Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:09:46.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating environmental governance in a Belarusian World Bank biodiversity project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2013

MARIA FALALEEVA  and
FELIX RAUSCHMAYER
MARIA FALALEEVA*
Affiliation:
Coastal and Marine Research Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Naval Base Haulbowline, Cobh, County Cork, Ireland
FELIX RAUSCHMAYER
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Politics, UFZ, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrasse 1, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
*
*Correspondence: Dr Maria Falaleeva e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

International aid projects in post-communist countries were meant to support environmental protection during the transition period and to introduce new standards of environmental governance. While the outcomes of the World Bank biodiversity project in the Belavezhskaya Pushcha National Park in Belarus were evaluated positively after its delayed completion, an assessment using the same criteria 10 years later questioned its long-term effectiveness. This paper links current project outcomes with the implementation process, and uses this knowledge to deduce lessons for designing and implementing future international initiatives in Belarus and other post-communist contexts. There are four interlinked and project-specific reasons for the observed unsustainability of project outcomes are identified: (1) the predominance of the natural sciences, (2) an unbalanced representation of actors within the hierarchical system of governance, (3) powerful implementation by official high-level actors, and (4) insufficient knowledge of participatory methods and principles of multi-level governance. In order to introduce new standards for environmental governance, international aid projects should (1) streamline communications between the actors at different scales, including donor organizations, local agencies and stakeholders in the receiving countries; and (2) use ongoing project and, in particular, process assessment to reflect on the project progress to achieve longer term effectiveness of project outcomes.

Keywords

Belarusbiodiversity governanceenvironmental managementinternational organizationsoutcome/process evaluationparticipationpost-communist countriesproject managementproject evaluationWorld Bank
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Biodiversity Governance in Central and Eastern Europe
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 147 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. (2000) Adaptive management in transboundary protected areas: the Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve as a case study, Environmental Conservation 27 (4): 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andonova, L. (2004) Transnational Politics of the Environment: The European Union and Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berghöfer, A., Wittmer, H. & Rauschmayer, F. (2008) Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: a synthesis from European research projects, Marine Policy 32: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstock, K.L., Dunglinson, J., Marshall, K.M. & Waylen, K.A. (2012) Linking process to outcomes: internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning, Ecological Economics 77: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, G. (2009) Challenges for EU governance through neighbourhood policy and eastern partnership: the values/security nexus in EU-Belarus relations. Contemporary Politics 2 (15): 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmin, J. & VanDeveer, S. (2004) Enlarging EU environments: Central and Eastern Europe from transition to accession. Environmental Politics 13 (1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, B., Gutner, T. & Bedarf, H. (1996) Organization inertia and environmental assistance in Eastern Europe. In: Institutions for Environmental Aid, ed. Keohane, R.O. & Levy, M.A., pp. 281–324. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2007) Requests of Poland, Belarus and Romania concerning the possible revisions of the decisions of the Group of Specialists, European Diploma: to be examined by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. T-PVS/Inf (2007) 14. Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. Standing Committee, 27th meeting, Strasbourg, France, 26–30 November 2007 [www document]. URL https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1298275&SecMode=1&DocId=1439116&Usage=2Google Scholar
Datskevich, U.A. (2010) My Life in Belavezhskaya Pushcha: Thoughts and Summaries (In Belarusian). Minsk, Belarus: Monlitera.Google Scholar
Derviş, K., Selowsky, M. & Wallich, C.I. (1995) The World Bank in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. MOST: Economic Policy in Transitional Economies 5 (2): 101–127.Google Scholar
Dietz, T. & Stern, P.C., eds (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Dranchuk, V. (2004) Belavezhskaya Pushcha. Résolution SOS. Chronicles of Beauty and Struggle. Minsk, Belarus: Kauchah.Google Scholar
Fairman, D. & Ross, M. (1996) Old fads, new lessons: learning from economic development assistance. In: Institutions for Environmental Aid, ed. Keohane, R.O. & Levy, M.A., pp. 29–52. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farell, A., VanDeveer, S. & Jäger, J. (2001) Environmental assessments: four under-appreciated elements of design. Global Environmental Change 11: 311–333.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. & Pattanayak, S.K. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4 (4): e105 [www document]. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grindle, M.S. (1997) Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sector of Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutner, T.L. (2002) Banking of the Environment: Multilateral Development Banks and Their Environmental Performance in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallstrom, L. (2004) Eurocratising enlargement? EU elites and NGO participation in European environmental policy. Environmental Politics 13 (1): 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, B. (2004) Setting agendas and shaping activism: EU influence on Central and Eastern European environmental movements. Environmental Politics 13 (1): 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheson, D.S. & Korosteleva, E.A. (2006) Patterns of participation in post-Soviet politics. Comparative European Politics 4: 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A. & Liefferink, D., eds (2004) Environmental Policy in Europe. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jörgens, H. (2004) Governance of diffusions: implementing global norms through cross-national imitation and learning. In: Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form and Function, ed. Lafferty, W.M., pp. 246–283. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D. & Kray, A. (2007) Governance indicators: where are we, where should we be going? Report on Policy Research Working Paper 4370. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.O. (1996) Analysing effectiveness of the international environmental institutions. In: Institutions for Environmental Aid, ed. Keohane, R.O. & Levy, M.A., pp. 3–28. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotova, V., Banaszak, I., Slavikova, L. & Trifunovova, S. (2009) From government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of Central and Eastern European transition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3): 186–196.Google Scholar
Lavenex, S. (2006) EU external governance in ‘wider Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchkov, A. & Artuchevsky, A. (2002) The GEF forest biodiversity conservation project and its implementation in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha In: The Bialowieza Forest in the Third Millennium. Challenges for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the Cross-border Conference held in Kamenyuki (Belarus) and Bialowieza (Poland), 27th to 29th June 2000, Brest, ed. de Bruijn, O., Kazulka, H. & Okolow, C.Z. [www document]. URL http://bp21.org.by/en/books/gef.htmlGoogle Scholar
Luchkov, A., Tolkach, V., Berwick, S. & Brylski, P., eds (1997) Belovezhskaya Pushcha Forest Biodiversity Conservation. Forest Biodiversity Protection Project GEF 05-28621-BY 1992–1996. Minsk, Belarus: Forest Biodiversity Protection Project.Google Scholar
Margoluis, R. & Salafsky, N. (1998) Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Martsinkevich, G., Shkaruba, A. & Falaleeva, M. (2004) Bielaviezhskaya Pushcha/Puszcza Bialowieska (Belarus/Poland). In: Learning from Transfrontier Landscapes: Project in Support of the European Landscape Convention, ed. Wascher, D.M. & Pérez-Soba, M., pp. 34–36. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Alterra: 964 pp.Google Scholar
Otto, I., Shkaruba, A. & Kireyeu, V. (2011) The rise of multilevel governance for biodiversity conservation in Belarus. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29: 113–132.Google Scholar
Paavola, J. (2007) Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization, Ecological Economics 63: 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paraskevopoulos, C.J., Getimēs, P. & Rees, N. (2006) Adapting to EU Multi-level Governance: Regional and Environmental Policies in Cohesion and CEE Countries. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Rauschmayer, F., Berghöfer, A., Omann, I. & Zikos, D. (2009) Examining processes or outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3): 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagar, A. & VanDeveer, S. (2005) Capacity development for the environment: broadening the scope. Global Environmental Politics 5 (3): 14–22.Google Scholar
Scrieciu, S.Ş. & Stringer, L.C. (2008) The transformation of post-communist societies in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: an economic and ecological sustainability perspective. European Environment 18: 168–185.Google Scholar
Shkaruba, A. & Kireyeu, V. (2012) Recognising ecological and institutional landscapes in adaptive governance of natural resources. Forest Policy and Economics (in press) [www document]. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.004Google Scholar
Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N. & Brown, M. (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19 (2): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taut, S. (2007) Studying self-evaluation capacity building in a large international organizations. American Journal of Evaluation 28 (1): 45–59.Google Scholar
VanDeveer, S. & Carmin, J. (2004) Assessing conventional wisdom: environmental challenges and opportunities beyond Eastern accession. Environmental Politics 13 (1): 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varjopuro, R., Gray, T., Hatchard, J., Rauschmayer, F. & Wittmer, H. (2007) Introduction: interaction between environment and fisheries. The role of stakeholder participation, Marine Policy 32 (2): 147–157.Google Scholar
Webler, T. & Tuler, S. (2006) Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. The Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 699–722.Google Scholar
Weimer, D.L., ed. (1997) The Political Economy of Property Rights: Institutional Change and Credibility in the Reform of Centrally Planned Economies. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F. & Klauer, B. (2006) How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Land Use Policy 23 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolchik, S.L. (1991) Czechoslovakia in Transition: Politics, Economics, and Society. London, UK: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
World Bank (1998) ICR: Implementation Completion Report. Republic of Belarus. Forest Biodiversity Protection Project. GEF grant 28621, 1998. World Bank Document, Rural Development & Environment Sector, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank [www document]. URL http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/03/03/000094946_99030406204747/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Bank (1992) Biodiversity Protection Project. Republic of Belarus. Project Document. World Bank. Global Environmental Facility [www document]. URL http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1992/09/01/000009265_3961019232955/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2001) PAR: Performance Audit Report. Belarus, Forest Biodiversity Protection Project. GEF Grant 28621, 2001. World Bank document, Operations Evaluation Department, Sector and Thematic Evaluation Group, World Bank [www document]. URL http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/05/08/000094946_01042508503144/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

M. FALALEEVA Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download M. FALALEEVA Supplementary Material(File)
File 63 KB