Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Romania Gef Danube Delta Biodiversity Project

1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
Project Name:
Romania Gef Danube Delta Biodiversity Project
Project Costs(US $M)
 4.80  4.50
Loan/Credit (US $M)
Sector, Major Sect.:
Natural Resources Management,
Cofinancing (US $M)
 4.50  4.30
L/C Number:
Board Approval (FY)
Partners involved
Closing Date
06/30/2000 06/30/2000
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
John C. English
Patrick G. Grasso Alain A. Barbu OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
To protect Romanian delta ecosystems, through contributing to the conservation of biodiversity within the Delta and strengthening the capacity of the Danude Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA) and of the Danube Delta National Institute (DDNI).

b. Components
1. Institutional strengthening of the Ecological Wardens Department of DDBRA, to support nature protection, surveys, public awareness and nature interpretation in the Delta. (Original cost estimate, $1.5 million, final cost, $1.8 million)

2. Monitoring, through improved population and species inventories, resource surveys, and development of an integrated database using GIS technology, to provide the basis for the development of resource management plans. This work was primarily carried out by DDNI. ($0.64 million : $1.14 million)

3. Pilot polder restoration to natural conditions, and reed restoration research. ($0.575 million : $0.27 million)

4. Ecosytems restoration. ( $1.18 million : $0.81 million)

5. Public awareness and community involvement, including support to the DDBRA wardens department to work with schools and local communities and to produce materials, and support to local NGOs to enable them to expand trheir awareness activities. ($0.155 million : $0.24 million)

6. Regional initiatives, coordination and management assistance. ( $0.19 million : $0.24 million)

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
Project expenditures were reasonably close to appraisal estimates. The principal changes were a decrease in expenditure on polder and ecosystems restoration when initial efforts at reed restoration were highly successful and further investigation was scaled back, and it was decided that proposed fish protection would not yield sufficient results from a short term effort to justify it. Expenditure on the monitoring component in support of DDNI was increased to finance additional equipment and support an increase program of international collaboration and training.

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

The overall objective of the project was achieved in a satisfactory manner.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

The capacities of both DDBRA and DDNI to carry out their mandates was was strengthened and the project assisted them to work togather to identify development priorities for the Danube Delta based on economic and environmental sustainability, to develop strategic and operational approaches to biodiversity monitoring, wetland restoration and building public support and awareness of the needs and opportunities for conservation of the delta ecosystems, and to work with local communities and foster international cooperation in support of conservation objectives..

5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):

There were no significant shortcomings.

6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
Institutional Dev.:
HighSubstantial A 'high' rating in the OED review requires that the "project as a whole made a .... critical contribution to the country's /region's ability to use human, financial, and natural resources" OED rates this as 'substantial' on the grounds that the contribution of the project has been significant rather than critical in this regard.
Bank Performance:
Borrower Perf.:
Quality of ICR:

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

Collaboration for conservation and environmental management across international boundaries can be effectively fostered by parallel but independent projects.

8. Audit Recommended?  Yes

          Why?  To investigate cross border aspects of management and conservation of cross border deltas and focus on interactions between this project and the Ukraine Danube Delta project.

9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The ICR provides a satisfactory review of project performance, but does have some significant shortcomings.
  • Supporting data in the annexes is limited and, in particular, the data presented in Annex 4 on Bank inputs is confusing and does not indicate the number, staffing and timing of missions undertaken. The performance indicators are meaningless as presented.
  • The aide-memoire from the completion mission is also not included.

© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions