatives of horticultural species such as Caucasian pear
(Pyrus caucasicum) and Oriental apple (Malus orientalis). The challenge in the Caucasus is
to conserve and use the forest biodiversity sustainably while meeting the increasing
requirements for timber for economic growth, in a context of acute poverty and poor law
enforcement. In Armenia, with rising fossil fuel prices, fuelwood now accounts for 50 percent
of household energy use. Participatory approaches to improving watershed management have
been used successfully to increase incomes in poor areas of rural Turkey, and they hold
promise for the Caucasus.
Steppe. Mountain and lowland steppes are a major landscape feature of the region,
accounting for up to 65 percent of the Armenian landscape, 27 percent of Turkey, and 25
percent of Azerbaijan and Georgia. These provide important wildlife habitat, such as for wild
sheep and goats at higher elevations and gazelle at lower elevations, as well as for sheep and
other domestic livestock. Grassland communities also contain wild ancestors of crop species,
many of which are endemic to the region. Grasslands of the region have been heavily
overgrazed by sheep, and the problem remains serious locally. Restoring a semblance of
sustainable use in this area is the main challenge for steppe biodiversity.
Wetland and Marine Ecosystems. As noted earlier, Georgia and Azerbaijan have important
coastal and marine ecosystems, and Turkey has more than 6,000 kilometers of shoreline. In
Georgia and Azerbaijan, the critical wetlands are found on the Black and Caspian Seas. In
Georgia, the Kolkheti wetlands, a Ramsar site (wetlands of high international significance)
that contains a mosaic of sphagnum and reedbed marshes and humid forests; it provides
critical habitat for nearly 400 species of migratory and wintering birds.
Regional Seas. The region has the Caspian and the Black Seas, although both are also in
other subregions (the Caspian Sea is also in Central Asia and the Black Sea is in the Ukraine,
Moldova, and Belarus subregion). The Caspian contains about 115 fish species, including
seven sturgeon species, which represents 90 percent of the world gene pool of these species.
The Black Sea contains 160 fish species. In both the Caspian and Black Seas, sustainable
fisheries, especially of sturgeon, are a major issue. The fisheries industries in both seas have
collapsed during the transition; weakened governance and oversight of the industry have
contributed to this situation. The Black Sea has also suffered from pollution and overfishing.
The fishing fleet has been overdeveloped, and regional agreements on fisheries management
have made little progress. Important for Turkey is management of urbanization and tourist
development, as the economy continues to develop rapidly, while in Georgia, protecting
coastal wetlands from oil transit-related impacts is a major concern.
26
Agrobiodiversity. Turkey and the Caucasus are exceptionally rich in agrobiodiversity. They
contain wild relatives of domestic food plants such as wild rye, wheat, barley, lentil, millet,
pear, cherry, pistachio, and over 200 varieties of grapes. Armenia and Azerbaijan are also
rich in medicinal plants. Current efforts to support the conservation and use of these
resources, mainly on site but also in gene banks and live collections, are inadequate.
55.
The Caucasus have a well-developed protected area system, covering 5.5 percent of the
land area in Azerbaijan and 7.4 percent in Armenia. Only 2.7 percent of Georgian territory is
managed as nature reserves; the area legally protected was once much larger, since most forests
were managed for protection, and several projects are under way to improve this situation,
including two Bank/GEF projects: the Protected Areas Development Project and the Forests
Development Project. In contrast, in Turkey, only 1.4 percent of total land area is under
protection. Efforts are being make to improve the protected area network of the Caucasus and to
build linkages among the protected areas through the use of conservation corridors and other
methods.14 There are also plans to increase protected areas in Turkey. Considerable international
assistance will be needed for all these efforts.
Central Asia
56.
The Central Asian Republics
cover 3.9 million square kilometers, about
16 percent of ECA’s land area, and have a
population of 56 million people. The
region is arid and water-scarce, with
rainfall averaging only 100 millimeters
annually in the Aral Sea Basin, rising to
400 millimeters in the Kyrgyz Republic
and Tajikistan and to more than 1,000
millimeters in the mountains. Despite the
arid climate, there are rich and varied
ecosystems, in particular steppes and
deserts, mountain ecosystems, and
regional seas (Caspian and Aral). The predominant biodiversity issues for this subregion are
natural resource degradation through overuse—in particular, steppe and forest ecosystems and
fisheries of the Caspian Sea, desertification, water resources management and the decline of the
Aral Sea, and the inadequacy of the protected area network. The dominant biodiversity features of
the region are as follows:
Steppe and Desert Ecosystems. Central Asia has the largest continuous area of steppe in the
world (Map 3) and the highest diversity of plant and animal species. There are more than 250
distinctive types of steppe communities, but overall steppe is dominated by grass species
belonging to the genera Stipa, Festuca, and Agropyron and by sagebrush species (Artemesia).
The steppe ecosystems grade into semi-desert and desert ecosystems throughout the region,
which include saksaul (Haloxylon sp) forests. About 90 percent of the steppe that occurred on
rich (chernozem and chestnut) soils was plowed under the Virgin Lands Program in the
1950s, and much of this remaining steppe occurs in fragments distributed throughout the
region, which reduces its biodiversity value. Rare and endangered wildlife that occur in parts
of these ecosystems include saiga antelope (see Box 3), gazelle, kulan (a type of wild horse),
14
World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Biodiversity of the Caucasus Ecoregion. An Analysis of Biodiversity
and Current Threats and Initial Investment Portfolio (Gland, Switzerland: 2001), 132 pp.
27
rare species of wildcats (possibly including the Asiatic cheetah), and birds such as the
Houbara bustard.
Mountain Ecosystems and Forests. The three main mountain systems are the Altai Sayan,
the Tien Shan, and the Pamirs. The Altai Sayan lie in the transborder region of Russia,
Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and China and at the transition zone between the Northern Taiga, the
Altai mountains, and Central Asian deserts. The area is one of the world centers of plant
diversity, with more than 800 forest plant species and over 200 species of rare and endemic
plants. It is also culturally diverse, with 20 indigenous ethnic groups. The Tian Shan stretch
2,500 kilometers across the region, and its western reaches are shared by Kazakhstan, the
Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan. The Pamirs form the southern border, in Tajikistan. All
three have globally significant biodiversity, with endangered populations of mountain sheep
and goats (such as argali, bezoar goats, and marhor) and snow leopard. Forest and montane
ecosystems in the southeast of the region include an array of species, including wild relatives
of commercially important species such as tulips, apples, walnuts, and apricots and medicinal
plants. The mountains are widely used for animal grazing.
The Central Asia region is forest-poor, with forests covering only 4.3 percent of the land area.
Because of its vast size, however, Kazakhstan has 105,000 square kilometers of forest, the
largest in the region after Russia and Turkey. Forests in eastern Kazakhstan include a rich
variety of pines and coniferous species, accounting for 50 percent of forested area in the
country. Turkmenistan is the only country that has no true forestland (canopy cover), but the
landscape is dotted with saksaul trees/bushes. The forests of the subregion are important for
protection of watersheds, vegetative cover, ecosystems conservation, and local livelihoods
rather than for timber production. Freshwater wetlands, previously a refuge for a wide variety
of mammalian and bird species, are either becoming saline or are used as irrigated land,
thereby decreasing the buffer capacity of the upper watersheds and increasing the risk of
floods.
Tugai or Desert Riparian Forests. These forest communities are developed along the
region’s main rivers, including the Amu Darya, Syr Darya, Irtysh, and Naryn Rivers, as well
as lakes and other water bodies (see Box 4). At lower altitudes, the tugai consists of desert
willow and other riverside forests, and also meadows and reeds. Over the last 50 years, this
ecosystem has declined dramatically as a result of tree cutting and water management
practices (diversion for agriculture and changes in flooding patterns).
Box 3. Tugai: An Endangered Riparian Ecosystem in Central Asia
One of the ECA Region’s keystone ecosystems, upon which many species and other
ecosystems depend, is the tugai forests in Central Asia. Tugai is a special type of riparian forest
that is widespread in the floodplains and valleys of the desert region. With its diverse stands of
poplar and willow trees and shrubs of various genera such as Tamarix, Elaeagnus, and
Hippophae, along with a patchwork of tall reedgrass communities and grassland clearings, the
tugai are oases for many resident and migratory wildlife species. They are also a resource of
great value for water and soil conservation.
The tugai forest represents the rich and long evolutionary history of the Central Asia desert
landscape and is composed of diverse species of poplar and willow trees and of tall grass
clearings. Over millions of years, the desert vegetation developed highly specialized
adaptations to the harsh conditions. In general, tugais are represented by narrow strips and
separate areas along the desert river valleys and serve as important corridors for wildlife. One
28
of Central Asia’s rare and endangered animal species that was a key component of the tugai
ecosystem is the Bukhara deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus). Habitat destruction and hunting
have greatly reduced the deer population, and those remaining are threatened by the loss of
tugai upon which they depend. Other important wildlife found in tugai include badger (Meles
meles), marble polecat (Vormela peregusna), goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), and
hyena (Hyaena hyaena).
Because tugai occur in the most fertile lands available for irrigation, they have been largely
converted to agricultural lands. The remaining areas of tugai (even under the protection of
nature reserves) suffer from logging, grazing, cultivation of hayfields, and collection of
medicinal plants. Destruction of tugai forests leads to an increase in river flow fluctuations, soil
erosion, and loss of farmland. Additionally, regulation of water flow by dams leads to
interrupted successional processes. Some restoration work is being undertaken in the lower Syr
Darya, but a comprehensive program is needed to restore and conserve the tugai, especially
along the greater Amu Darya River.
Regional Seas and Lakes. The Aral Sea and important lakes such as Issyk-Kul, Sasykkol,
Alakol, Zaisan, Tengiz, and Karakul provide important habitat for many endemic species and
migratory waterbirds. The area near the Aral Sea, as well as the deltas and river valleys of the
Amu Darya and Syr Darya that feed the sea, contain globally significant wetlands that are
severely degraded by excessive diversions of river water for irrigation. The reduction of the
Aral Sea, from 67,000 to 30,000 square kilometers, and a rise in salinity have led to collapse
of the fisheries and the dessication of the river delta wetlands, which were once globally
significant ecosystems. This has adversely affected the livelihoods of 3.5 million people
living around the sea.
57.
The protected area network in Central Asia covers 2.9 percent of the region, and ranges
from 2 percent of land area in Uzbekistan to 4.2 percent in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Steppe
and desert ecosystems are severely underrepresented in the protected area network. Also, many of
the protected areas are “paper parks” due to weak or nonexistent financial support for their
management.
Box 4. Saiga Antelope: The Keystone Species of the Central Asia Steppe
The annual migration of the saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) from their winter ranges to their
traditional birthing grounds on the central Asian steppes is an event that reveals one of Earth’s
outstanding ecological spectacles. The saiga is the premier herbivore in the Central Asian
steppe and desert ecosystems, and its history parallels that of the wild buffalo in North America
in the late 1800s. The saiga found in Kazakhstan and southern Russia once ranged from the
Black Sea in Ukraine to western Mongolia. The mass migration of millions of saiga took place
until the last century, but by the early twentieth century, habitat loss, fragmentation, and
overhunting reduced the saiga to near extinction.
From the 1930s, following a ban on hunting and a campaign against contraband smuggling of
saiga horns, saiga began to recover. In the late 1950s, with commercial hunting regulated,
saiga numbers begin increasing and by 1990 the population was estimated at 800,000–900,000
animals. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, illegal hunting of saiga for its horns, which are
used in traditional Chinese medicine, has increased greatly and the population has declined
dramatically—now down to only about 50,000, a 90-percent decrease over the last 10 years.
29
The saiga is now considered critically endangered and is on the World Conservation Union–
IUCN Red List of species in danger of extinction.
The subspecies in Kazakhstan and Russia, Saiga tatarica tatarica, now has only four
populations—three of them in Kazakhstan and the fourth in the Autonomous Republic of
Kalmykia. In Kazakhstan, the saiga populations are the Ural population, north of the Caspian
Sea; the Ustiurt population, between the Caspian and Aral Seas; and the Betpak-dala
population, north and east of the Aral Sea. The Kazakhstan populations make up more than 80
percent of total saiga numbers.
The continuation of the saiga antelope migration, one of the last great ecological marvels on
Earth, depends on better protection of the species, improved understanding of their ecology and
the dynamics of the steppe ecosystem, and innovative approaches to conservation and rural
development that adopt participatory, integrated ecosystem management models. The plight of
the saiga also illustrates the link between biodiversity conservation and rural poverty reduction,
as saiga poaching has increased massively in saiga range areas over the last couple of years
where rural poverty and unemployment are high.
2.2
Species Richness and Endemism in ECA
58.
Annex 1 shows the numbers of plant and animal species in the 28 countries of the ECA
Region. Russia has by far the most species (1,303 mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and
freshwater fish species), followed by Kazakhstan (739 species) and Turkey (716 species). (See
Figure 1.) Each of the remaining countries has more than 300 species, with birds the greatest
number. No data are available on invertebrate species, but their numbers are considered to be
equally impressive. Of the 60 endemic vertebrates found in the region, 35 (mostly mammals and
birds) are found in Russia, followed by Turkey (with 12), Kazakhstan (4), and Armenia (3). There
are few instances of endemism in reptiles and amphibians; no data are available on freshwater
fish, but endemism is estimated to be high. Plant species are also very numerous, with Russia
possessing 11,400, of which 890 are endemic. Table 1 shows the number of higher plant species
and endemic levels in selected countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus subregions.
Table 1. Plant diversity and endemism in the Central Asian and Caucasus subregions
Country
Number of plant species
Endemism ( percent)
Armenia
3,555
3
Azerbaijan
4,100
5
Georgia
5,000
21
Kazakhstan
6,000
14
Kyrgyz Republic
3,786
5
Tajikistan
5,000
20
Turkmenistan
2,600
18
Uzbekistan
4,800
8
59.
A number of vertebrate species are considered under threat, invariably from loss of
habitat, poaching or hunting, and environmental degradation in general. The majority are
mammals (31 in Russia, 16 in Romania, and 15 each in Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Ukraine) and
birds (38 in Russia, 15 in Kazakhstan, and 14 in Turkey), although freshwater fish are also under
pressure in Croatia (20), in Turkey (18), and in Russia and (the former) Yugoslavia (13 each). Of
30
the total vertebrate species at risk, 82 are found in Russia, 61 in Turkey, 40 in Romania, 37 in
Kazakhstan, and 35 in Croatia, the latter mostly because of endangered freshwater fish.
Figure 1. Number of vertebrate animal species in ECA countries
Mammals
1400
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
1200
1000
800
600
Wetlands, Rivers, Lakes, and Regional Seas
400
200
Ru
ss
ia
Be
la
M rus
ol
do
Uk v a
ra
in
e
Al
ba
n
Bo i a
sn
Bu i a
lg
ar
Cr ia
M oa
Se
ac tia
rb
ed
ia
o
an
Ro ni a
d
M ma
on n
te ia
ne
gr
Cz
o
ec
h
Re
pu
b
Es li c
to
Hu ni a
ng
ar
y
La
t
Li v ia
th
ua
n
Sl
ov P i a
a k ol a
Re nd
pu
Sl b lic
ov
en
ia
Ar
m
Az en
er i a
ba
ij
G an
eo
rg
Tu ia
rk
ey
K
Ky az a
rg
k
yz hst
Re an
pu
T bl
Tu aji k ic
rk i st
m an
e
Uz n ist
b e an
ki s
ta
n
60.
The ECA Region possesses six major regional seas, many of which, despite high levels of
0
pollution, sustain a high number of fish species, a significant number of which are endemic (see
Table 2). There are more than 152 Ramsar sites (wetlands of high international significance)
covering 13.6 million hectares. Riverine and coastal wetlands in the Black Sea and its hinterlands
are especially high in biodiversity, and the Danube delta is one of the world’s top temperate
wetlands.
Table 2. Characteristics of ECA’s regional seas
Seas
Area,
sq.km
Volume,
cu.km.
Average Number of
Depth, m
Fish
Species
208
136
2 endemic
Salinity
Level,
ppt/l
12.7
Riparian Countries
Caspian
422,000
79,000
Aral
33,000
266
36
0-2*
0 endemic
40
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan
Baltic
377,400
21200
55
166
10
Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Germany,
Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Russia, Sweden
Black
423,000
570,000
1290
145
18
Bulgaria, Georgia,
Romania, Russia,
Ukraine, Turkey
Lake
Baikal
31500
23,600
730
36
24 endemic
0.096
Azerbaijan, Iran,
Kazakhstan, Russia,
Turkmenistan
Russia
* There were 24 fish species in 1960.
2.3
Agricultural Biodiversity
61.
The ECA Region contains two of Vavilov’s eight global centers of crop origin. These
cover the Central Asia and Turkey and the Caucasus subregions and support natural populations
of the wild ancestors of cereals (wheat, barley, and secale), legumes (lentils, chickpea, faba bean,
and pea), forage (medics, Trigonella, Trifolium, Vicia, and Lathyrus), vegetables (cabbage,
31
onion, garlic, and melons), fruit trees (almond, apricot, apple, pear, pistachio, cherry, plums,
walnut, pomegranate, quince, hazelnuts, azarole, cornelian cherry, Russian olive, grape, fig,
chestnut, and mulberry), industrial crops (safflower, flax, and cotton), and countless medicinal
and aromatic plants (Mandragora, Achillea, Glycyrrhiza, Valeriana, Ferula). Many of the wild
fruit trees form unique natural forests, important for both ecological and socioeconomic reasons.
Many of these species have been domesticated and selected by local populations who have
patiently developed thousands of valuable varieties, highly adapted to a broad range of climatic
conditions. The great diversity in domesticated animal breeds and varieties is also the result of the
remarkably high human and cultural diversity in the Region.
62.
In the Former Soviet Union, collecting, conservation and use of agrobiodiversity was
coordinated by the All-Union Research Institute of Plant Industry located in St. Petersburg. Seed
collections were maintained in the seed gene bank in Kuban. Regional field collections for
horticultural crops were maintained in Uzbekistan (peach, apple, cherry, pear, and plum); in
Turkmenistan (pomogranate, fig, and olive); in Kazakhstan (forage and pasture crops); and in
Georgia (grape). During the transition period, both seed gene banks and live field collections have
been lost. In the last few years, several international agencies have started to help the Central Asia
and Caucasus countries to maintain these collections (see Box 5).
Box 5. Grapevine Genetic Resources in the Caucasus and Black Sea Region
Grapevine and wheat are the two oldest crops, first cultivated at least 4,000 years ago in the
Trans-Caucasus around the eastern part of the Black Sea. Since that time, wine—and with it,
grapevine—has spread throughout the world. Wine production, based on proper, knowledgebased use of grapevine genetic resources and on sustainable viticultural practices, provides a
major potential source of income for the local populations in the low-income transition
countries of the Caucasus and the northern Black Sea region. This region is considered to be the
primary center for the domestication of grapevine, with high relevance for the further
distribution of the crop toward the Mediterranean basin and for the development of the modern
European cultivars. The wild species of grapevine, Vitis vinifera ssp. Silvestris, the putative
ancestor of the cultivated grapevine, still occurs throughout this region.
The exact number of local grapevine varieties in the Caucasus and Black Sea region is
uncertain, but is estimated to be in the range of 600–1,500. Wild grapevine material is
especially important as it contains genetic material that is resistant to pests and diseases
affecting grapevine production. In Azerbaijan, for example, some wild Vitis populations are
known to possess high frost resistance.
Long-term maintenance of Vitis genetic resources, both cultivated and wild varieties, is
necessary to improve local viticulture and for the future sustainability of the wine making
industry. This requires identifying, collecting, characterizing, and conserving the unique
richness of grapevine genetic resources throughout the Caucasus and the northern Black Sea
region.
The Georgia Agricultural Support Services project supports conservation and use of indigenous
grapevine cultivars. Georgia is widely recognized as a leader in the conservation and use of
grapevine genetic resources in the ECA Region. There are several important grapevine
collections in Georgia, including not only an indigenous genepool (400 local varieties), but also
a significant number of varieties from Central Asia, Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine, and the
Russian Federation. Coordinated and led by Georgia’s national program, first steps have been
32
taken to establish a new centralized field genebank in the Telavi area. Despite the high level of
local grapevine diversity, which offers a potential resource for diversified production of highquality local wines, very few varieties are cultivated in the Telavi region, which instead relies
on modern introduced varieties that are unsuited for the local environment. The conservation
and increased use of local grapevine genetic resources is therefore of considerable
socioeconomic importance as a source of income for local communities.
63.
Medicinal plants are locally important in many parts of ECA, especially in the Caucasus
and the Tien Shan mountains of Central Asia. The market for herbal medicines is growing
steadily in industrial nations, and several countries in the ECA Region have already tapped into
this lucrative trade. Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan all export licorice root to
industrial nations, where it is manufactured into lozenges to calm coughs and sooth stomach
ulcers as well as into pliable candy (red and black licorice sticks). In Albania, some 70,000
people were employed in the gathering of medicinal herbs in the wild during the early 1990s;
now, the number of collectors has dwindled to around 20,000. If properly managed, however,
medicinal plant gathering could be a source of income for rural households.
2.4
Economic Importance of Biological Resources
64.
Biodiversity is a valuable asset, but for the most part its use occurs outside of normal
marketplaces, and therefore quantifying its value and the financial cost of its degradation and
disappearance is difficult. The absence of functioning markets for biodiversity goods and services
is a contributing factor to its degradation, particularly when the lack of payment for these leads to
unsustainable use. Markets for biodiversity products and services such as hunting and ecotourism
have existed for a long time and have been well quantified. Moreover, there are efforts under way
to create markets or at least further develop existing markets through goods such as genetic
material and instruments such as “green” funds (stocks and bonds), which are investment funds
that specialize in companies that incorporate environmental sustainability into their business
strategies.
65.
Economists look at the value of biodiversity from several perspectives. The direct values
of biodiversity are those that are implicit in consumers’ enjoyment of or satisfaction from
biodiversity. Direct consumptive values are placed on biodiversity that is used without passing
through a market—for example, fishing or hunting. Usually, the consumptive value is determined
by establishing the value of the whole experience, but sometimes its value is estimated on the
basis of the market value if the commodity were actually sold. Direct productive values are
placed on biodiversity that is commercially harvested, and they are derived from the actual value
at the source (rather than at the market).
66.
In contrast, indirect values of biodiversity are those that are derived primarily from the
functions of ecosystems. Indirect nonconsumptive use values are determined on the basis of the
value of nature’s functions or services. Nature-based tourism, for example, depends on
biodiversity and can generate substantial economic value, but it does not depend directly on the
consumption of the biodiversity. The maintenance of watersheds also generates significant
economic benefits. In contrast, option value is based on the uncertain future—the value of
maintaining biodiversity simply to ensure that future generations have the option to use it.
Finally, existence value is the value that people attach to an asset simply because it is there rather
than because anyone plans on using it. These values are almost impossible to measure but can
partly be gauged, for example, by the large numbers of people willing to donate to nature
conservation organizations.
33
67.
In practice, the assessment of these values for particular ecosystems or protected areas is
extremely difficult, partly due to methodological challenges such as distinguishing productive,
consumptive, and nonconsumptive uses; assessing option or existence values; and apportioning
values that accrue because of biodiversity conservation versus values that accrue for other
reasons. For instance, while biodiversity conservation may result in watershed catchment
protection, or vice versa, bringing about substantial nonconsumptive benefits, it is possible that
the watershed catchment could be protected through other, perhaps less costly mechanisms as
well. The policy question that economic valuation can help us address is, What costs will the
economy have to bear if biodiversity is not conserved?
68.
Similarly, more complete economic valuation can inform policy about the hidden
economic costs of certain development strategies. For example, investing heavily in management
to achieve higher direct productive values (such as industrial roundwood production) can result in
significant economic losses by failing to consider direct consumptive values as well as indirect
nonconsumptive values. Further, more complete valuation can help to assess when market prices
fail to capture the economic value of environmental assets.
69.
How, then, can the economic value of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation
be more fully accounted for in policy and program development in Europe and Central Asia?
Obviously, greater rigor and deeper analysis is needed upstream to inform policy. Typically,
economic valuation tends to focus on specific aspects of biodiversity conservation, of which
direct values are most easily assessed. For example, the annual direct consumptive value of fruits
and mushrooms collected from the forest in Romania has been estimated conservatively at around
US$9 million. Capitalizing this value at 5 percent yields an estimated value of Romania’s forests
for fruit and mushroom production at US$185 million. The annual direct value of hunting and
fishing in Romania is estimated at US$21 million, yielding a capitalized value of around US$420
million. By considering the known direct and indirect uses of Romanian forests, analysts can
ascribe a Total Economic Value to forest conservation and management. A 1999 Bank study
sought to do this, and it concluded that the total annual value of direct uses of Romania’s forests
is US$13 million, with a capitalized value of US$260 million.15 The corresponding values for
indirect uses such as soil and water protection were estimated at more than an order of magnitude
higher (that is, US$3.1 and US$62 billion, respectively) than direct use values.
70.
A more rigorous assessment of specific direct consumptive and productive values can be
very useful for informing policy about specific interventions that may result in higher economic
value. In Turkey, an assessment of the value of non-wood forest products suggested that these
were far more valuable than originally thought, both for domestic uses and to meet export market
demands. Similarly, the conservation of the ecosystems from which medicinal plants are
extracted is obviously of great importance if these values are to be maintained (see Box 6).
Box 6. Biodiversity Conservation and the Management of Medicinal Plants in Turkey
Turkey’s diverse forest ecosystems cover more than 20 million hectares, almost a quarter of the
country, and contain a significant part of its vast and valuable biodiversity. There are about
8,600 plant species in Turkey, 3,000 of which are endemic, making its flora by far the richest of
any country in Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
15
World Bank, Romania Forestry Sector: Status, Values, and the Need for Reform, Environmentally and
Socially Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 18 (Washington, DC: 1999).
34
Turkey’s plant biodiversity is of great immediate and direct economic importance due to the
many benefits derived from its use. For example, non-wood forest products (NWFPs) found
largely in forest areas contribute significantly to the national economy. Even so, the value of
Turkey’s forests in the past has been based largely on the timber value, and the economic value of
Turkey’s NWFPs has not been formally considered. The exclusion of these benefits has meant
that forest resources tend to be undervalued, encouraging timber exploitation rather than ecosystem
management, and leading to the conversion of forestland to alternative land uses, since these
options appear financially more attractive. In fact, NWFPs derived from medicinal plants, fruits
and nuts, and resins are of significant value to the national economy, conservatively estimated
at around US$110 million per year. Many of Turkey’s NWFPs are exported as raw or semi-raw
materials. Medicinal products are of particular importance, with Turkey ranking as the third
largest global exporter of medicinal plants of wild origin (after China and India).
While some data are available with respect to export production, the domestic trade in NWFPs,
and in medicinal plants in particular, is widely observed but largely unrecorded. Medicinal
plants have been widely collected in Anatolia since the Hittite period (3,000 to 4,000 years
ago). The two principal uses of medicinal plants within Turkey are for herbal teas (particularly
from the genera within the family Labiatae, such as Salvia, Sideritis, and Stachys) and for raw
materials used in the production of Halva, using the roots of perennial species of
Ankyropetalum and Gypsophila (both Caryophyllaceae).
A recent study of wild medicinal plants in Turkey identified 346 taxa of commercially traded
wild native plants. Around 11 percent of the commercially traded taxa are endemic, most
notably the various species and subspecies of the genus Sideritis. The principal markets for
medicinal plants within Turkey are bazaars, market stalls, and herbalists (Aktar), along with
pharmaceutical companies that purchase raw materials for processing into drugs. Based on a
study of 96 aktartar in 40 towns and cities, 179 taxa are sold through aktar shops. However, it
is likely that this underestimates the range of species traded, as Istanbul alone has 400 aktar
shops. Due to the wide-ranging nature of collection and marketing, it is extremely difficult to
estimate the quantities of each species traded.
The five principal species in export trade account for nearly 84 percent of all exported material
by weight (see Table). Of the most traded species, Glycyrrhiza glabra (used in the production
of licorice) is the only one on the threatened list. This species is subject to large-scale
international trade, is harvested destructively (by rootstock), is relatively slow growing, and is
considered to be scare. Collection of the other four most traded species is considered to be
sustainable in the short term or the effects of current levels of collection are uncertain.
At the household level, many NWFPs are underpriced and overharvested. Villagers generally
sell products as raw rather than processed material, and the value of the product tends to be
captured elsewhere. For example, an important medicinal plant—Jew’s Myrtle (Rascus
aculeatus)—is purchased from villagers at a value of US$0.12 per kilogram, is then processed
in Izmir and sold for US$0.20, and after drying and packaging is exported for US$1.45 per
kilogram. The German firm Heumann Pharma uses this plant’s active compound Ruscogenin in
the preparation of the hemorrhoid treatment Ruscorectal. The value of the final product is many
times the value captured by local resource users. Current arrangements therefore mean that
processors and foreigners gain most of the money from the production of this NWFP. Low
producer prices encourages overharvesting. Higher producer prices would likely encourage
more sustainable management by local communities, as they would ensure constant or higher
35
revenues from lower harvesting levels. Where resources are undervalued, price-related market
or policy corrections could have an immediate beneficial effect.
Sources: N. Ozhatay, M. Koyuncu, S. Atay, and A. Byfield. 1997. The Trade in Natural Medicinal
Plants in Turkey. Dogal Hayati Koruma Dernegi and Fauna and Flora International; K. Baser et al. 1996.
‘Turkiye’de Aktartar ve Bitkisel Droglar. Asya ve Africa Dilleri ve Kulturleri Arastirma Enstitusus,
Islam Kulturu Arastirmalan Serisis, No. 27, Tokyo.
Summary of Principal Non-Wood Forest Product Species in Export Trade of Turkey
Species
Ceratonia siliqua ‘Carob’
Origanim spp / Thymus spp
‘Oregano’
Capparis spp ‘Caper’
Laurus nobilis ‘Bay Laurel’
Miscellaneous
Glycyrrhiza glabra ‘Licorice’
2.5
1992-95
mean
quantity
collected
(M kg)
9.7
5.6
4.2
2.8
2.7
1.4
1992-95:
mean
foreign
income
(US$ M)
3.6
13.5
11.5
5.9
7.3
1.0
Percent
of
overall
quantity
34
20
15
10
9
5
Parts used
Fruit
Vegetable parts
Flower buds
Leaves
Roots
Biodiversity Conservation in the Region
International Commitments
71.
The main international agreements and conventions that some or all of ECA’s 28
countries are party to are as follows:

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aims to promote the conservation and
sustainable use biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from the use of genetic resources. All ECA countries have signed the Convention
on Biological Diversity.

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands provides a framework for national action and
international cooperation on the conservation and wise use of wetlands. In ECA,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are not signatories of the Ramsar Convention.

The World Heritage Convention (WHC) seeks to designate and protect outstanding
natural heritage, including extraordinary ecosystems that should receive special
protection. All ECA countries are signatories of the WHC.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn
Convention) aims to protect threatened migratory species, including birds (such as certain
ducks and eagles) and wide-ranging mammals (such as the snow leopard, gazelle, and
saiga). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, and Turkmenistan have not signed
this convention.
36

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
aims to ensure that certain wild animals and plants that are imported or exported across
international boundaries are safeguarded from overexploitation. Albania and BosniaHerzegovina are not signatories, and permits for Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic,
Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan are handled by Russia.

The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the
Bern Convention) aims to conserve wild species and natural habitats, especially those
whose conservation requires the cooperation of several states. Armenia, Belarus, BosniaHerzegovina, Georgia, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the five Central Asian
Republics are not signatories of this convention.

The Convention to Combat Desertification aims to reduce desertification and drought
worldwide. In ECA, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, and Serbia and Montenegro are not
signatories.
72.
The CBD provides the overarching framework for biodiversity conservation worldwide,
and its articles require a range of activities, some keys ones being to prepare national biodiversity
strategies and work to mainstream biodiversity into sectoral plans; to establish and maintain a
system of protected areas and promote the recovery of threatened species; and to protect and
encourage customary, sustainable uses of biological resources.
Institutional and Financing Issues
73.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union a little over a decade ago, much of the institutional
support for biodiversity protection, particularly state financing for protected areas and off-site
collections of plant genetic resources, declined and even collapsed in some cases. The transition
period has led to disarray over mandates and governance for conservation, due to a lack of
resources to pay for salaries and facility upkeep. Such setbacks are not unique to biodiversity
conservation; rather, they reflect a generalized decline in government capacity to deliver the full
range of social, economic, and environmental services. Before 1990, protected area management
in some countries (Turkey and FR Yugoslavia) was financed out of revenues from production
activities (generally forest harvesting), because the "public good" and "private good" activities of
forests were not separated, and most protected areas were in forests. In the Former Soviet Union
countries, the protected areas were managed largely for research purposes and funded from
Academies of Sciences budgets or Forestry Service budgets. Since production activities have
been separated from "public good" activities, and since public administration budgets have
declined sharply, in many cases funding for protected area management has declined
dramatically. In some countries (such as in Russia), public funding for biodiversity conservation
improved over the last several years, but in most ECA countries funding remains woefully
inadequate.
74.
As signatories of the CBD, ECA countries are eligible to receive financing from the
Global Environment Facility. The GEF was established to forge international cooperation and
finance actions that address critical threats to the global environment in four areas: biodiversity
loss, climate change, degradation of international waters, and ozone depletion. The GEF was
launched in 1991 as an experimental facility, and since then has been designated as the financial
mechanism for the CBD and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since 1991,
US$627 million in GEF financing has been committed to ECA countries, working through three
implementing agencies (the World Bank, the U.N. Development Programme, and the U.N.
37
Environment Programme). Figure 2 shows the breakdown of GEF financing to the Region among
the six focal areas: biodiversity, international waters, ozone depletion, persistent organic
pollutants, climate change, and multi-focal area projects (those that cover two or more focal
areas). Biodiversity projects received US$139 million (about 22 percent of GEF financing to the
Region) and international water projects, which also address biodiversity conservation issues,
accounted for an additional US$139 million. Figure 3 shows how the breakdown of total GEF
financing among ECA’s six subregions.
Protected Areas
75.
The countries of the ECA Region contain about 22 percent of the world’s protected areas
(see Annex 2). These areas cover some 781,000 square kilometers, or 3.2 percent of the total land
area of the Region, and constitute one of the largest systems in the world. There are 17 Biosphere
Reserves and 18 World Heritage Sites. As mentioned earlier, there are some 152 wetlands of
international importance. Protected areas in Russia include 3 percent of the country’s land mass
and are the largest area coverage in the ECA Region. They are among the most important and last
opportunities in the world to conserve relatively intact ecosystems large enough to allow
ecological processes and wildlife populations to fluctuate naturally. They also include unique
assemblages of species and surpass the diversity and level of endemism found among temperate
forests elsewhere.
76.
The protected areas of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia
cover 10 percent or more of their total land area (a figure recommended by the IUCN as a
standard to conserve a nation’s biological diversity) and contribute substantially to conserving
biodiversity and to such benefits as water supply. However, some countries have ill-defined
systems and may remain incomplete in their representation of ecological, species, and genetic
diversity. The coverage of wetlands and their conservation remains extremely variable in the
Region.
77.
The protected areas vary significantly in terms of their value to biodiversity conservation,
and their management varies appreciably often within individual countries. Some areas have been
established primarily for recreation and tourism and have limited biodiversity value; others are
either too small or too degraded to contribute effectively to conservation. An alarming number
are “paper parks” receiving little or no actual protection and deriving no benefits from their
status. Frequently, boundaries are not marked clearly and local people may not be aware of the
area under protection; infrastructure is often nonexistent; staffing is perfunctory; fauna and flora
have not been surveyed in over a decade; and there is no conservation management plan to
accommodate human activities that are compatible with conservation.
78.
New or modified approaches to biodiversity conservation are being tried in the Region
within the context of establishing regional and international networks, extending activities into
the productive landscape, and building experience with participatory methods of biodiversity
conservation and use. Here opportunities to integrate conservation with development help
maximize the protection of biodiversity in areas intended for economic purposes, although the
challenges remain substantial (see Box 7).
38
Box 7. Challenges of Multistakeholder Collaboration and Habitat Management
Successful mediation of opposing interests in order to forge positive biodiversity outcomes
presents special challenges. Sultan Sazliği, for example, is a formerly extensive wetland and
steppe ecosystem in central Turkey consisting of a series of saltwater, brackish, and
freshwater lakes. These wetlands are important because of the high level of endemism—some
25 percent of the 365 plant species are found nowhere else—and because they are a critical
breeding habitat for a wide variety of migratory and other water bird species (including about
50,000 flamingos in a good year). A nascent ecotourism industry has developed to cater to
people with interests in birdlife, and the wetlands are recognized as both a Ramsar site and
one of BirdLife International’s Important Bird Areas. The wetlands have the highest level of
protection status afforded any protected area in Turkey.
The ecosystem is experiencing serious damage because of subsidies and other distortions that
have favored the widespread adoption of water-intensive crops like sugar beets, the spread of
low-head tubewells that pump shallow groundwater from less than 10 meters, the relatively
uncontrolled use of deep-head pumps (greater than 100 meter tubewells), the lucrative
harvesting of reedbeds to meet export markets for roof thatching material (a major source of
local income, generating around US$1 million a year in revenues), the diversion of water for
irrigation schemes constructed by the State Hydraulic Works (though managed by local water
users associations), and the predominance of livestock that are allowed to graze freely in the
wetlands. The impacts of all these pressures have become severe, particularly in light of
drought conditions that prevailed in 2001. Despite good recent rainfall, little water remains in
the wetland.
The situation is reaching a crisis. The only way to save this ecosystem is to reduce the
extraction of water drastically, as well as to increase the flow of water to the wetlands and to
ensure that water will continue to flow to the wetland in the future. Estimates are that the
wetland requires somewhere around 20 million cubic meters of water annually. Extractive
water use must be reduced by at least this amount to allow some minimal level of recovery.
To do this will require a significant change in cropping patterns, vast improvements in the
efficiency with which water is used and delivered to farming systems, and a halt in the further
expansion of irrigation. It will also require greater and more regular releases of water from
two reservoirs that were constructed in the upstream catchment, controls on the use of low
head and deep head pumps, restrictions on reedbed harvesting, better livestock management,
and the elimination of subsidies for the use of water-intensive crops. Possible measures
include the adoption of less water-intensive tree crops such as walnuts and apricots, the use of
drip irrigation systems, and improved water delivery systems.
These are not impossible solutions, but they are far beyond the capacity of the National Parks
General Directorate (which is responsible for the conservation and management of Sultan
Sazliği) by itself. The implementation of effective solutions will require cooperation between
the Ministry of Agriculture, the State Hydraulic Works, the National Parks General
Directorate, and local irrigation associations, as well as villagers and other stakeholders.
Bringing these institutions together collaboratively to propose possible solutions and to
implement them will be an enormous challenge. In the absence of this kind of cooperation,
however, it is clear that Turkey will be seriously abrogating its commitments under the
Ramsar Convention and will be far from meeting some of the environmental commitments
associated with integration with Europe.
39
Figure 2. All GEF Financing in ECA by Focal Area
Climate
Change
29%
International
Waters
22%
Multifocal
0%
Persistent
Organic
Pollutants
1%
Biodiversity
22%
Ozone
Depletion
26%
Figure 3. All GEF Investments in the Biodiversity Focal Area by Subregion
Russia
23%
Central Asia
19%
Belarus,
Moldova,
Ukraine
9%
Caucasus and
Turkey
27%
Central
Europe, The
Baltics,
Slovenia
8%
Balkans and
Romania
14%
40
CHAPTER 3. THE BANK’S CONTRIBUTION TO
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN ECA: THE LAST 10
YEARS
79.
The Bank has only been working in the Region for about a decade, and its engagement in
biodiversity issues has been limited. This chapter reviews the Bank’s involvement in biodiversity
conservation in the ECA Region in three areas: support for policy and investment program
planning, Economic and Sector Work (ESW), and lending operations. The end of the chapter
contains highlights of eight biodiversity projects in the Region.
3.1
Support for Policy and Investment Program Planning
80.
The Bank supports policy and investment program planning through various instruments,
the most common being Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), Country Assistance
Strategy (CASs), Economic Sector Work (ESW), National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs),
and Biodiversity and Strategy and Action Plans (BSAPs). Each of these is an opportunity to show
that biodiversity conservation is a national priority, is linked to sustainable development, and
commits the country and the international community to specific actions for achieving this. These
activities contribute to the Millennium Development Goal of ensuring environmental
sustainability through integrating sustainable development into country policies and programs.
National Poverty Reduction Strategies
81.
The PRSP, the newest instrument, is prepared by International Development Association
(IDA) countries16 as part of their comprehensive development framework—a holistic approach to
development that fights poverty with integrated improvements in economy, social issues, human
capital, governance, environment, and finance. Table 3 shows that biodiversity issues have been
covered in all five PRSPs that have been prepared to date, which is encouraging, and indicates
that biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are important topics in these countries that
needs to be reflected in national programs and international assistance.
Table 3. Biodiversity Coverage in ECA Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
Country
Albania (PRSP)
Biodiversity and Environment Investments Recommendations
Expand protected area network (from the current 6 percent to 15 percent
of country); improve management of individual protected areas; improve
biodiversity monitoring; expand community-based management of
forests, pastures, and fishing/aquaculture and the legal framework for
these.
Azerbaijan (interim PRSP)
Improve the management of Caspian fisheries, including creating
16
In ECA, full or partial IDA countries are Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic,
Moldova, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
41
protected areas at spawning grounds in the Kura and Araz rivers; prepare
studies on restoration of riverine (tugai) forests along the same rivers;
initiate public information sharing on monitoring, regulation, and state of
the environment.
Georgia (interim PRSP)
Expand the protected area network in the Black Sea coastal zone and
Caucasus Mountains.
Kyrgyz Republic (PRSP)
Expand the protected area network; improve management of individual
protected areas; conduct a GIS-assisted national cadastre of ecosystems,
species, and genetic resources; update Red Data Book; control
desertification; protect biodiversity hotspots and develop network of
specialized nurseries, fowl farms, and fishery ponds; reform laws on
registration of and control over biodiversity; draft ecological code.
Tajikistan (PRSP)
Prepare National Biodiversity Strategy/Action Plan; rehabilitate
biodiversity of Gisar valley; implement desertification control projects;
improve legal framework for biodiversity (such as the law on plant
protection) and regulatory framework for monitoring the state of the
environment.
Country Assistance Strategies
82.
We examined the extent to which biodiversity conservation and use issues were
addressed in 25 CASs prepared for ECA countries during the period 1998–2002.17 The review
found that only about one-third of the CASs identified ecosystem management issues as
important in the country’s sustainable development agenda. This corroborates the conclusion of a
Bank-wide review of environmental mainstreaming into CASs carried out in 1999,18 which found
that the ECA portfolio was weak in environmental mainstreaming, in particular in incorporation
of environmental issues into macro and sectoral initiatives and a focus on policies in general, in
reference to environmentally significant policy reforms, in the use of economic incentives for
meeting environmental challenges, and in treatment of poverty-environment linkages.
83.
Our review also found that the 25 CASs contained 71 biodiversity-related activities,
including ESW (included here are biodiversity-related sectoral reviews as well as National
Biodiversity Strategies and NEAPs) and lending operations (including projects financed by GEF).
Even in cases where biodiversity-related projects were under way, biodiversity-related issues
were sometimes not addressed in the CAS. There have been important changes, however, in
ECA’s treatment of biodiversity. Prior to 1999, many ECA countries were either still preparing or
had only recently completed their environment and biodiversity strategies and action plans. The
portfolio review of lending operations shows that biodiversity lending has grown substantially
since 1999—essentially representing implementation of the priorities identified in the strategies.
The forestry and natural resources management program in particular has grown, and with it
17
Country Assistance Strategies set out plans for lending and nonlending activities (analytical work and
technical assistance) over a defined period, usually two to four years. The CASs we reviewed are as
follows: Kazakhstan ‘01, Kyrgyz Republic ‘01, Tajikistan ‘03, Turkmenistan ‘00, Uzbekistan ‘02; Armenia
‘01, Azerbaijan ‘99, Georgia ‘97, Turkey ‘00; Albania ‘02, Bosnia ‘00, Bulgaria ‘02, Croatia ‘99,
Macedonia ‘98, Romania ‘01; Estonia ‘94, Hungary ‘02, Latvia ‘02, Lithuania ‘99, Poland ‘02, Slovak
Republic ‘01; Belarus ‘02, Moldova ‘99, Ukraine ‘00; Russian Federation ‘02.
18
P. Shyamsundar and K. Hamilton, An Environmental Review of 1999 Country Assistance Strategies
(Washington, DC: Environment Department, World Bank, 2000).
42
investments in forest biodiversity conservation. As discussed in the analysis of mainstreaming in
the lending portfolio in the next section, there are encouraging signs of improved mainstreaming
in the irrigation and flood control sector and elsewhere, and these improvements are being
reflected in the CASs prepared since 1999.
84.
The main finding and recommendation from this review is that the Bank has a weak
foundation for describing existing and potential contributions of biodiversity use to poverty
reduction and economic growth in ECA, and weak policy frameworks and investments for
realizing this. This contributes to weak coverage of biodiversity issues in CASs. Sector work on
these two issues is needed to set the framework for guiding policy dialogue and reform as well as
lending operations in biodiversity.
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
85.
Biodiversity strategies have been supported in 13 ECA countries19 with Bank/GEF
assistance, focusing (like NEAPs and PRSPs) on participatory approaches to identify priorities,
implementation plans, and budgetary requirements. The agencies involved have often included
ministries of agriculture, water, and forests; parliamentary committees; border agencies;
environmental agencies; and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Ministries of finance and
economy have less often been involved. While these planning processes have had substantial
local ownership, they have not been mainstreamed into the Bank’s broader CAS and development
agenda sufficiently. They have, however, contributed to knowledge building, knowledge sharing,
and priority definition within the conservation arena. Six themes common to most or all of the 13
BSAPs are as follows:

Mainstream biodiversity in economic development and build understanding of the
economic benefits of biodiversity conservation. Several BSAPs note that transportation
networks often fragment habitats and disrupt wildlife migration routes. The BSAPs
emphasize that incentives are needed to promote mainstreaming as well as a better
understanding of the economic benefits from biodiversity conservation.

Improve the protected area network. Throughout the Region, there is pride in the systems
of protected areas that were formed in a difficult period of history. In the Former
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Turkey, protected areas were managed along traditions similar
to those in Western Europe, with settlements and some economic activity in these areas.
In the Former Soviet Union, a protected area network is highlighted by the system of
zapovedniks (strictly scientific nature reserves). The consensus of the BSAPs is that the
protected area networks of ECA countries need improvements by expanding the areas
under protection to include all representative ecosystems, by linking fragmented
protected areas by wildlife corridors, and by making use of abandoned and little used
military areas.

Meet regional and transboundary cooperation needs. The BSAPs recognize that
ecosystems and wildlife range beyond national boundaries. BSAPs from the Central
European countries, for example, support collaboration in the European Econet that
would unite national protected areas networks in a linked system, creating wildlife
corridors and reducing habitat fragmentation.
19
Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, and Ukraine.
43
3.2

Improve the policy framework. Biodiversity conservation requires cross-sectoral
approaches, but in this Region it is fragmented across government ministries and state
committees. Biodiversity protection is hampered by inconsistencies in the policy
framework.

Complete biodiversity inventories. There are gaps in knowledge systems of biodiversity
in the Region that must be closed to assure that priorities are ranked properly.

Support land use planning. Several BSAPs suggested that land use planning at an early
stage in land privatization could improve the outcome for wildlife.
Portfolio Review
86.
The Bank has been the largest financier of biodiversity conservation in the Region,
mainly through investment projects. This review examines the portfolio of projects20 financed by
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), IDA, and GEF. The review
uses two complementary approaches to examine the portfolio. The first is a quantitative
description of projects that have biodiversity conservation and use components or activities. Most
Bank-funded projects do not have explicit biodiversity objectives but nonetheless can have direct
or indirect biodiversity benefits. The second approach, therefore, is a qualitative analysis of the
extent to which biodiversity is mainstreamed into five categories of ECA projects: forestry and
natural resources management, agriculture, irrigation and flood control, environment , and
municipal infrastructure.
Financial Summary
87.
Annex 3 lists 54 Bank biodiversity projects21 in ECA for the period 1991–2002. The total
financing for these projects is US$1.23 billion, of which the biodiversity investments from all
sources totals US$255 million (20 percent). GEF has been the major source of financing for
biodiversity conservation (42 percent), with smaller but equal (29 percent) financing from
IBRD/IDA and other sources, which includes the borrowers/recipients, bilateral organizations,
and communities (see Figure 4). There are six new projects in the Bank’s pipeline22 for years
2003 and beyond with US$70 million and US$30 million in total and biodiversity financing,
respectively.
88.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of these biodiversity investments among the Region‘s
four general ecosystem types. Forest ecosystems received nearly half of the investments, with
substantially less but still important financing for biodiversity in wetland and marine ecosystems.
Investments in grassland and desert ecosystems and in agrobiodiversity have been relatively
insignificant, though it is expected these will increase in the future. The biodiversity investments
are distributed among the six subregions (Figure 6). Financing for biodiversity has increased
20
The review of biodiversity projects builds on the review of Bank-implemented biodiversity projects
worldwide described in World Bank, Supporting the Web of Life. The World Bank and Biodiversity—A
Portfolio Update (1988–1999) (Washington, DC: 2000).
21
This review includes projects that have specific biodiversity conservation objectives as well as those that
have direct biodiversity benefits.
22
Pipeline projects are those for which at least a concept note or a Project Concept Document has been
reviewed by the Bank or the GEF.
44
substantially between 1992 and 2002 (Figure 7). Although there is year-to-year fluctuation in the
total amounts for new projects, the average annual amount has more than doubled from the first
six years (US$94.3 million in 1992–97) to the last five years (US$161 million in 1998–2002).
Figure 4. Sources of financing for biodiversity in ECA, 1992–2002
IDA/IBRD
29%
Other
29%
GEF
42%
Figure 5. Distribution of biodiversity investments among four major ECA ecosystem
types
Agro
7%
Grasslands
and Deserts
9%
Forest
48%
Wetland and
Marine
36%
45
Figure 6. Cumulative biodiversity investments in ECA’s six subregions
Ukraine,
Moldova,
Belarus
9%
Balkans and
Romania
18%
Russia
15%
Central
Europe,
Baltics,
Slovenia
12%
Caucasus
and Turkey
28%
Central Asia
18%
Figure 7. Biodiversity investments by fiscal year for the period 1992–2002
70
60
US$ Million
50
Other
40
GEF
30
IBRD/IDA
20
10
01
02
FY
00
FY
99
FY
98
FY
96
95
97
FY
FY
FY
94
FY
FY
93
FY
FY
92
0
89.
Figure 8 shows a breakdown of biodiversity investments according to project type.23
Roughly half of the investments have been delivered through projects with biodiversity
conservation objectives. The other half have been delivered through projects in forestry and
23
The project type reflects the main project objective. Natural resources management projects include
projects that focus on watershed management and fisheries. Environment projects have diverse objectives,
usually related to addressing or mitigating “brown” pollution.
46
natural resources management, irrigation and flood control, agriculture, environment, and
regional seas. Figure 8 shows the total investments in forestry and natural resources management,
agriculture, water resources management, and municipal services that provide mainstreaming
opportunities.
Figure 8: Breakdown of Biodiversity Investments By Project Type
Irrigation and
Flood Control
12%
Environment
6%
Biodiversity
53%
IW
2%
Forestry &
NRM
26%
Agriculture
1%
90.
Conservation and Use in Protected Areas. Bank-funded projects in protected areas
management have strengthened and expanded protected areas and created new ones in some of
the most important and threatened ecosystems in ECA. The sites selected for the projects
represented critical habitats and key ecosystems of global significance in need of urgent
assistance or improved management and protection to address threats associated with the
transition.
91.
Table 4 lists 20 ECA projects that include at least some financing for protected areas
management for the period 1992–2002. These projects provided US$104 million in financing for
protected areas management, about 40 percent of the Region’s total investments in biodiversity
conservation and use.
92.
The protected areas portfolio has been strongly weighted toward forest ecosystems—and
within this, toward emphasizing mountain forests. These projects have strengthened the
management of 400,000 hectares of forest protected areas that had suffered from lack of
financing during the transition and have increased the area of threatened forests under protected
area status by 300,000 hectares.
93.
The geographic spread of the investments in forest protected areas and their global
importance is impressive. The projects include:
 Old-growth forests in the transboundary area of the Carpathian Mountains of Poland,
Slovakia, and Ukraine, and more recently the Carpathian forests of Romania
47




The transboundary lowland primeval forests of Bialowieza and Beloveszhkaya in Poland
and Belarus
Mountain and floodplain forests of Sumava, Morava/Pava, and Krkonose in the Czech
Republic and the Tatra Mountains of Slovakia
Mountain forests and rangelands of the West Tien Shan of the Kyrgyz Republic,
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan
Over 20 zapovedniks and zakasniks in Russia
94.
Protection of 300,000 more hectares of threatened forest ecosystems in the Caucasus
Mountains of Georgia, Turkey, and Armenia is early in implementation.
95.
Bank projects have also strengthened and expanded protected areas in Ramsar wetlands
by 250,000 hectares through investments in the Pripyat wetlands of Belarus, the Danube Delta of
Romania and Ukraine (see Box 8), and in Sava River floodplain in Croatia. Protection of an
additional 250,000 hectares of Ramsar wetlands on the Black Sea coast of Ukraine, under the
Azov Black Sea Corridor Biodiversity Project, is early in implementation.
Box 8. Danube Delta Biodiversity Conservation in Romania and Ukraine
The Danube Delta, one of Europe’s largest natural wetlands, covers 564,000 hectares:
122,000 in Ukraine and 442,000 in Romania. The reedbeds, riparian forests, dunes, and open
waters of the maze of tributaries of the Danube River provide critical habitat for over a
million migratory and resident waterbirds. The delta ecosystem has been a source of
subsistence and income to humans for over 500 years, but over the last 50 years fish harvests
have significantly declined.
The objectives of the GEF Danube Delta Biodiversity projects in Romania and Ukraine were
to protect and enhance the Danube Delta ecosystem and conserve its biodiversity by
strengthening reserve management, ecological monitoring, wetlands restoration, public
awareness, and rural livelihoods. The original Danube Delta GEF project planned assistance
only to the Romanian part of the delta because Ukraine was not yet a member of the Bank.
During the project's identification, the scope of the project was amended to provide parallel
support to the Danube Plavny Reserve Authority in Ukraine, particularly to raise the level of
national and international interest in the protection and management of the Ukrainian part of
the delta.
The projects, completed in 1997 (Ukraine) and 1998 (Romania), improved the protection and
use of the Danube Delta ecosystem and elevated the participation of local communities in
achieving this. The projects improved collaboration between Romania and Ukraine,
especially through joint programs and exercises in warden training and the exchange of
regional expertise on scientific and wetlands management issues. The transboundary
Romania-Ukraine Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve was established in 1998. The projects
also promoted collaboration with other European organizations engaged in coastal
management and nature conservation.
96.
Grassland and semi-desert ecosystems have been addressed to some extent within the
forest and wetland protected areas. For example, the Georgia Protected Areas Development
project supports three protected areas in the eastern Caucasus located along an altitudinal gradient
48
from 4,000 to 100 meters and consisting of alpine, montane, and lowland forest as well as arid
lands. Similarly, the Ukraine Azov Black Sea Corridor Biodiversity project is supporting steppe
conservation and sustainable use in existing and new protected areas in the coastal area along the
Black Sea.
Table 4. Bank Biodiversity Projects in Protected Areas, 1992-2002
Project
Total
Project
Costs
(US$
million)
Protected
Area
Financing
(US$
million)
21.6
1.0
16.0
1.3
13.7
2.8
10.3
7.6
7.0
1.3
13.7
2.8
10.3
2.5
1.7
1.7
6.2
247.0
0.8
6.2
0.5
0.8
26.0
26.1
Slovakia Biodiversity Project
3.2
3.2
Turkey Biodiversity Project
Ukraine Transcarpathian Biodiversity Project
11.5
0.6
11.5
0.6
2.2
4.8
14.0
2.2
4.8
5.3
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.0
394.0
104.2
Forest, Mountain Forest, and Range Ecosystems
Albania Forestry Project (protected area
component)
Armenia Natural Resources Management Project
Belarus Biodiversity Project
Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Project
Czech Republic Biodiversity Project
Georgia Protected Areas Development Project
Georgia Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Project (Kolkheti component)
Moldova Biodiversity Conservation in the Lower
Dniester River Medium Sized Project
Poland Biodiversity Protection Project
Poland Forestry Project (national park component)
Russia Khabarovsk Kray Protected Areas Medium
Sized Project
Russia Biodiversity Project
Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems
Croatia Kopacki Rit Biodiversity
Romania Danube Delta Biodiversity Project
Ukraine Azov Black Sea Corridor Biodiversity
Project
Ukraine Danube Delta Biodiversity Project
Grassland Ecosystems
Slovakia Grasslands Medium Sized Project
Totals
Additional Ecosystems
Covered
Freshwater and marine
Arid and semiarid
Freshwater and marine
Freshwater and marine
Freshwater and marine,
arid and semiarid
Forest, freshwater, and
marine
Freshwater and marine
97.
Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Many of ECA’s globally
significant wetland and forest ecosystems occur in border regions, and transborder protected areas
are one approach to managing these ecosystems and promoting broader international or regional
cooperation. The ECA biodiversity portfolio contains a range of approaches to transborder
cooperation in protected area management. In the case of the contiguous Bialowieza and
Belovezhskaya lowland forest ecosystem shared by Poland and Belarus, the two projects
collaborated mainly through knowledge-sharing exercises: training, scientific exchange, and
49
regular meetings. The next level of cooperation is seen in the Romania and Ukraine Danube Delta
projects, which established a transboundary biosphere reserve; in the case of the three
biodiversity projects in the Carpathian Mountain of the Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Poland, a Trinational Biosphere Reserve was formed to protect old-growth forests ecosystems of the Eastern
Carpathians (see Box 9). Finally, the Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Project is the first
project jointly implemented by three countries—in this case, working jointly on the conservation
and use of the transborder West Tien Shan ecosystem to conserve together Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan, and the Kyrgyz Republic. Among these, the most successful transborder cooperation
has been achieved through the Central Asia biodiversity project. Although this project
experienced a slow start as a result of getting the collaborative mechanisms in place, the same
mechanisms have promoted implementation later in the project.
Box 9. ECA’s Tri-national Biosphere Reserve
The Carpathian Mountains arch 1,500 kilometers through Central and Eastern Europe,
creating a species-rich biological corridor of over 300,000 square kilometers that links the
forest ecosystems of the Austrian Alps and the Balkan ranges. The Transcarpathian range,
which covers the border of Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Ukraine, contains some of the
largest tracts of old-growth beech forest in Europe.
In 1991, Ukraine, Poland, and the Slovak Republic agreed to develop a Tri-national
Biosphere Reserve in the Eastern Carpathians to harmonize monitoring and management of
the Eastern Carpathian ecosystem. This collaborative effort was supported by three “pilot
phase” Bank/GEF projects: the Ukraine Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Project
(US$500,000 GEF), the Slovak Biodiversity Protection Project (US$2.3 million GEF), and
the Poland Forest Biodiversity Conservation Project (US$4.5 million GEF).
These projects led to establishment of the East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, based on
protected areas in Poland (national and landscape parks totaling 108,924 hectares), Slovakia
(the East Carpathian protected landscape, 40,601 hectares), and Ukraine (Stuzhitsa Reserve,
14,556 hectares). This was the first tri-lateral biosphere reserve in the world.
The projects established a Foundation for Eastern Carpathian Biodiversity Conservation,
using US$600,000 in grant financing (shared by GEF and the MacArthur Foundation) as an
endowment, the investment income from which is being used for priority activities such as
supporting the protected area network, sustainable forest management, and nature-based
tourism. Although income from the endowment is a welcome source of financing for local
conservation initiatives, it would probably have been more effective to use the financing as a
sinking fund, where the full principal is spent over a set time frame (say, 10 years).
98.
Community Benefits in Protected Area Projects. One of the perceptions about protected
areas in ECA is that they do not provide benefits to local communities, and therefore do not
contribute substantially to poverty reduction or build local support for their existence. The
transition from centrally planned economies forced many people in ECA, especially the rural
poor, back to reliance on natural resources for survival. This has created incentives for the
overexploitation of forests, wetlands, and grazing and croplands.
99.
The biodiversity portfolio has been working to address these problems in various ways,
especially by emphasizing sustainable uses of biodiversity where they are appropriate in protected
50
areas, empowering local communities and actively involving them in the decisions and problem
solving for protected areas, building awareness of the short- and long-term benefits of
conservation and use, building local capacity for the conservation and management of natural
resources, and providing communities with opportunities for bio-friendly economic development
and livelihoods. This is best accomplished by continuing and expanding the work on social and
community development.
100.
Providing benefits to local communities and supporting community development are
complex and challenging tasks. A review of the social dimensions of ECA biodiversity
investments in protected areas24 shows that the ECA biodiversity portfolio has evolved toward
this goal through a steady increase in the frequency and type of community benefits that are
planned in projects and improvements in the quality of project design to support these benefits.
101.
The portfolio has made progress in improving the social and economic effectiveness of
protected areas in the following ways.
Participatory decisionmaking: the development of meaningful participation in decisionmaking
for all stakeholders at the local level, especially resource user groups. The legacy of centralized,
top-down planning systems has made it difficult for project stakeholders to understand and make
effective use of decentralized and participatory planning processes. In spite of these issues, the
projects support participatory project planning systems with local communities and user groups.
Community capacity building: strengthening local groups and networks in problem-solving and
organizational skills and in assuming ownership and care of local assets. Many projects have
developed early social assessments, capacity-building activities for local groups, participatory
monitoring, and local consultation throughout the life of the project. The frequency of these
activities, when combined with the participatory planning activities, makes community capacity
building one of the most important community benefits of the portfolio. The experience that local
stakeholders stand to gain from these activities has the potential to develop more informed
communities with increased capacity to solve problems through organized activity and to
participate more actively in formulating policy and projects.
Including benefits for women and the most poor and vulnerable is a particular challenge for
biodiversity projects. Portfolio activities are often oriented around landowners, a group in which
women and the very poor are under-represented. Biodiversity projects could do much more to
design activities to address the needs of women and the poor as well as mechanisms to include
them in decisionmaking. Systematic efforts to include the most poor and vulnerable in project
design and implementation are the Armenia Natural Resources Management Project and the
Georgia Protected Areas. In the former, a consultation process was designed to avoid unnecessary
adverse impacts on the livelihood of subsistence users affected by the project. When access to
natural resources must be reduced, communities will identify and choose among potential
compensating measures. These might consist of priority for access to resources in the new
economic zones and preference for new jobs created in and around the protected areas (building
trails, for example, or other forestry work.) The consultations will also develop mechanisms for
resolving conflicts among resource users, for monitoring impacts within the management area in
a participatory fashion, and for evaluating the effectiveness of compensation measures.
24
The portfolio of biodiversity investments in protected areas was reviewed, from the pilot phase (five
projects in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland, completed in 1995–97) to the
latest projects under implementation in Armenia, Georgia, Central Asia, Romania, and Turkey. Attachment
* contains a description of the review design.
51
Local NGO capacity building: human resource and organizational development, including longterm programmatic planning and participation in national and international networks. In the
Ukraine Danube Delta project and the Albania Lake Ohrid and Forestry projects, environmental
NGOs received training in business skills and office management, use of the media in
environmental advocacy, and environmental education targeting and techniques. Networking with
other NGOs was also supported.
Enterprise development and job creation: financial and technical support for alternative,
sustainable, biodiversity-friendly activities that generate income at the local level (see Box 10).
At the level of most project sites, the key rural development issues are unemployment and the
lack of access to credit to support new economic activity. In response, the biodiversity projects
include investments in economic development and sustainable livelihoods. Investments in smallscale tourism development are included in the Armenia, Croatia, Georgia, Turkey, and Central
Asia projects, as well as in several IBRD forestry projects.
Legal clarification of land use and ownership: awareness-raising campaigns to clarify private
landowners’ rights and the review or drafting of new legislation related to natural resource
ownership. Clarification of private landowners’ rights is an essential part of the Central Asia
Transboundary project for the countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz, and Uzbekistan. The project is
helping draft new legislation to harmonize existing national and transnational laws relating to
natural resource ownership and use. It is also providing pro bono legal advice services to buffer
zone communities.
Environmental education: activities to communicate the importance of biodiversity conservation
and protected area management through public information campaigns, school curricula, and
protected area interpretive materials.
Recreational facilities: development of campsites, observation towers, hiking trails, and nature
centers, as well as the preservation of such resources as coastal areas for future recreational use.
While projects obviously provide local communities with some recreational facilities, other
highly significant recreational benefits have resulted from the portfolio’s projects. Through
Ukraine’s Azov Black Sea Corridor project, for example, the recreational opportunities of
thousands of nearby urban residents will be ensured through the conservation of the deteriorating
coastal environment.
Box 10: Enterprise and Job Development in the Ukraine Danube Delta Biodiversity Project
Sustainable use and protection of wetland biodiversity was a key element of the Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve project (US$1.5 million from GEF). The project had supported the
development of administrative facilities for the reserve and, with a small hotel, simple guest
houses on the Delta islands, along with development of a bird watching trail. The project also
sponsored staff visits at reserves in Europe to learn good practices in self-financing.
Since the project was completed in 1999, the Ukraine Danube Biosphere Reserve (DBR) has
been developing revenue sources and creating jobs through ecotourism and reed harvesting.
The DBR has created a special division for ecotourism and offers lodging, food, guides, and
auto and boat transport. In order to avoid dependence on the quality of outside tourism firms
and to capture a greater share of tourism revenues, the DBR has obtained a license for
52
conducting tourist activities itself. With the money earned thus far (US$9,647 in 2001), the
project has built an observation tower and equipped an information center.
The DBR has also invested some of these earnings in a reed harvesting business. Private
commercial companies are now invited to harvest the biosphere’s reeds, based on the DBR’s
recommendations for sustainable use. Revenues from reed harvesting more than doubled from
2000 to 2002. The reed harvesting promotes a mosaic of reedbed habitats beneficial for
wildlife. The harvesting is expected to create about 1,000 jobs in 2003, reducing the potential
for poaching in the DBR and improving the local population’s image of the reserve.
102.
Conservation Finance. In western industrial countries, protected area management is
generally funded from the budget, and entry fees to national parks are minimal or non-existent; it
is understood that the benefits are to society at large and that user fees pay for only a small
proportion of management costs. In some countries in Latin America, however, a broad range of
instruments have been developed for conservation finance, including trust funds and contributions
from non-governmental organizations. These will take time to develop in ECA. As regards
biodiversity conservation in the production landscape, the gene banks and genetic research were
funded largely from Academies of Science research budgets. These are also "public good"
activities that should be publicly funded; agricultural research budgets in many countries have
declined drastically and are only now beginning to recover.
103.
State budgetary support for protected areas management, including salaries and operating
costs, has been very low, particularly in the Newly Independent States. The result in many cases
is that the protected areas exist on paper but for all intents and purposes are not being managed.
104.
ECA biodiversity projects in protected areas have been successful in leveraging state
cofinancing for protected areas during project implementation, but the sustainability of these
investments has been uncertain. The most recent projects25 are designed with specific incomegenerating activities, such as small scale ecotourism, which should help cover recurrent costs in
the operational phase. To date, however, the portfolio has lacked the comprehensive approach to
financing conservation that is needed—from ecotourism, endowments, natural products, and
incentives for private-sector involvement. Plans are under way, however, to initiate regional
training workshops in this area working through the World Bank Institute.
105.
The conservation finance issue is linked to broader public expenditure management
issues. To date, public expenditure reviews have focused on expenditure management for the
social sectors and there has been less emphasis on the "natural resources" public goods. This is
gradually changing, and support to agricultural research and forestry projects includes an element
of improved public expenditure management. Funding for protected area management, however,
has not yet been addressed.
106.
Biodiversity Conservation and Use Outside of Protected Areas. Protected areas are a
necessary but not sufficient instrument for the conservation of ECA’s biodiversity. Based on this
fact, the biodiversity portfolio has sought to balance investments in protected areas and those
outside protected areas—in the “production landscape.” In fact, 60 percent of the biodiversity
investments have been outside of protected areas. The active portfolio does a better job of
25
Examples of the most recent projects include the Georgia Protected Areas Development Project, Armenia
Natural Resources Management and Poverty Reduction Project, Ukraine Azov Black Sea Corridor
Biodiversity Project, and the Romania Conservation Management Project.
53
addressing sustainable use in forests, grasslands, and wetlands and marine ecosystems, which are
economically vital for local communities and private businesses.
Mainstreaming Analysis
107.
A mainstreaming analysis was undertaken to assess the extent to which biodiversity is
mainstreamed into five types of projects: forestry and natural resources management, agriculture,
irrigation and flood control, municipal infrastructure, and environment 26 The mean
mainstreaming scores for these categories of projects are summarized in Figure 9 (the list of
projects is found in Annex 4). The average score for all projects was 2.4 (a score of 4 means fully
mainstreamed), and two-thirds of the projects scored higher than the “do no harm” score of 2.0.
The subsectors with the best mainstreaming record are forestry and natural resources management
projects (forestry, fisheries, and so on) and environment projects followed by agriculture and
municipal infrastructure, with irrigation and flood control the least mainstreamed.
Figure 9. Mean mainstreaming ratings for 43 ECA projects27
4
3
2
1
3
2.5
1.9
2.2
Irrigation and Flood
Control
Municipal
Infrastructure
3.4
0
Agriculture
Environment
Forestry and NRM
108.
The range of the following investments was impressive: coastal resources protection and
management (Georgia, Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia); management of international waters
(Caspian, Aral, and Black Seas and Lake Ohrid); fisheries production and management
(Azerbaijan and Albania); sustainable forest management (Albania, Belarus, BosniaHerzogovina, Croatia, Georgia, Poland, and Russia); range and watershed management (Armenia,
Kyrgyz Republic, and Turkey); irrigation and flood control (Kazakhstan and Croatia), and
improved agriculture and wastewater treatment in virtually every country in the Region.
109.
Mainstreaming in the Forestry and Natural Resources Management Portfolio. The Bank’s
lending program in forestry and natural resources management has done a good job of
mainstreaming biodiversity. The projects provided major loan financing for sustainable forest
management, which has a range of biodiversity benefits given the proper enabling environment,
Mainstreaming ratings are: (1) “Do No Harm” – mitigation of biodiversity and agro-biodiversity impacts
planned or not needed, but only so far as to comply with the minimum requirements of the application of
the Bank’s safeguard policies; (2) “Influenced” – project design demonstrably influenced and/or changed to
support explicit biodiversity and/or agro-biodiversity friendly objectives; (3) “Incorporative” – project
design substantially influenced by and incorporates explicit biodiversity and/or agro-biodiversity friendly
objectives; (4) “Fully Mainstreamed” – best practice and fully mainstreamed project design, fully
compatible with biodiversity and/or agro-biodiversity objectives.
27
The projects cover agriculture (18 projects), irrigation and flood control (17 projects), municipal
infrastructure (20 projects), environment (4 projects), and forestry and natural resources management (10
projects).
26
54
and the trend has been to support projects with investments in sustainable forest management and
protected areas blended into single integrated projects, often with GEF financing. However, the
portfolio has not been effectively designed, monitored, or evaluated for specific biodiversity
outcomes.
110.
The projects focus on conserving natural forest ecosystems by promoting restoration and
sustainable use of state-owned forest pasture areas and communal rangelands. The eight forestry
projects in the ECA portfolio are essentially about restoring forest management systems with
economic, social, and environmental sustainability. A summary of activities in the portfolio
(Table 5) shows four broad kinds of activities: policy reforms (regulatory, financial, and
institutional), forest management planning and implementation (such as afforestation, fire and
pest control, inventories including of biodiversity, and improved harvesting systems),
conservation of landscape and ecological diversity, and research and information systems. The
forestry portfolio shows several encouraging trends for mainstreaming biodiversity more
explicitly.

Certification of sustainable forest management and identification of High Conservation
Value Forests—both tools for mainstreaming biodiversity—are being used frequently in
forestry projects. These are being developed through the WB/WWF Alliance for Forest
Conservation, which has a target of 200 million hectares of forest under sustainable
management and 50 million hectares of new protected areas by 2015. So far the Alliance
has leveraged resources for sustainable forestry and protected areas management in 8
ECA countries (Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Croatia, Romania, and the south Caucasus
countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), training and awareness raising
campaigns, analytical work on improving protected area networks, and donor conferences
to finance these proposals. New tools for the identification of High Conservation Value
Forests are being piloted in the Georgia Forests Development Project and are planned for
use in the Bulgaria Forestry Project under preparation.
In Latvia, an analysis was carried out on the impacts of a proposed pulpmill on the
Alliance targets of protected areas and certification. The study highlighted issues such as
needed improvements to the protected area network, illegal logging activities, and the
need for better organization of assistance to the private sector on certification. One output
of the study was the preparation of investment safeguards that could be applied more
widely by the international forest business community. The Bank is helping the private
sector to understand and meet international standards for forest certification and to
develop incentives for both the public and private sectors to implement the standards.
This is an especially important area for the ECA program to expand because of the trend
toward private ownership of forests in the Region, particularly in Romania, Bulgaria, and
the Baltics, and because of opportunities being developed with the IFC for the Russian
forest industry.

Forestry loans are more often blended with GEF grants and take a landscape approach to
forest conservation and sustainable use, with investments in both the “production
landscape” and inside protected areas. Some recent examples of this approach include the
Armenia Natural Resources Management Project and two associated projects in Georgia:
the Forests Development Project and Protected Areas Development Project, which work
together, among other things, to establish sustainable use and protected areas in Georgia’s
Central Caucasus planning region. Similar approaches are planned in the fully blended
IDA/GEF Bulgaria Forestry Project.
55
111.
The natural resources projects emphasize community-based approaches to improve
fisheries management (Albania Pilot Fishery Development Project) and community-based
improvements in integrated forest and range management and agriculture (Turkey Eastern
Anatolia Watershed Protection Project in Turkey (see Box 11) and Armenia Natural Resources
Management Project). These projects restore depleted natural ecosystems and change the
behaviors of their users to be more sustainable. Their biodiversity activities range from
establishment of marine and terrestrial protected areas to rehabilitation of plant cover and
fisheries.
Box 11. Watershed Rehabilitation: A Participatory Approach to Natural Resources
Management
Over the last 10 years, a series of investments have been supported, in ECA and in other
regions, with the dual objectives of restoring sustainable land management in degraded
watersheds and increasing local incomes.
Local people participate in the design of a micro-catchment plan that includes a series of
interventions with short-term and long-term benefits. These may include restoration and
improved management of grazing lands, community forestry and reforestation, erosion
control measures and tree planting, and small-scale irrigation. These operations also help
conserve biodiversity by restoring natural grasslands and forests and by reducing siltation in
rivers, permitting ecosystems to recover.
The approach has been followed successfully for nearly 10 years in Turkey, and now covers
watersheds in 11 provinces. A second operation is under preparation there. Similar
approaches are being followed in Armenia and are planned for Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and
Albania.
Table 5. Forestry Projects in ECA, 1991–2003*
Country
Poland
Year
Approved
1993
Total (Bank)
US$ million**
$335 (146)
Investments***
Russia
2002
$60 (75)
Policy reforms, improved forest management
planning and information management, improved
forest protection, afforestation, restructuring and
decentralization of forest enterprises, training in
improved forest harvesting and processing, modern
management and business practices, and improved
utilization of non-timber forest products.
Romania
2003
$32 (25)
Policy and institutional reforms, forest information
systems, extension services for new private forest
owners, road rehabilitation, small business
Forest management planning, restoration of forest
damaged by air pollution, thinning, afforestation,
conservation of forest gene diversity, modernization
of harvesting equipment and practices, forest
research, support to national parks, strategy for
environmentally sound forest utilization.
56
development advisory services, public education and
awareness.
Belarus
1994
$55 (42)
Policy reforms for timber pricing and for the
preservation of biodiversity and species mix,
afforestation, fire control, forest information
systems.
BosniaHerzegovina
1998
$20 (7)
Forest management planning, pest control using
biological methods, reforestation of war-damaged
forests, rehabilitation of a national park, improved
forest harvesting systems.
Croatia
1996
$67 (42)
Institutional reform, afforestation of war-damaged
forests, forest fire control.
Albania
1996
$17 (8)
Forest management planning; restoration of degraded
communal forests and pastures; thinning; regulatory,
financial, and institutional reforms; protected areas
management.
Georgia
2002
$21 (16)
Regulatory, financial, and institutional reforms;
forest management planning; afforestation; fire and
pest protection; strategy for forest conservation; pilot
community forest management.
* Includes approved projects, including those completed and under implementation.
**. Total project costs include financing from the World Bank (IBRD or IDA), borrower, Government, bilateras, and
others.
*** A centerpiece of each of the projects is updating forest management plans according to international standards.
This is needed because forest management plans had not been updated in 10 or more years.
112.
Mainstreaming in the Agriculture Portfolio.The agriculture portfolio contains two types
of investments with different mainstreaming opportunities: agricultural support services and land
titling. Agricultural support service projects promote on-farm business development. Examples of
their investments include seeds, market facilities, agricultural processing, applied research, farm
advisory services, and credit. In general, these agriculture projects have mainstreamed
biodiversity through such investments as integrated pest management, organic farming, and soil
conservation measures. Under the Estonia agriculture project, a strategy to conserve and manage
wetlands and re-establish natural habitats on previously drained wetlands was developed. In
Moldova, rural credits under the Rural Investment Advisory Services Project are supporting
biodiversity-friendly activities that are cofinanced by two GEF projects: the Agricultural
Pollution Reduction Project and the Biodiversity Conservation in the Lower Dniester River
medium-sized project (GEF). The Moldova projects are the first in the ECA portfolio to use GEF
financing to encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking that can have positive global environmental
benefits.
113.
The opportunity for mainstreaming biodiversity that is missing from the agricultural
support projects is support for conserving agrobiodiversity, such as wild relatives of crop species
and other globally significant plant species indigenous to the Region. This was partly because the
agricultural projects focus on improving farm incomes, and the opportunities to do so using
indigenous agrobiodiversity are not well understood. Although the conservation of globally
significant agrobiodiversity is a “global public good,” few projects have sought GEF cofinancing
57
to achieve these global benefits. The Turkey In situ Gene Conservation Project finances such
activities, but was a stand-alone GEF project and therefore not an example of mainstreaming
biodiversity in the lending portfolio.
114.
Land cadastre and tilting projects support the establishment of property boundaries of
private farms and the issuance of land titles to individual owners. These projects finance property
boundary surveys, information systems, and the costs of issuing ownership titles. The agricultural
landscape is dominated by plowed farmland, but it also contains wetlands, forests, and other
natural habitats that have high biodiversity values and important “public good” functions. The
opportunity for mainstreaming biodiversity, by addressing the land management and land
degradation issues, is missed in these projects. The exception is the Ukraine Rural Land Titling
and Cadastre Project, which is inventorying environmentally sensitive lands, excluding some of
these from privatization, and providing assistance on land management to farmers and publicsector departments. In biodiversity-rich southern Ukraine, the project is working with the World
Bank/GEF Azov Black Sea Corridor Biodiversity Project to address land management issues,
including landscape-level inventory of natural habitats, competitive small grants for improved
management on-farm habitats and soils, and support to protected areas.
115.
The newest agriculture projects—including the Ukraine Land Titling and Cadastre
project; the Romania and Georgia agricultural services projects; the GEF-supported agricultural
pollution control projects in Romania, Turkey, and Moldova; and the forthcoming Uzbekistan
Drainage, Irrigation, and Wetlands Improvement Project—are incorporating improved land and
ecosystem management approaches in agricultural investments (see Box 12). Although it is too
early to assess the successes of these projects, the trend is a promising one for mainstreaming
biodiversity.
Box 12. Tajikistan Community Watershed Project (US$10M IDA, US$5 GEF)
Tajikistan is a small (171,000 square kilometers) and highly mountainous country bordered
by the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and China. Mountains cover 90 percent of
the country. Tajikistan has the greatest elevational range in the Region, from 300 meters
along the Syr Darya River to 7,495 meters at Mount Samani, the highest peak in the former
Soviet Union. This enormous altitudinal range is accompanied by a rich diversity of natural
ecosystems, including steppe and desert, forests (spruce, juniper, walnut, pistachio, and
tugai), mountain meadows, and high mountain lakes. The country is located within the
Central Asian center of origin for domesticated fruit crops.
Land degradation in Tajikistan is a common threat to rural livelihoods and biodiversity alike.
Deforestation for fuelwood, livestock overgrazing, and unsustainable irrigation practices have
led to erosion, salinization, and reduced productivity of mountain watersheds that the rural
poor depend on. The degradation and loss of biodiversity has direct adverse impacts on rural
households.
The objective of the forthcoming Tajikistan watershed management project is to improve
livelihoods in rural communities while conserving fragile mountain lands and ecosystems.
The project will use a participatory approach to watershed management improvements, where
the local communities identify the priority investments and implement these with financial
and technical assistance of the project.
58
The project is being designed to improve the sustainability of mountain land and resource
uses, which would also reduce and reverse biodiversity degradation and loss. Examples of
eligible investments will include:
  Planting trees (emphasizing economically and biologically important species such as
walnuts, pistachios, fruit trees, and berry bushes) on contour and surrounding sloping arable
fields, coupled with appropriate soil and moisture conservation structures such as “miniterracing” using trees and natural hedges, basins, and contour drainage channels
 mproving pasture management and reducing overgrazing in nearby village pastures by
restoring watering points in remote pastures, fencing, re-seeding in appropriate areas, and
introduction of improved grazing management
 Small-scale infrastructure to control soil erosion and gullying and to reduce siltation
 Support to income-generating activities in mountain agriculture, such as small-scale
cottage drying and packaging of dried fruits and vegetables, beekeeping, silkworm rearing
and cocoon production, milk production and processing, wool processing, or crafts
116.
Mainstreaming in the Irrigation and Flood Control Portfolio. The focus of the ECA’s
irrigation and flood control projects has been the rehabilitation of infrastructure to restore
agricultural productivity and protect against catastrophic floods. The irrigation projects restore
irrigation canals and channels and establish water users associations to maintain them. Flood
control projects finance flood protection planning, monitoring, forecasting, and warning systems,
as well as flood hazard reduction through municipal and rural water infrastructures such as
sewage and drainage works, roads, and bridges.
117.
The portfolio generally has not taken advantage of biodiversity mainstreaming
opportunities, such as through protection or restoration of wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems
or through assistance with water resources management planning. Two exceptions are the Croatia
Reconstruction Project for Eastern Slavonia and the Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea
Project. The Croatia project is financing irrigation, wastewater, and flood control infrastructure,
and also supports protection of Kopacki rit, a Ramsar wetland of global importance in the project
region, financed partly by GEF. The Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project is
financing infrastructure to improve water flows to the Northern Aral Sea and thereby restore the
ecology of the Syr Darya delta and its associated fisheries. This ecological orientation has not
generally been a focus of the irrigation and flood control portfolio, which so far has emphasized
restoring irrigation to croplands and improving flood control infrastructure to mitigate natural
disasters. However, the Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation, and Wetlands Improvement Project is
mainstreaming biodiversity by conserving one of the few remaining tugai (riverine) forests on the
Amu-Darya.
118.
Mainstreaming in the Municipal Infrastructure Portfolio. These projects have the
objectives of delivering safe drinking water and improving the treatment or removal of municipal
sewage and solid waste. They focus on improving quality of drinking water by investing in
infrastructure and by reducing upstream pollution of natural watercourses, improving waste
collection, and improving riverbasin management and pollution control. The investments in
wastewater treatment, which have potentially significant benefits to aquatic biodiversity that is
affected by municipal pollution, have generally not been realized because municipalities have
lacked the funds needed to cofinance these investments, and have not been successful in raising
these funds through utility fees.
59
119.
The portfolio has generally not taken advantage of biodiversity mainstreaming
opportunities, such as through investments for protection or restoration of specific wetlands and
coastal and aquatic ecosystems. There are notable exceptions. The Georgian Municipal
Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project was designed to have the environmental benefit of
alleviating pollution to the biodiversity hot spots of the Georgian Black Sea coastal area, although
these investments have been implemented for other reasons. In Estonia, the Haapsalu and Matsalu
Bays project was designed to improve water quality and ecological conditions in the Baltic Sea,
and also supported coastal land use planning and an ecosystem management program to maintain
key wildlife habitats and reduction of agricultural non-point source pollution. The forthcoming
Albania Integrated Water and Ecosystems Management Project contains traditional investments
in wastewater treatments plants, but it will also create artificial wetlands to further reduce the
pollution of coastal wetlands and the Adriatic Sea
3.3
Projects for Conservation of Globally Significant Ecosystems
120.
As the conservation of biological diversity is best achieved at regional and global levels,
the Region has supported conservation of globally significant ecosystems that are under threat
from various sources. Annex 5 lists the projects that support conservation and sustainable use in
the 21 terrestrial and aquatic Global 200 ecoregions in ECA—ecosystems identified by WWF as
priority targets for conservation action because they harbor the most outstanding and
representative examples of the world's diverse ecosystems (see also Map 2). The Bank
biodiversity portfolio corresponds with most of the Global 200 forest ecosystems, several of the
aquatic ecosystems, but few of the vast steppe, tundra, and taiga ecosystems of Russia and
Central Asia. In addition to these priority ecosystems, the Bank portfolio of protected areas
projects has targeted globally significant ecosystems separate from the Global 200 program,
notably the primeval lowland forests of the Bialowieza and Beloveszhkaya through the Poland
and Belarus Biodiversity Protection projects and the extensive Black Sea Ramsar wetlands
through the Ukraine Azov Black Sea Corridor Biodiversity project.
3.4
The Millennium Development Goals and Biodiversity
121.
At the Millennium Summit in September 2000, member states of the United Nations
reaffirmed their commitment to working toward a world in which sustaining development and
eliminating poverty would have the highest priority. The Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) adopted at this summit have been commonly accepted as a framework for measuring
development progress. MDG 7, Ensuring Environmental Sustainability, gives special attention to
the need to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs
and to reverse losses of environmental resources. Two of the environmental indicators for this
MDG, forest cover and protected area cover, are linked to biodiversity.
122.
Forest cover is a useful indicator of environmental sustainability, but making meaningful
progress on this indicator in the ECA Region will require looking at trends in forest cover at the
appropriate scale—in some cases, this will be at the district or subregional level. Specific forest
ecosystems could also be considered that would have a biodiversity conservation link as well. In
Russia, which has 22 percent of the world’s forests, important local and regional trends would be
masked by summary statistics for the entire country. The use of a second indicator such as forest
health, which also links to biodiversity values, would be useful. This selection of indicators is a
methodological challenge that will need to be the subject of separate analytical work (ESW). The
60
ESW on forest indicators will need to address the linkage between the MDG indicator(s) and
project performance indicators.
123.
Protected areas (national parks, natural monuments, nature reserves or wildlife
sanctuaries, protected landscapes and seascapes, or scientific reserves with limited public access)
are a useful indicator in the ECA Region. As discussed in the portfolio review section, the Bank
biodiversity portfolio has made progress in supporting the improved management of existing
protected areas (turning “paper parks” into functional ones) and in extending protected area status
to selected globally significant ecosystems. For the purposes of cross-country comparisons, the
protected area indicator is a reasonable proxy for capturing the progress a country has made in
protecting its biodiversity.
124.
Other tools, however, offer the potential for more clearly characterizing a country’s
efforts in conserving and managing its biodiversity, particularly in light of various threats that can
undermine these efforts. One is the need to focus on landscape-level features such as the extent to
which selected habitats or ecosystems are connected by corridors with appropriate management
regimes. The Protected Areas Development and Forests Development Projects in Georgia, the
Azov Black Sea Corridor Project in Ukraine, and the Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity
Project in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan are piloting approaches to biodiversity
conservation and use at the landscape level.
125.
Virtually all Bank/GEF protected area projects have supported biodiversity inventory and
monitoring. Two projects in particular, in Turkey and Romania, are establishing national systems
for biodiversity monitoring. These Biodiversity Information and Monitoring Systems (BIMS)
have been designed to provide the information needed to assess, demonstrate, defend, and
improve the effectiveness of the existing Protected Area network; to identify where areas of high
conservation importance are not currently under adequate systems of protection and management
(such as under-represented habitats or important ecological corridors); and to provide a basis for
decisionmaking with respect to allocating personnel and financial resources for expanding the
protected areas network (for example, by identifying new sites which should be protected,
updating existing datasets, mapping the boundaries of all protected areas, and establishing
permanent monitoring systems). In order to facilitate the circulation and sharing of data, the
BIMS are being designed to be accessible and widely used, and linked to a relatively userfriendly GIS system. As new information about species diversity and distribution becomes
available, the BIMS can be updated.
3.5
Lessons Learned
126.
We undertook a review of lessons learned in biodiversity projects, but also in
incorporating biodiversity and natural resource management considerations into Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers and Biodiversity Policy papers prepared by the Bank.28
127.
The main lessons from the biodiversity projects are as follows:
“Stand-alone” biodiversity projects are generally less successful at influencing broad natural
resource management policies than GEF operations blended with loans or credits. Incorporating
GEF activities into loans and credits also allows for a better mix of local and global benefits.
28
The list of references is provided in Annex 5.
61
However, stand-alone projects are warranted when the investment is urgent and when waiting for
a fully blended operation would be counterproductive.
Projects that empower local communities in design and implementation have a greater chance of
success. Project results also need to be incorporated into local and regional planning frameworks.
Projects with public communications strategies built in early have greater chance of success, but
they need to be well targeted.
There has been in general more success with on site conservation than with programs that protect
biodiversity off site.
Projects need to be “owned” by the relevant line agencies, and some of the most successful have
been implemented directly by them without the use of Project Implementation Units.
Innovative approaches to conservation financing (taxes, debt for nature swaps, trust funds,
sinking funds as well as user fees) have not been developed enough in the Region; these warrant
more attention in the future.
Incorporating short training courses in ecology and the use of geographic information systems in
landscape planning has a high pay-off.
128.
More broadly, project experience has taught practitioners that:

Simple projects are best; a complex of activities can work at the local level but nationallevel projects should be simple in focus.

A distinction must be made between short-term and long-term benefits.

There may be tensions between community-driven initiatives and policy reforms that
make sense from a national perspective.
62
Highlights of the Biodiversity Portfolio: synopses of selected biodiversity projects.
Highlight 1. Conservation and Management of Forests and Biodiversity in the Carpathian
Mountains
129.
The Carpathian Mountains support species-rich forest types covering more than 200,000
square kilometers and extending across seven countries in Eastern Europe in an arc from the
Czech Republic in the north and west, into Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary, and in the south and
east into Ukraine and Romania. In addition to being rich in species diversity and endemism, they
make important contributions to the character of the Region’s rich cultural traditions.
Communities throughout the Region have been shaped by climatic features, vegetation types, and
geographic features common to this mountain range.
130.
The Region is rich in biodiversity. Nearly a third of all Europe’s plant species can be
found in the ecoregion, including 300 plant communities and 3,800 vascular plants. The Region
provides important habitats for migratory and resident birdlife (such as the Golden eagle and the
capercaillie) and supports significant, viable populations of large carnivores, especially wolves
(Lupus lupus), brown bears (Ursus arctos) and lynx (Lynx lynx). By providing a corridor for
migrating carnivores such as the wolf, the Carpathians make a valuable contribution to
maintaining genetic viability. Species endemism is also high. Over 200 plant species, for
example, are endemic to the Carpathians, which constitute one of WWF’s Global 200 ecoregions
of global importance.
131.
The Carpathians also constitute an extremely important watershed catchment. Rainfall in
the Carpathians, which is over two times greater than in nearby regions, drains into the
catchments of the Danube and Vistula Rivers, which in turn drain into the Black and the Baltic
Seas. More than 80 percent of Romania’s water supply (excluding the Danube), 40 percent of
Ukraine’s supply, and one-third of the outflow of the Vistula river come directly from the
Carpathians.
132.
The Region supports the largest area of virgin montane forests in Europe outside of
Russia. While forests (largely of beech, oak, hornbeam, and chestnut, but including some
conifers) are a dominant feature of the landscape, they actually account for only half of the land
area, with the other half being lakes, meadows, and alpine regions. This diversity of land types
also accounts for their contribution to local livelihoods, particularly to pastoral communities,
which depend on meadows and rangelands for seasonal grazing, as well as the local timber
industry.
133.
The Bank has supported forest management and biodiversity conservation programs
across the Region. In Ukraine, for example, the objective of the GEF Transcarpathian
Biodiversity Protection Project was to demonstrate the principles of modern conservation biology
and restoration ecology, in addition to adopting and implementing successful park planning,
management, and protection of the Carpathians Biosphere Reserve. A second objective was to
link with the International Biosphere Reserve initiatives being developed by Ukraine, Poland, and
the Slovak Republic. A complementary activity in the Slovak Republic—the GEF Biodiversity
Protection Project—was designed to protect and to strengthen forest and related ecosystem
biodiversity; it did this by fostering systems of financially sustainable biodiversity protection
through the introduction of user fees, related charges for visitors, and concessions in order to
manage the areas within their determined carrying capacities as well as to provide support for a
three-country mechanism for protection of biodiversity in the Eastern Carpathians. Both these
projects have now been successfully completed.
63
134.
Over half of the Carpathians Mountain range is, however, found in Romania. Several
operations are currently under way to strengthen biodiversity conservation and to improve
sustainable systems of forest management. The GEF Biodiversity Conservation Management
Project, currently under implementation, aims to establish effective, intersectoral, participatory
planning and sustainable management of natural ecosystems and associated landscape at three
demonstration sites in the Carpathians, along with the mechanisms needed to support replication
of these activities at other priority conservation sites. Significant investments have been made in
developing the legal and institutional framework for a national protected area management
system. The project builds on the capacity of the National Forest Administration to undertake
protected area management in several critical national and natural parks.
135.
The demonstration sites constitute three models of protected area management. First, a
national park management model is being piloted in the Retezat National Park Biosphere
Reserve, which comprises a largely pristine mountain forest and alpine ecosystem. It includes 42
endemic plant species and is the European center of genetic diversity of two ecologically and
economically important plant groups. Second, natural park management is being piloted in the
Piatra Craiului Natural Park, an alpine and mountain ecosystem surrounded by a rich agricultural
landscape, which is also the ecosystem for a number of large carnivores. And third, sustainable
forest park management is being piloted in the Vanatori Neamt Forest Park, which comprises a
natural mixed hill and forest ecosystem and which provides an opportunity to demonstrate how
biodiversity conservation can be integrated into sustainable forest management.
136.
The Biodiversity Conservation Management Project complements resources that the
Bank is providing to Romania to improve sustainable forest management. Romania's forests
cover almost one-third of the country and include some of the last and largest tracts of natural and
virgin old-growth forests still remaining in Europe. They constitute an extremely valuable natural
resource in terms of their capacity for sustainable production of forest products, provision of
environmental services, and the conservation of biodiversity. While more than half of Romania's
forests are managed for protection functions (rather than for timber production), in the year 2000
the export value of forest products was estimated at around US$1 billion, which was equivalent to
10 percent of all exports. The value of environmental services associated with forests is, however,
considerably larger. Recent studies have indicated that the annual value of all products and
services provided by Romania's forests, including environmental services but excluding valueadded from forest industries, is on the order of US$3.1 billion.
137.
The Romania Forest Development Project, which is currently under implementation, was
designed to improve the management of state and private forests in an effort to increase benefits
to the national and rural economies derived from its forest resources. To this end, the project will
establish new systems to ensure sustainable management of private forestlands by strengthening
the Department of Forests, and specifically the Forest Inspectorate and Support Service, within
the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests. Furthermore, support will be provided for the
development of national and local associations of private forest owners, including assistance for
the development of business plans and capacity building in financial and procurement
management. In addition, a national forest management information and monitoring system will
be established to integrate cadastre, forest inventory, and biodiversity data.
138.
Large areas of Romania’s forests are being returned to their pre-1948 owners through a
national program of forest restitution. While the restitution of forestlands will ultimately lead to
greater democratization, empowerment, and improved distribution of benefits to their owners and
to associated rural communities, there are risks associated with the restitution process. Previous
64
experience in Romania and elsewhere has shown that if this takes place without adequate legal
and institutional mechanisms, an almost immediate loss of forest cover is likely to result, leading
to irreversible environmental degradation and significant economic losses for the country.
139.
The Forest Development Project aims also to mitigate the impacts of restitution on the
management of forests retained by the state by supporting reform and strategic development of
the National Forest Administration and through the rehabilitation and extension of the forest road
network. Finally, the project will support the increased productivity and competitiveness of forest
industries through the establishment of a Forest Sector Business Information Center to coordinate
and assist timber and related forest industries. The project will also carry out various public
awareness campaigns to build public support for sustainable forest management.
Highlight 2. Forest and Biodiversity Management in the Georgian Caucasus Ecoregion
140.
In Georgia, a forest management project, financed by IDA, and a protected area project,
partially funded by GEF, are working collaboratively to promote sustainable use and biodiversity
conservation in Georgia’s Caucasus region, a recognized global biodiversity hotspot. The two
projects are working together to develop a plan for forest conservation and sustainable use in the
Central Caucasus planning region, including identification of new protected areas, wildlife
corridors, and land use and forest management consistent with biodiversity conservation. Special
measures are being identified for the conservation and recovery of threatened flora and fauna.
141.
In eastern Georgia, management plans have been prepared for three key protected areas
in the Caucasus Mountains: Tusheti (115,800 hectares) and Vashlovani National Parks (44,796
hectares) and Lagodeckhi Nature Reserve (which will be expanded under the project from 17,932
to 25,400 hectares). These protected areas cover an altitudinal gradient from 100 to 4000 meters
elevation comprising alpine, montane, and lowland forest as well as grasslands. The sites contain
some of Georgia’s most important and threatened biodiversity, including critical habitat for
unique large mammal fauna such as the Caucasian tur.
142.
The projects place particular emphasis on ecosystem management and corridor
conservation. Corridor plans that link management activities within protected areas and those on
adjacent state forestlands under individual forest management unit are being piloted in high
conservation areas, including a riparian corridor to conserve the last remaining stands of alluvial
floodplain forest in eastern Georgia. The plans focus on conserving biodiversity values in the
production landscape by implementing habitat management practices (including no-hunting
zones) consistent with the needs of key threatened fauna such as Caucasian and Dagestan tur
(mountain goats), lynx, and wolf. The plans integrate recommendations for range management in
specific alpine habitats and provide detailed performance indicators to gauge the effectiveness of
management efforts. These will serve as models for replication in other forest management units
under the forestry project. In the ecosystems of the central and eastern Caucasus, both the wildlife
and the threats they face are transboundary in nature. Therefore, responsible agencies from Russia
will be invited to participate in development of the habitat plans.
143.
These projects have benefited from supplemental activities under the World Bank/WWF
Alliance for Forest Conservation to promote sustainable forest management and to strengthen
protected areas, two major objectives of the Alliance partnership. The Alliance promotion of
sustainable forest management in Georgia contributed to improved design of the Bank project.
WWF also led an ecoregional planning process in the Caucasus, which involved multiple
stakeholders and led to identification of priority areas for conservation and donor support.
65
Highlight 3. Improving Rangeland Management in Mountain Ecosystems of the Kyrgyz
Republic
144.
The Kyrgyz Republic covers about 200,000 square kilometers, over 90 percent of which
is mountainous. The mountains are characterized by high peaks (up to 7,000 meters), extensive
and rich summer pastures, high levels of biodiversity, and considerable potential for mountainrelated tourism. Mountain communities are affected by natural disasters such as mudflows,
floods, avalanches, and landslides, which have a devastating impact on security and livelihoods.
The impacts of these problems are also felt downstream, with siltation of aquatic habitats,
reservoirs, and irrigation infrastructure.
145.
To address the problems of environmental degradation and improved livelihoods, the
Sheep Development project (IDA, US$11.6 million) has piloted new models of rangeland tenure,
management, and monitoring. The resulting improvements in pasture use also reverse
biodiversity degradation that resulted from decades of severe overgrazing during the Soviet
period. Under the project’s pilot program in sustainable pasture management, leasing rights have
been defined for local community groups and households, rangeland management plans have
been drawn up which identify grazing loads and protection zones, and technical assistance is
provided to farmers on rangeland management and forage improvement. The project has
developed a GIS-compatible database for the country’s rangelands, including degraded ranges
that require protection from further overgrazing.
Highlight 4. Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Farm Privatization in Ukraine
146.
The objective of the Ukraine Rural Land Titling and Cadastre Project (IBRD, US$195
million; total project cost US$342 million) is to allocate land parcels to individual farmers
throughout the country and establish their property rights by issuing land deeds. The project also
tackles a major environmental and land management challenge: how to mainstream biodiversity
conservation in the land privatization process at the landscape level and at the level of the
individual farm. The lessons learned will be used in future land titling projects in the region.
147.
The former collective farms are mainly plowed farmlands. However, there are also
environmentally sensitive lands within and adjoining the boundaries of the farms, including
natural and plantation forests; wetlands, seashores, rivers and other water bodies, and steppe
rangelands. The Land and Water Codes provide for maintaining many of these sensitive habitats
in state ownership.
148.



To achieve its environmental and land management objective, the project will:
Inventory and map environmentally sensitive lands, and where appropriate exclude these
from privatization
Assign management regimes to be followed by the landowner (for privatized plots) or
state departments and local governments through a participatory approach that includes
individual landowners and different government sectors (such as environmental, water,
and land resource agencies at the rayon, oblast, and national levels, and municipal/village
governments)
Train the lead agency (the State Land Committee), farmers, and other departments and
agencies in the environmental management steps in the land titling process.
66
149.
In the coastal corridor of southern Ukraine, the Land Titling project will be implemented
in collaboration with the Azov Black Sea Corridor Biodiversity. The corridor biodiversity project
supports protected areas management and sustainable agriculture in the rayons that border the
Black Sea and Sea of Azov project, financed partly by a US$7-million GEF grant. Working with
the Land Titling Project, the Corridor Biodiversity project is:




Carrying out a landscape-level inventory of natural habitats in the coastal corridor based
on remote sensing and field surveys, which will be used by the Land Titling Project
where it operates in this coastal corridor; a Coastal Protected Area Plan for protected
areas of all categories will be developed
Building capacity in local and regional governments for management of natural habitats
and protected areas and financial support to implement new management mandates
Financing investments in sustainable agriculture that improve on-farm nutrient and soil
management and pollution to streams offsite, such as conservation and contour tillage
practices, creation of vegetated buffer strips along watercourses, creation of grassy
swales to catch agricultural runoff; manure storage tanks, and farm forest management
Supporting public education and awareness campaigns
150.
The Corridor Biodiversity Project has been designed by and is under implementation with
the assistance of parallel projects by two international NGOs: Wetlands International, financed by
the Government of the Netherlands, is supporting improved protection and wise use of key
wetlands and waterbird monitoring in the corridor; Flora and Fauna International, financed by the
U.K. Department of International Development, is supporting a regional landscape park and its
development for recreational uses.
Highlight 5. The Lake Ohrid Conservation Project
151.
The objective of the Lake Ohrid Conservation Project (GEF US$4 million) is to conserve
and protect the natural resources and biodiversity of Lake Ohrid and its watershed by developing
joint management of the lake by the governments and peoples of Albania and Macedonia. Lake
Ohrid is an ancient lake with many endemic and relict species and a rich cultural heritage that is
threatened by a rapidly increasing population, pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction.
Although the lake’s phosphorus concentrations still suggest an oligotrophic condition, the
plankton, benthos, and macrophytes are shifting to a species composition more characteristic of a
mesotrophic state, which cannot support its unique biodiversity.
152.
The project has supported establishment and operation of the bi-national Lake Ohrid
Management Board. Both countries are committed to moving ahead rapidly with Lake Ohridspecific land use planning and with the establishment, by international agreement, of a lake
management agency through which they would cooperate and coordinate their policies, programs,
and laws and regulations to ensure the lake’s protection and sustainable development.
153.
The bi-national Monitoring Task Force established under the project has produced a State
of Environment Report, which is the first comprehensive report drafted jointly by Macedonian
and Albanian technical experts. The details regarding current nutrient and sediment discharge
levels and sources will be used as a baseline for the future emission negotiations as well as for
measuring the effectiveness of the mitigation actions. Similarly, the trends identified in the
dynamics of the lake’s flora and fauna and the human activities that contribute to the undesirable
changes thereof are another valuable input for improving the relevance of the future management
decisions and regulatory framework modifications.
67
154.
Comprehensive NGO capacity building has helped many interest groups in the lake’s
watershed to organize themselves and has considerably strengthened the capacity of many
existing and newly established NGOs. Small competitive grants have enabled the local NGOs to
carry out numerous well-targeted activities, including media campaigns, special event such as
“Hug the Lake” and “Day of the Lake,” summer camps, and promotional products. The Green
Centers Network established with support from this project is fully operational and will continue
to play a key role in reporting environmental violations, providing a means of communication and
information to civil society, promoting transboundary cooperation and information exchange, and
so on.
155.
The project has introduced a Competitive Grant Program for Pilot Projects and Catalytic
Measures and is financing small-scale environmental mitigation projects that are implemented by
local NGOs and communities. More broadly, the project has done a great deal to bring local
authorities on both sides of the lake together and has helped to mobilize substantial investment
assistance. German KfW is committed to financing sewage improvements and treatment in
Pogradec and expanding the coverage of the sewage collector in Macedonia and to improving the
wastewater treatment facility in Struga. German GTZ is beginning work on solid waste
management on the Albanian side of the lake and the Swiss Government has committed to
financing improvements in Pogradec water supply system. The World Bank–financed Albania
fisheries project will contribute to improved fisheries resource management in cooperation with
the project.
Highlight 6. Kazakhstan Drylands Management Project
156.
The objective of the Drylands Management Project is to demonstrate and promote
sustainable land uses in two steppe and semi-desert ecosystems in the northern rayons of
Karaganda Oblast. The land was productive grassland and pastures until the 1950s, when the
rangelands were ploughed for intensive cereal cultivation under the Virgin Lands Scheme. Over
the years, unsustainable cereal production in this area of low natural rainfall has led to land
degradation and, in some cases, desertification. Many of these lands have either been abandoned
or are producing grain yields that are neither financially viable nor ecologically desirable.
Currently almost 150,000 hectares of previously ploughed lands lie abandoned; although some
abandoned lands have undergone natural regeneration, it would take more than 50 years for
minimum restoration of these grasslands. Most of these lands are currently subject to severe wind
erosion, which is resulting in further degradation of the land and attracting large locust
populations. It is estimated that 20 percent of carbon lost to erosion is emitted to the atmosphere
as carbon dioxide (CO2), which is considered to be a major factor in global climate change. Also,
most of the abandoned lands are dominated by invasive weeds and subject to frequent fires. These
fires reduce carbon stocks on the land and result in a subsequent net release of CO2. Loss of
vegetative cover has led to a substantial decline in bird and mammal populations. Some plant and
animal species, such as the red-breasted goose, golden eagle, manul (a wild cat), northern fern,
and thin poppy, have become extinct over the years. Unsustainable management of ploughed
cereal lands is compelling the rural population to shift to a livestock-based livelihood. However,
intensive overgrazing in the outlying areas of villages and the lack of watering points in the more
distant areas have resulted in further marginalization of those rangelands.
157.
The Drylands Management Project has the potential to stabilize the area both ecologically
and economically. The project seeks to develop sustainable land use systems, promote incomegenerating activities, improve national capacity to quantify carbon sequestration, and undertake a
broad public awareness campaign and develop a replication strategy so that project interventions
68
could be replicated in similar areas of Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries. Under the
project, approximately 40,000 hectares of land will be revegetated with native perennial grasses
and drought-resistant forage plants (wheatgrass, russian wild rye, sainfoin, Lucerne, and so on).
Such revegetation by means of perennial grasses adapted to local conditions will assist in
increasing land productivity and providing farmers with a wider range of farming alternatives;
developing new knowledge on the quantification of carbon sequestration in continental steppe
ecosystems; increasing the store of carbon, both in the soil and biomass; improving and
protecting the native flora and fauna of the region; and halting or reversing land degradation and
the threat of desertification.
Highlight 7. Russia Biodiversity Conservation Project
158.
The Russian Federation, at 17 million square kilometers the world’s largest country,
contains an enormous variety of ecosystems. It contains 8 biogeographic zones and 54 ecological
zones. The Lake Baikal area alone has 2,500 plant species, Primorsky Kray in the Russian Far
East has 3,000 species, and the North Caucasus has 3,700 species. It includes many rare animals,
including the snow leopard, Siberian musk deer, and Siberian crane. The flyways and summer
feeding and nesting grounds of many species of migratory birds are also found on Russian
territory. As in many western industrial countries in the postwar period, economic development
decisions were often taken without due regard for their long-term environmental impact.
Nevertheless, Russia’s protected area system—more than 90 million hectares and including a
network of strict nature reserves, national parks, special purpose reserves, and national
monuments—is the largest in the world. Russia has a distinguished tradition of scientific research
in its nature reserves and many devoted research scientists.
159.
With the transition to a market economy and the confusion and institutional vacuums
surrounding it, public funding for protected area management declined drastically. Furthermore,
the breakup of traditional “control” systems on the one hand and economic hardships on the other
hand contributed, for some years, to a near breakdown of the system and to dramatically
increased poaching of endangered species. It is estimated that the population of the Amur tiger
fell from 600 to 200 in the first years of the transition. A new approach to ecosystems
conservation was needed—one that recognized the role of multiple players and stakeholders
while still upholding the best of Russia’s scientific tradition and respect for nature.
160.
The Russia Biodiversity Project had the following objectives: to maintain, during the
transition period, a minimum level of funding to the protected area system, consistent with
Russia’s commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity; to develop national and selected
regional biodiversity strategies and identify sustainable funding mechanisms; to support enhanced
public awareness of and information about biodiversity conservation; to support preparation of
improved protected area management plans in selected reserves; and, through targeted support to
Lake Baikal and its watershed, to provide a regional demonstration of synergy between
conservation and sustainable development.
161.
Project implementation took place during a time of crisis, with frequent institutional
changes and financial collapse (in August 1998). Nevertheless, the project did achieve its
objectives. Public funding for the protected area system has increased substantially, and improved
protected area management plans have been prepared and implemented in 12 reserves. National
and regional strategies were prepared, and implementation includes a multiplicity of stakeholder
groups, from local communities, industry, NGOs, and even the Far East Border Guard, who have
adopted the snow leopard as their emblem. The support to Lake Baikal has led to many locally
led conservation initiatives and has helped secure financing for technologies that reduce
69
emissions from local industry. Ecology has been introduced into the university curricula for a
range of subjects. And an integrated information base on biodiversity exists, accessible to the
public. Even though, at the central level, institutional responsibilities within the Ministry for
Natural Resources are still uncertain, the project goals do appear to have been “mainstreamed” by
a broad group of Russia stakeholders.
162.
Project authorities worked closely with local administrations, NGOs, and community
groups, and over the implementation period broad support has grown for a landscape approach to
ecosystems conservation, combining economic activities with sustainable natural resource
management and conservation. Support has grown for the concept of regional ecosystem
networks and corridors, financed by a multiplicity of sources. At the same time, in the forest
production landscape, there is a consensus that an ecosystems approach is the best way forward
for sustainable forest management, and certification systems are being piloted in several regions.
This includes better fire management of critical forest ecosystems as well as production forests.
163.
One lesson may also be that “taking risks” regarding sustainability often pays off,
especially in transition economies. Many countries other than Russia (Kazakhstan, Turkey,
Romania, Ukraine, and even Poland) faced very severe budget difficulties in the early and mid1990s, and many doubts were raised about the sustainability of supporting “public good”
activities. Being willing to “take the risk” has reaped rewards. A second lesson is that even when
there is institutional turmoil, some development objectives can be met—provided support for
them is sufficiently widespread.
Highlight 8. Turkey In-Situ Conservation of Genetic Biodiversity Project
164.
Turkey is at a geographical crossroads, and over 30 percent of the 8,800 plant species
found in Turkey are endemic. It is the center of origin of the wild relatives of key crops that feed
the world, including wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea, pear, apple, cherry, walnut, pistachio, and
chestnut. Unique adaptations of woody species such as pine, fir, and cedar are at their
geographical limits in Turkey and found nowhere else.
165.
Primitive landraces and wild crop relatives from Turkey continue to provide new sources
of important traits needed to improve agricultural production worldwide. Like many countries,
Turkey had undertaken ex-situ gene conservation programs, conserving samples of crop genetic
diversity in gene banks. Yet these programs cannot preserve the diverse interactions of plants
with their natural pests, predators, and the environment because evolutionary processes cease exsitu.
166.
The objectives of the project, implemented during the “pilot” phase of the GEF between
1993 and 1999, were to identify and establish in-situ conservation areas in Turkey for the
protection of non-woody and woody species and associated forest germplasm and to develop a
national strategy for in-situ conservation.
167.
The project was implemented jointly by the Ministries of Forestry and Agriculture with
the Ministry of Environment. It had five components: site surveys and inventory, establishment
of gene management zones, data management, development of a national plan, and institutional
strengthening.
168.
The project implementing agencies selected target species: world relatives of wheat and
of food and feed legumes; woody crops and chestnuts; and fir, cedar, and pine. It identified three
priority areas for detailed work. These were the Northern Aegean (Kazdagi National Park), rich in
70
fruit progenitor, nut, ornamental, and forest species; Southeastern Turkey (Ceylinpinar) for wild
wheat, barley, lentil and chickpea germplasm; and central southern Turkey (the Anatolian
Diagonal-Bolkar mountains), which lies at the extreme geographical limits for several species.
(Finding sites required compromises; some potential sites had to be abandoned in western Turkey
because of the pressure of urban development and in southeast Turkey due to the security
situation.)
169.
Following ecosystem-based surveys, more detailed surveys, and plant inventories, the
information base was established for selection of gene management zones. Twenty-two zones
were established, with detailed genetic analyses undertaken with some strains also conserved exsitu. A national plan for in-situ gene conservation was also prepared, mostly by academics and
NGOs but with wide stakeholder participation. And there was a broad dissemination effort in the
Turkish and international scientific community.
170.
The project acted as a catalyst for cooperation between three ministries that did not have
a tradition of working together. Researchers also worked closely with local communities living
near the gene management zones. The government is committed to maintaining the gene
management zones established. The success of the operation, implemented during a period of
economic turmoil and frequent budgetary crises, was also due to the commitment of the research
staff working on the project.
171.
The project was a “first” for ECA but has not yet been followed by similar operations in
other countries in the Region. Biodiversity conservation of landraces and wild relatives requires
that agricultural and forestry research organizations, which have the capacity to do this type of
work, collaborate closely with environment agencies and local communities.
71
CHAPTER 4. MEETING THE CHALLENGE: A
STRATEGY FOR CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY IN ECA
4.1
Strategy Objectives
172.
The Bank’s strategy for biodiversity conservation is guided by a series of supporting
strategies, including the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans that have been
prepared by each of the ECA countries; the Bank’s Corporate Environment Strategy; the ECA
strategies for forestry, natural resources management, and rural development; the draft business
plan prepared by the GEF, the principal source of financing for investments to protect global
biodiversity values; and the lessons learned from the portfolio of completed projects. Based on
these considerations, the biodiversity strategy for ECA focuses on five priorities:





4.2
Mainstreaming biodiversity into economic development and the production landscape
Putting more focus on poverty reduction and support to rural livelihoods
Strengthening policy frameworks for biodiversity and for natural resources management
more generally
Giving greater attention to high-priority ecosystems
Strengthening protected area networks
Support to Policy and Investment Planning
173.
The portfolio review found that support to policy and investment planning has been solid
in some areas and lacking in others. Biodiversity issues have been covered in the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers so far completed (Albania, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic,
and Tajikistan). Country Assistance Strategies have generally included ecosystem conservation
issues where they are important, although the broader issues of land management, particularly in
the Region’s coastal zones, and of selected thematic issues (agrobiodiversity conservation, for
example) have received insufficient attention in the CASs and therefore in the lending program.
174.
With regards to PRSPs, the priorities are:

To continue to assist countries to integrate biodiversity and other environmental issues in
the PRSPs to be prepared or updated (Armenia, Bosnia, Moldova, Uzbekistan, and Serbia
and Montenegro).

To assist these countries to develop a programmatic approach to biodiversity in the
PRSPs. The focus will be in two areas. The first is identifying improvements in policies
that affect biodiversity (laws and regulations, resource use fees and rents, the use of
environmental taxes and funds to finance conservation) in order to incorporate these
where feasible into the Poverty Reduction Strategy Credits (PRSCs); these are adjustment
72
operations to support structural reforms for poverty reduction (and environmental
sustainability). In selected countries, Economic Sector Work should be undertaken to
provide recommendations on improvements to policy frameworks that will promote
environmental sustainability and conservation, for incorporation into the PRSCs. The
second focus is to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity into sectoral development
policies and projects.

175.
To work with client countries, as PRSPs are updated in the future, to develop lessons
learned on the implementation of biodiversity activities within existing PRSPs and to
incorporate these into future assistance on PRSPs.
With regards to CASs:

The portfolio review found that the Bank’s performance on mainstreaming biodiversity
into sectoral operations has been spotty—good in some areas (such as forestry and
watershed management) and weaker in others (agriculture and irrigation). For all new
Country Assistance Strategies, developing inputs that help mainstream conservation into
development policies and projects will be a high priority.

For CASs to be prepared in high biodiversity countries where the Bank plans to remain
active, the priority is to include biodiversity lending operations or activities, as in
Azerbaijan, the Central Asian republics, the Balkans, and Ukraine. In other countries,
where there are new projects, as in Georgia and Armenia, CAS inputs should focus more
on improving the linkages among projects in the subregion and in working to improve the
enabling environments for these projects.
176.
With regards to ESW:

The priority for ESW is to carry out an analysis of the primary indicators that are linked
to biodiversity conservation (at this point, these are forest cover and protected area
coverage), and to refine these as appropriate for ECA’s specific conditions. These MDG
indicators will be one of the main factors used as inputs to PRSPs and CASs.

The portfolio review found that ESW in the agricultural and irrigation sectors was weak
on mainstreaming and biodiversity issues. The priority here is to ensure that biodiversity
is included in future analytical work on agriculture, irrigation, and water resources
management.
4.3
Subregional Priorities
177.
The strategy for enhancing biodiversity conservation in ECA has four main Region-wide
priorities and a number of specific subregional priorities (see Table 6):

Combine support to ecosystems conservation with local initiatives to support sustainable
livelihoods. Participatory natural resource management operations combining GEF, IDA,
and other grant support offer the best approaches.
73

Expand the use of community-driven development as a tool in decentralized biodiversity
conservation natural resources management in areas, as has been developed in Albania
under various projects.

Incorporate biodiversity into agricultural land use practices; Romania and other countries
in the Region had a tradition of conservation of landraces before 1990, but this has
deteriorated as the agricultural research institutions in those countries weakened.

Deepen and expand the efforts to develop sustainable financing mechanisms to support
protected area management, including through sustainable ecotourism and conservation
trust funds, as well as natural resources management more generally.

Expand the reach of protected areas to river basin and flood management that
incorporates conservation values.

Improved ecosystem governance could also be incorporated into broader economic
reform work; A combination of loan financing and concessional funding from other
partners is likely to be most successful.
Romania and the Balkans
178.
For these countries—Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia,
Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro—the priority is to continue and to extend efforts in the
forest sector and in conservation of natural habitats in the coastal zone.
179.
In forestry projects in Bulgaria and Romania, the approach is to sharpen efforts to
mainstream biodiversity at the landscape level by using tools developed under the High
Conservation Value Forest initiative and at the individual forest level by using forest management
plans. The priority is also to pursue new operations where the Bank has not been active or where
continuation investments make sense, as in Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia, and Macedonia. In
Albania, the priority is to develop a new project in watershed management that builds on the
successful outcomes of the communal forest and pasture component of the forestry project.
180.
The Bank should build into these projects more activities in regional and transboundary
cooperation, as piloted under the Lake Ohrid Conservation Project. The first prospects for
transboundary cooperation are the proposed Neretva delta wetlands and flood management
project (Bosnia and Croatia) and the proposed Lake Skodra Conservation project (Albania and
Montenegro).
181.
In Croatia—where public commitment to ecosystems conservation, both in coastal areas
and in mountain ecosystems, is high—future support should focus on incorporating biodiversity
into investment and policy-based lending in water/wastewater, agriculture and food safety,
forestry, and broader water resource management. There is also scope in Croatia for moving
forward with conservation endowment fund financing, involving NGOs and the private sector.
182.
In Romania, the Bank’s program of support included conservation in the Danube Delta,
one of Europe’s largest wetlands, conservation management of forest and montane ecosystems,
and mainstreaming of conservation values into forestland use planning. In many ways Romania—
with relatively strong public institutions, a commitment to decentralization, and an active NGO
community—can provide a model for other countries.
74
183.
In Bulgaria, the priority is to extend pilot work on wetland restoration and
environmentally sustainable farming practices along the Danube.
184.
Throughout the subregion, another priority is the improved management of grassland
habitats in lowland steppe and mountain pastures.
Turkey and the Caucasus
185.
For Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, the priority is to develop communitybased and participatory methods of natural resources management and biodiversity conservation.
186.
In Turkey, this would be achieved by expanding the participatory approach to watershed
management and ecosystem rehabilitation involving civil society and decentralized
decisionmaking that has been developed under the Eastern Anatolia Watershed Management
project. Additional priorities for Turkey are:

Promote cooperation among ministries so that the external impacts of decisions in one
sector (in particular, tourism and water developments) receive better consideration.
Priorities include coastal areas, significant landscapes near cities, and river basins.

Incorporate agro-biodiversity management in the production landscape, given Turkey’s
exceptional richness in the wild relatives of food crops.

Improve the adaptation of forest management to particular ecosystems, focusing on
landscapes rather than on production values, when these better reflect the potential.
Future support to Turkey, given these “systemic” issues, may best be provided through a
mix of modest investment combined with broader policy-based lending.
187.
In the Caucasus countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, the Bank’s assistance to
ecosystems conservation is at an early stage and poses a particular challenge, given the global
significance of these ecosystems and the Region’s problems with poverty and natural resource
degradation, governance, and weak public institutions. In addition, some public and civil society
organizations have in the past equated ecosystem conservation with strict protection from any
form of economic activity. A combination of approaches is necessary.
188.
NGOs to date in the Caucasus have had an advocacy role and some are actively working
“on the ground” to support conservation initiatives. This is changing—for example, through new
initiatives in monitoring of illegal logging. The Bank should support efforts to strengthen them, in
particular regarding practical work in the field.
189.
Azerbaijan and Georgia’s people, economies, and ecosystems can benefit from the
energy and energy transit investments, but these developments need to include measures to
mitigate environmental damage and enhance related ecosystems. The priority in these areas is to
support transparency and information exchange, and to promote partnerships between privatesector developers and local organizations.
190.
Another priority is to support stronger, adequately financed, and accountable public
institutions responsible for natural resource management. In addition to pursuing this under
individual projects in the rural portfolio, it needs to be incorporated into the Bank’s broader
economic and structural reform agenda.
75
Central Asia
191.
The Bank’s support in Central Asia has been too small relative to the needs and
opportunities and so far has focused on two ecosystems: the West Tien Shan mountains, with
support for a transboundary biodiversity project, and the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Delta and
northern Aral Sea, where the focus has been on wetlands restoration. Both these activities have a
strong focus on enhancing local livelihoods, and the Tien Shan project has been highly successful
in promoting transboundary cooperation.
191.
The priorities in Central Asia are as follows:

Combine improved ecosystems management with local income-generating activities for
the greatest chance of success. This approach is beginning to be adopted in Tajikistan,
where the proposed Community Watershed Development Project combines support to
poverty reduction and sustainable resource management in biodiversity-rich hilly and
mountain landscapes.

Incorporate ecosystems restoration into Bank land and water management projects, as is
being done in the proposed Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation, and Wetlands Improvement
Project through investments in tugai forest management along the Amu-Darya.

Continue to support strengthened public and civil society institutions as part of the
broader governance agenda.

Push strongly to develop external partnerships to help finance biodiversity conservation,
given the resource constraints within the countries.
193.
Kazakhstan faces different challenges in ecosystems conservation. As a middle-income
country with stronger public institutions, there is greater public commitment to and financing for
environmental protection than in other countries of the Region. The Bank’s priorities for
Kazakhstan are to:

Assist in developing a management strategy for the globally significant steppe
ecosystems that combines sustainable production (for both domestic livestock and
wildlife) with conservation. Investment will be needed to implement that strategy.

Assist with a lending operation focused on restoration and management of saxsaul and
Irtysh pine forest management in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the country.

Continue current assistance to restore the lower Syr Darya and northern Aral Sea through
a second phase.

Tap the unique opportunities of the Caspian and inland rivers and lakes to combine
sustainable management with income generation from commercial and recreational
fisheries.
194.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, the priority is to prepare a blended IDA/GEF project in mountain
natural resources management that builds on the completed Sheep Development Project and
focuses on improved steppe and mountain pasture management and possibly forestry.
76
195.
For these activities in Central Asia, the Bank would build on the successful regional
cooperation achieved under the Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity project. This could be
pursued either through a second phase of this project, expanded to include Tajikistan and possibly
Turkmenistan, or through incorporating collaborative biodiversity investments in future projects
in the individual countries.
Russian Federation
196.
Because of the size and global significance of its forests and its arctic, tundra, and steppe
ecosystems, a special approach combining private-sector and public-sector partnerships both
domestically and internationally is needed. Russia’s system of protected areas, both federal and
regional, needs to be strengthened through landscape conservation corridors and through
supporting landscape approaches that combine sustainable use with conservation, especially in
forest ecosystems. The Bank is supporting improved forest management more generally,
including planning, utilization, and fire and pest management, which will play a key role in
biodiversity conservation in Russia. The priorities in Russia are to:

Build on the work started in having local enterprises “champion” particular conservation
areas or species, and encourage the NGO community to build on its work regarding
“action on the ground” in addition to advocacy. The focus of conservation activities
would vary depending on the location. In Karelia, where population and economic
activities are more intense, the challenge is to combine more intensive management of
economic activities with tourism, recreation, and landscape management. In the AltaySayan and the Sikhote Alin the focus would instead be on sustainable livelihoods,
tourism, and forest fire and conservation management.

Russia, with a great tradition in conservation of agro-biodiversity, also needs to reestablish its genetic resource monitoring systems both in-situ and ex-situ. The Bank
should support these programs where opportunities arise, focusing above all on improved
public sector management.
Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine
197.
In Ukraine and Belarus, the Bank has so far provided modest support to wetland and
forest conservation, but in Ukraine this has not yet been “mainstreamed” into broader forest and
water resource management. (There has been more progress in Belarus in part because public
institutions have been more stable.)
198.
In Ukraine, which contains important wetland, steppe, and forest ecosystems, the main
challenge is to incorporate biodiversity conservation values into land use planning as it proceeds
with land privatization. This is particularly a challenge for steppe ecosystems, but also for forests
and coastal areas. To date the Bank has not started to work with Ukraine on incorporating
conservation and sustainable land use into the broader economic reform and restructuring agenda.
A second challenge concerns incorporation of biodiversity into agricultural practices. A third
challenge will be to support improved forest and mountain conservation and use in the
Carpathians, an area with a high incidence of rural poverty and high biodiversity. The priorities
for Ukraine are as follows:

Develop an assistance program in the forest sector that combines improved forest
management at the landscape and site levels with support to the emerging small, private
77
forest owners. This will be developed around the current assistance in developing forest
certification standards through the Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation.

Provide continued support for Ukraine’s Black Sea and Azov Sea, which contain some of
the best preserved wetlands in the Region.

Emphasize regional collaboration in pursuing these priorities, particularly with Romania
in the Carpathians, where the Bank supports both improved forestry and protected areas
management, and with Moldova and Russia on the conservation of Black Sea wetlands.
199.
For Moldova—densely populated, rural, and with a good deal of highly degraded land—
the challenge is to conserve remaining valuable forest ecosystems while working with local
populations to increase income-generating opportunities from these. The second challenge is to
incorporate conservation into farming practices. Financial incentives will be necessary, given the
trade-offs between short-term costs and long-term benefits.
Central Europe and the Baltics
200.
The Bank will focus less on support for biodiversity conservation in Central Europe and
the Baltics than it did in the 1990s, because these European Union (EU) accession countries have
access to other sources of financing and are no longer a focus of broader Bank support. There are,
however, three priorities for continued future collaboration:

First, where there is a demand for major investment loans, in such areas as flood
management, wastewater treatment, or agricultural safety/quality standards, the priority is
to seek to mainstream biodiversity conservation elements into project design. In
agriculture, this could include support for management of invasive species, organic
farming, greater use of landraces, and environmentally sensitive farming. This is also
consistent with EU policy, which is attaching growing importance to environmental
conservation in productive activities.

Second, there is great opportunity for Central Europeans to share experience with other
ECA countries, since many faced similar challenges in the transition. Bank involvement
can facilitate these exchanges. (The World Bank Institute, Global Distance Learning, and
participation in European workshops and conferences can help.)

Finally, in forestry there are opportunities for continued collaboration through
partnerships such as the Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation, which supports
forest certification and collaboration between the private sector and civil society in forest
management that incorporates conservation values.
Regional Seas, International Waters, and Cooperation in Transboundary Ecosystem
Management
201.
The Bank should continue to assist with better management of the Baltic, Black, Caspian,
and Aral Seas and their watersheds and with transboundary lakes such as Ohrid, Skodra, and
Baikal, where there is demand from clients. These pose a particular challenge in terms of
assistance instruments. In general, consistent with the principle to “think globally, act locally,”
analysis and broad planning at the river basin or ecosystem level is likely to lead to successful
implementation if this is handled at the national level through individual initiatives, with
78
opportunities for sharing experience. Multicountry projects, with important exceptions, face
complex implementation challenges. However, there are also advantages. For example, the
Central Asia Biodiversity project has now reached a stage where the focus is very much on crosscountry assistance and knowledge sharing. The Bank should not shy away from the opportunities
that such transboundary projects present. Future possibilities include the Balkans, the
Carpathians, and the Caucasus as well as extension of the work in Central Asia.
4.4
Sectoral Priorities
202.
Biodiversity will mainstreamed to a greater extent into Bank lending operations,
including land reform and agricultural services, but also irrigation and drainage, water and
wastewater, and flood, riverbasin, forestry, and watershed management.
203.
In the forest sector, sustainable forest management will be emphasized, and
mainstreaming will receive more focus. The priorities include the following:

Assist client countries in developing guidelines and tools for integrating biodiversity into
forest management, and maintain special protection measures for old-growth forests and
their unique biodiversity. Working through the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest
Conservation, the EU, and other partners, the focus will be on improving existing tools
such as certification and extending their use and on piloting new tools such as
identification and management of High Conservation Value Forests. The priority
countries for this include countries where the Bank is already active (Russia, Bosnia,
Armenia, and Georgia) and where it is identifying or preparing new lending operations
(Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan).

Design forestry projects in countries where forest privatization or restitution are
important to include extension services to serve individual landowners, and mainstream
biodiversity into these services, as is now being done in Bulgaria and Romania.

Promote regional collaboration on the use of mainstreaming tools, particularly within the
subregions. Bank clients are eager to restore professional collaboration with neighboring
countries on common issues and opportunities, and they have a great deal to offer one
another in how to resolve problems. More training workshops will be held at the
subregional level to promote regional and transborder cooperation in forest management
and conservation (see Box 13).

Explore opportunities for lending operations in the forest landscape in the Balkan
countries and Ukraine where the Bank has not yet been active, and seek GEF support for
global biodiversity benefits.

Explore opportunities in the Central Asian Republics for natural resources and land
management projects and include forest biodiversity conservation activities in these.
Supporting improved governance of forest ecosystems will involve:

Helping to restore budgets for management of protected areas, which are chronically
underfunded, and forests in the “production landscape”, which require better protection
against fire and disease and pest outbreaks.
79

Working with clients to align responsibilities for management of forests and protected
areas to provide a more integrated approach to forest biodiversity across the forest
landscape;

Assisting ECA countries to put in place improved monitoring plans to track biodiversity
outcomes, within a framework that improves the measurement of project outcomes.
Box 13. Joint Training in Biodiversity Conservation and Watershed Management
A training program brought together specialists and decisionmakers from six former Soviet
Union republics to learn about the cross-sectoral, stakeholder-based approaches developed in
Lake Tahoe and to share experiences and lessons learned in biodiversity conservation efforts
since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The professional and cultural diversity of the study-tour
participants added to the learning experience—22 professionals with diverse expertise from
three culturally distinct parts of the Former Soviet Union and representing four World
Bank/GEF biodiversity projects. The mix led to sharing of cross-country experiences and laid
the groundwork for continuing collaboration and assistance.
The program initiated collaboration among ECA biodiversity projects that face similar
biodiversity conservation challenges. Dating from their common history within the Former
Soviet Union, these countries have many things in common, such as similar technical and social
approaches and tools to biodiversity conservation, land use planning, and natural resources
management; a shared history of protected areas and current trends (the system of strict nature
reserves, or zapovedniks, was one of the best in the world, and now faces an urgent need to
improve social relevance and to generate funds for upkeep); and language (although Russian is
not the official language in these countries, it is widely spoken).
Three themes emphasized by the program were that regional plans require a long-term
commitment to science and monitoring, that cooperation among stakeholders is key, and that
funding and expenses should play a major role in planning.
The participants will apply their knowledge to similar landscape-level conservation problems in
their individuals projects—from coastal and mountain corridors in Ukraine, Moldova, and the
Georgian Caucasus to a transborder bioregional plan in the West Tien Shan of Central Asia
(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan).
The study tour was organized through the Tahoe-Baikal Institute, an international NGO that
supports training programs in watershed management in two large lake ecosystems (Tahoe and
Baikal) that face development and conservation challenges. The Institute has operated at Lake
Tahoe and Lake Baikal in Russia for 10 years, facilitating cooperation and exchange of
expertise on lake ecosystem management in both directions.
204.
In the agriculture sector, land management for maintaining or increasing biodiversity in
the agricultural landscape will be supported through
80

Enhanced on-farm management of habitats, soils, and nutrients, as is being done through
the GEF-funded agricultural pollution abatement projects in the Black Sea riparian
countries (Turkey, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, and Ukraine).

Land use planning and mainstreaming biodiversity into the farm land cadastre and titling
process, building on the methods developed under the Ukraine Land Cadastre and Titling
Project.

Support for diversification of crop types and regionally or subregionally significant
agrobiodiversity, as is being done so far on a small scale through the competitive small
grants and micro-credit activities in the agricultural support projects.
205.
The conservation and use of agrobiodiversity will receive more attention through:

Reinforcing local efforts to conserve agrobiodiversity in situ. Several projects or
proposals in the ECA support on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity, but more are
needed to encompass a wide array of farming environments. Individual farmers will be
supported through agriculture projects, building on the lessons learned from the
competitive small grant programs in Georgia and Croatia, which financed conservation of
plant germplasm.

Considering in future agricultural services projects the value of supporting recovery of
gene banks for storage of wild relatives and land races, both in-situ (in the landscape) and
ex-situ (in research institutes).

Refining agrobiodiversity “hotspots” to guide conservation planning. Although the
centers of crop domestication in the ECA Region have been delineated, much work
remains to be done in understanding better the distribution of near relatives and
traditional varieties of many crop plants as well as the occurrence of traditional livestock
breeds. Such surveys could be conducted as part of overall botanical inventories of zones
or regions, and would include more support for taxonomic work. If such information
were gathered and analyzed spatially, it could be incorporated into a GIS format to
facilitate the work of environmental and conservation planners.

Encouraging surveys of indigenous knowledge systems for information on
agrobiodiversity surveys. Many germplasm samples are collected in markets, with little
information on how farmers cultivate that variety or its cultural value. Even when
samples for genebanks are gathered in farmers’ fields, little cultural information about the
variety is typically collected. Where feasible, biodiversity and agriculture projects should
collect and disseminate indigenous knowledge about traditional varieties, wild
populations of crops, and their near relatives. In turn, communities should have access to
publications and reports on genetic resources, including material of interest to them from
other areas.

Seeking financing for regional genebanks so that collections are not lost and information
is more accessible. Most of ECA’s genebanks, especially those in the Former Soviet
Union, suffer from a lack of financing. Few genebanks in the ECA Region have
computerized databases; most use file cards to record data, which makes it difficult for
breeders to run searchers for desirable traits. Computers and appropriate software are thus
needed to enhance the value of genebanks in the Region. Storage conditions also need to
81
be improved in many collections, such as installation of freezers for medium and long
term preservation of seeds so that material has to be regenerated less frequently.

Supporting networks devoted to plant and animal genetic resources. If work on the
collection and use of plant and animal genetic resources were better coordinated by
ecological zone, unnecessary duplication of effort would be avoided and scarce funding
used more rationally.29 Prior to 1992, VIR, headquartered in St. Petersburg, coordinated
all work on plant genetic resources in the ECA Region. Now that the countries are
independent, new partnerships need to be forged, especially since funding is now more
insecure for such activities. Three such networks have recently been established and
warrant increased support: the Central Asian and Transcaucasian Network on Plant
Genetic Resources (CATCN-PGR), the Central Asia Plant Genetic Resources Network
(CAN-PGR), and the West Asia and North Africa Plant Genetic Resources Network
(WANANET).
206.
In the irrigation and flood control subsector, investments will be expanded in water
resources infrastructure and improved protection of critical aquatic ecosystems, such as the
approach being taken under the Syr Darya project and the forthcoming Uzbekistan Drainage,
Irrigation, and Wetlands Improvement Project.
207.
In the municipal services sector, synergies between investments in wastewater treatment
and improved protection of critical aquatic ecosystems will be considered, such as the approach
being taken under the Albania Integrated Water and Ecosystems Management Project.
4.5
Strategy Implementation Instruments: Lending, Economic Sector Work, and
Partnerships
208.
The assistance strategy for biodiversity conservation will be implemented using lending
and nonlending instruments. The strategy requires innovative approaches to biodiversity
conservation that are cross-sectoral, have strong client ownership, and are assisted through
partnerships with stakeholders in the public and private sector and the donor community.
Lending
209.
Financing biodiversity conservation and use has been shaped by the willingness of Bank
client countries to borrow for the considerable range of projects that have biodiversity outcomes
and by the opportunity to obtain grant cofinancing from GEF and other sources.
210.
Lending operations will continue to balance the need to design simple projects and yet
address the root causes of biodiversity loss, which warrant diverse interventions because of the
cross-sectoral nature of the problems. The policy framework will receive greater focus, as it has
not been adequately addressed in the portfolio in the past. To assist in understanding the
improvements needed in the policy framework, analytic work on biodiversity-sensitive policies
will be undertaken with client countries and the results will be built into project conditionalities
and designs. Community participation and work to improve the design of small grants programs
and other demand-driven approaches that engage local communities in project implementation
29
The tangible payoffs from international collaboration in agricultural research, including the testing of
crop materials in multiple site nurseries, are explored in D. Plucknett et al., Networking in International
Agricultural Research (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990).
82
will be emphasized. At the same time, however, the “public good” aspect of biodiversity requires
that sufficient attention be paid to public-sector improvements and reform in the portfolio.
211.
Regarding protected areas, globally significant terrestrial and aquatic/marine ecosystems
will still be targeted, especially when these can be blended with IDA/IBRD lending operations
and where protection and sustainable use can be balanced. The Bank will continue to promote
regional approaches to protected area networks, which have been successfully applied in a series
of projects over the last decade.
212.
In forestry, agriculture, and municipal infrastructure, innovative opportunities to achieve
biodiversity outcomes in the course of economic development and poverty reduction will be
sought. In forestry, this will be through certification of forest management and improved
management of high-conservation-value forests. In land management, this will be through
strengthening local and regional land use planning under the protected areas and land
cadastre/titling projects, strengthening management of farm habitats and soils, and conservation
and use of agrobiodiversity. In the irrigation and flood control and municipal services subsectors,
greater effort will be devoted to finding opportunities to mainstream conservation and use of
natural aquatic ecosystems into project design (building on the Syr Darya and Northern Aral Sea
Project). The Bank will look for win-win opportunities to support improved water and sanitation
services while protecting sensitive aquatic rivers, streams, lakes, and seas.
213.
Most of ECA’s biodiversity projects blend credit financing from IBRD/IDA and grant
financing from GEF, reflecting the need to address the root causes of biodiversity loss by
addressing local or economic development needs. Blending GEF with IBRD/IDA funds is now
expected for regular projects, in contrast to Medium-Sized Projects, which are for smaller sums
(up to $1 million in GEF financing) and designed to support NGO projects that could have
difficulty in attracting IDA/IBRD cofinancing.
214.
IDA funds are the main source of Bank financing in some ECA countries with high
biodiversity values and high poverty rates. This includes the countries of the southern Caucasus
(Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), Central Asia (Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan),
and central and southern Europe (Albania and Moldova). The IDA allocation for these countries
is declining, and may continue to decline in the near term. This will likely mean fewer IDA
projects and fewer opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity.
Adjustment Lending
215.
ECA has used adjustment operations widely for sectoral policy reform and to enhance
policy dialogue with client countries. Natural resource policy has been included in these
operations rarely, and biodiversity has not yet been explicitly included. ECA will undertake
analytic work to assess biodiversity policy frameworks in the Region and begin incorporating
policy benchmarks into adjustment operations in high biodiversity subregions such as Central
Asia and the Caucasus. The Bank is likely to begin working through the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Credits for IDA countries and to extend the results based on any lessons learned.
Global Environment Facility
216.
The GEF has played a central and catalytic role in supporting biodiversity conservation in
ECA in three ways: by being the main source of financing for improving the management of
existing protected areas and creating new ones, with particular attention to the Region’s
biodiversity hotspots on land and water; by supporting mainstreaming of biodiversity into
83
development projects in the forest sector, in community-based natural resources management,
and in agriculture; and by supporting aquatic and marine ecosystem conservation measures
through the Regional Seas Programs and through the Black Sea Nutrient Reduction Program.
217.
The ECA biodiversity program has grown substantially over the last decade with strong
GEF support, but future GEF support to the Bank’s biodiversity program is difficult to predict.
This is because of uncertainties in replenishment of the GEF, a broadening of its mandate to
include additional problems (such as persistent organic pollutants), and an increase in the number
of international organizations that have access to GEF funds by serving as Implementing
Agencies.
218.
At the same time, there are two new GEF operational programs—Integrated Ecosystem
Management and Land Degradation—that ECA will use to finance cross-sectoral approaches to
biodiversity conservation. The Region will also expand use of the GEF Medium-Sized Projects
(MSP) window, which provides up to $1 million in financing. This program has lower processing
and transactional costs within the Bank and is well suited for assistance to NGOs and local
communities. To date, the MSP window has been little used in ECA.
219.
ECA currently has only three biodiversity MSPs under implementation and a further four
under preparation, compared with over 20 in the Latin America Region. This is due in part to the
fact that NGOs in this Region are less accustomed to preparing financing proposals than in the
Latin America Region. ECA NGOs should be encouraged to apply for MSPs, always bearing in
mind that GEF budgetary resources for their supervision must remain modest.
Prototype Carbon Fund and Biocarbon Fund
220.
The Prototype Carbon Fund is a new instrument that provides concessional financing for
activities that sequester carbon or reduce carbon emissions (such as afforestation, improved range
management, or improved heating systems). It is supporting afforestation projects that will yield
carbon trading benefits in Romania and Moldova.
221.
The Bank’s new Biocarbon Fund has been developed to finance innovative investments
that lead to a better understanding of the cross-sectoral issues of climate change, biodiversity
conservation, and land management, degradation, and desertification. The Fund is capitalized at
around $200 million and will finance learning projects in areas such as reforestation of degraded
grasslands, landscape rehabilitation through planting of corridors, and improved fire
management.
Economic Sector Work
222.
Biodiversity has been addressed through sector work on forestry and natural resources
management but little has been done in the analytic work on agriculture. ESW in ECA will be
linked to the Bank’s operational priorities, which will be conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity both as an instrument in rural development and as a global public good. The highest
priority in this area is to work with clients to develop indicators for biodiversity and forestry for
use in meeting the Millennium Development Goals.
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building
223.
The portfolio of projects offers the main opportunity for building capacity and providing
technical assistance, although support is also provided through some GEF Enabling Activities for
84
biodiversity. The Bank will work with clients to improve capacity building and technical
assistance in three areas:



Sharing regional experience in protected areas management and training programs in
conservation finance, mainstreaming techniques for forestry and range management.
These will be arranged with teams from all of ECA’s biodiversity projects.
Deepening support in the area of conservation finance, in particular by increasing state
and private-sector financial support for protected areas and for natural resources such as
forests and rangelands.
Continuing training support to national NGOs to improve on-the-ground performance of
conservation efforts.
Partnerships and Alliances
224.
The biodiversity portfolio has performed well in developing partnerships with NGOs and
bringing together multilateral and bilateral agencies to collaborate on projects, especially in the
last five years. The EU is an increasingly important partner, especially in the accession and preaccession countries of the Central Europe and the Baltics subregion. Certain bilateral partners
have particular areas of focus; the Swiss have a special interest in mountain ecosystems, and the
Finns are generally supportive of forest sector work, especially in the Baltics and northwest
Russia. The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation supports targets in sustainable
forest management and protected areas. Specifically, it pursues the goal of having 200 million
hectares of production forest certified as being sustainably managed by 2005, and an additional
50 million hectares of protected areas gazetted also by 2005.
85