Annual Project Report (Apr) s2

0b50860dad8b10d5cd4c7935b1bfe849.doc ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT (APR) FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECTS 2004

OFFICIAL TITLE: Conservation and sustainable use of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve’s Coastal Biodiversity.

COUNTRY: INDIA

UNDP PROJECT NUMBER: IND/99/G31 GEF PROJECT NUMBER: 568 DATE OF REPORT: 30-6-04 DATE OF LAST APR: N.A.

1. BASIC PROJECT IDENTIFIERS- Please enter all date (DD/MM/YEAR) FOCAL AREA Biodiversity OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME 2 DATE OF ENTRY IN WP 15 August 1996 PRODOC SIGNATURE DATE 7-03-02 DURATION (MONTHS) 84 DATE OF FIRST DISBURSEMENT 1 December 2002 CLOSING DATE Original: November 2009 Revised 1: N.A. Revised 2: N.A.

1.1 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (To be filled by Regional Coordinating Unit) As it appears in PIMS. Please adjust if required. The overall objective of this project is to conserve the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve’s globally significant assemblage of coastal Biodiversity and to demonstrate, in a large biosphere reserve with various multiple uses, how to integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable coastal zone management and livelihood development. The focus of the project is on empowering local communities to manage the coastal ecosystem and wild resources in partnership with Government and other stakeholders and making all accountable for the quality of the resulting stewardship. Specific Government and village-level institutional capacities will be strengthened, stakeholders will apply sustainable livelihoods, and an independent, statutory Trust will ensure effective inter-sectoral co-operation in the sustainable conservation and utilization of the GOMBR’S biodiversity resources.

Has it been adjusted? : YES:

1 To be filled in Headquarters

06/01/18 1 0b50860dad8b10d5cd4c7935b1bfe849.doc

2: IMPACTS AND RESULTS RELATED TO THE NEW GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Impacts on: Has the project Quantitative Information of impact How was this measured / Other comments on impacts produced (what are these impacts and how How was the information impacts? Yes / much of them has been produced ?) collected? No / Not applicable / Planned Expanding protected Not applicable _ _ _ areas Improving management Yes Biosphere area-10,50,000 Ha Indicator yet to be The protection machinery is being strengthened effectiveness of developed to measure this by improved infrastructure and participatory National park area-56,000 Ha protected areas impact. management of Biosphere Reserve with the support of all stakeholders. Improving practices of Yes Awareness about Protected Marine Feedback forms were filled By regulating the fishing operations in the Gulf sustainable use of Species and prohibited netting practices up by the fisher folk about of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, the Coastal biodiversity resources. was created in 125 coastal villages the awareness programme biodiversity will be conserved. through various programmes Changes in sectoral Planned Currently policies of the Fisheries Information collected The issues concerning the harmful practices will policies, laws and Department are creating much impact through interaction with be submitted to the Government after getting regulations to improve on the Gulf of Mannar. fisher folk and the data expert’s opinion to facilitate the framing of new biodiversity conservation available with the Fisheries rules and regulations for the conservation of a) Improved enforcement of Marine and sustainable use. Department Gulf of Mannar. Fishing regulation Act. b) Issuing of new licenses for mechanized fishing crafts. c) Eradication of harmful netting practices. Policies of other sectors like Pollution Control Board and Municipal Administration, etc are being studied.

Sharing of benefits Not applicable _ _ _ between and/or in countries, arising from the use of genetic resources

Other impacts2 _ _ _ _

3. PROJECT PERFORMANCE

SRF Goal (*): Environmentally sustainable development to reduce human poverty SRF Sub Goal (1s*) Sustainable environment management and energy development to improve livelihood security of the poor. Strategic Area of Support (*) National Policy, legal and regulatory framework for environmentally sustainable development. (*) The UNDP Country Office will fill out these fields

3.1 OBJECTIVE

Indicator 1 Value in Mid-term End of Project 2003 Measure 2004 Measure Last This year 0 Target Target (Year year year (Year 2007) 2010) Rating Rating3 Community 0 Establishment Establishment Eco-development committees Eco-development committees were S S based of Village eco- of Village eco- were formed in 5 villages. formed in 40 villages against the target of conservation development development 50 villages. and committees in committees in sustainable 50%of the all the project utilization of project villages villages(100%) Gulf of Mannar Biodiversity resources

Indicator 2 Value in Mid-term End of Project 2003 Measure 2004 Measure Last This

2 Other impacts may be environmental, social, institutional, economic, etc. Many should have already have been identified as indicators in the objectives and outcomes section of the logical framework matrix. Note that you should NOT include discussion of results related to outputs, inputs or activities such as reporting on the number of workshops held, people trained, etc. The focus is on actual measurable changes in condition. 3 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each rating.

year 0 Target Target (Year year year (Year 2007) 2010) Rating Rating Strengthening 0 Boundary Complete Proposals for the final Establishment of Anti-poaching camps S S the demarcation, protection of notification of National park and posting Anti-poaching watchers. management of Improvement of National park. area sent to the govt. Necessary training programme to the Marine Infrastructure, National Park staff. Pilot project for the demarcation of and Training for the Park boundary. the staff

Overall rating S

Project Comment on rating HS

MS - At the CO we are very concerned at the very slow pace of project implementation. We have even commissioned an independent evaluation of the project implementation and the report has been submitted to the project authorities and this has been discussed with them. Various corrective actions and follow up measures have been proposed to ensure the speedier and more effective implementation of this project. We are hoping that many of these will be adopted over CO Comment the next few weeks. Overall there has been very limited progress and various obstacles have been faced while implementing this project. The lack of human capacity has been a major obstacle as well as the lack of effective leadership and the perceived lack of an enabling environment for implementing this project. The CO has been pushing strongly for the establishment of widespread and strong partnerships with a variety of stakeholders including Civil Society Organisations, Community-based Organisations and Research Institutions. These are still to be really established. Hence our rating of MS. RC Comment PTA Comment

3.2 OUTCOMES.4-

Outcome 1 Value in Mid-term End of Project 2003 Measure 2004 Measure Last This year 0 Target Target year year (Year 2007) Year 2010) Rating Rating5 4 Please use the same format to report on additional outcomes in case the project has more than three.

Indicator 1: 0 Establishing Trust will Establishment of Gulf of Mannar Implementation of Eco-development S S Establishment the Trust as a become self Biosphere Reserve Trust and project started. of Gulf of Statutory sustainable at registering the Trust deed. Mannar body the end of the Establishment of project co- Biosphere project ordination unit Reserve Trust Indicator 2: 0 Conducting a Contribution The study was deferred by the Project The feasibility study will be carried N.A. N.A. Establishment feasibility from other Steering Committee as it was out. of Long term study to donor considered too early to start. Comments of the CO: funding secure agencies and Even prior to the receipt of the mechanism contribution the bilateral comments of the reviewer on the from the State contribution APR the CO has strongly taken up Govt. to the Trust the issue of the Long-term Funding Mechanism with the project authorities. Earlier the full complement of staff was not in place and all the staff was new to the project and hence they could not make an effective presentation to the Steering Committee. This decision to defer the discussion was a result of these circumstances. One of the proposed actions to ensure the more effective implementation of this project is the establishment of a committee which will deal with the day to day administration of this project and this will be headed by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State. This will allow the Steering Committee to focus on more substantial matters. A meeting of the Steering Committee is planned in October and the CO will ensure that substantial discussions take place on the Long-term Funding Mechanism for this project.

5 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each rating

Indicator 3: 0 Co-financing, Development Integration of Line departments and District Co-ordination Committee S S Improvement capacity of integrated stakeholders, work has started. and state level Co-ordination of Biodiversity building, coastal zone Committee are regularly conducting conservation infrastructure, management meetings to integrate the efforts of capacity of and training plan involving Departments. Line all the stake Departments holders

Outcome 2 Value in Mid-term End of Project 2003 Measure 2004 Measure Last This year 0 Target Target year year (Year 2007) Year 2010) Rating Rating Indicator 1: Final Complete Proposals for final notification of Pilot project for demarcating the S S Full National notification legal National park sent to the Govt. boundary work will be started in Park status of National protection of this year. Park with National Park boundary with boundary details. demarcation. Indicator 2: Identification Eco-Tourism Eco-Tourism activities started with A study on current policies and S S Formulation of of suitable policy and the support of District Administration. guidelines will be conducted. New Eco-Tourism areas for the guidelines activities were proposed to promote guidelines initiation of studied and Eco-Tourism. Strengthening the Eco-Tourism. suitable existing infrastructure. modifications proposed by the community. Indicator 3: Mapping and Species and Specific research activities initiated New research programmes will be S S Development data habitat for biophysical monitoring, dugong started with the participation of of species and collection management habitat mapping and turtle identified research institutions. habitat about critical plans conservation. management species and developed for plans ecosystems. the critical ecosystems.

Outcome 3 Value in Mid-term End of Project 2003 Measure 2004 Measure Last This year 0 Target Target year year (Year 2007) Year 2010) Rating Rating

Indicator 1: Development Community Formulation of by-laws and evolving Eco-development committees were S S Development of community based long systems and procedures for the eco- formed in 40 project villages and of Community based term development committees. oriented towards Biosphere based conservation conservation Reserve conservation. conservation strategy and plan for programe. empowering Biosphere theEco- Reserve will Development be prepared Committees. by the Eco- Development Committees. Indicator 2: Some Development The Trust will Viable alternative options were As of now, fishing is the major S S Development attempts of create studied. occupation in the project area and of alternative were made demonstration enabling livelihood by the models of environment the fisherfolk are not aware about options for the NGOs to mariculture for replication the mariculture techniques and fisher folk create land techniques, of successful and marine other models. other land based income based alternative generating activities which can alternative options and livelihoods. adoption by substantially increase their income the Self Help and reduce the pressure on the Groups in the project Biosphere. villages. Appropriate mariculture techniques suitable for each village, like Lobster fattening, Seaweed cultivation, and value addition techniques like dry fish making will be adopted by the Eco- development committees. Land based alternative employment options like Jasmine cultivation, Agro-forestry plantations, Palm products manufacturing, Vermi- composting, etc will also be

adopted by the Eco-development committees as a part of alternative livelihood options.

Indicator 3: Research Development Application of Identification of key research A Research committee consisting of S S Development activities of research institutions and priority areas. Researchers, NGOs, and village of Research, are carried comprehensiv results in the Monitoring out by e research park representatives and Trust officials and various and management. will be formed to finalise need information institutions monitoring Sustainable programme in an programme utilization of based Research. The Research unorganize and database Biosphere committee will identify Research d manner. for resources. information areas necessary for the dissemination. conservation and management of the Biosphere Reserve and invite proposals from Research Institutions. Research on endangered Fauna and Flora of the Gulf of Mannar especially dugong, sea turtles, coral reefs, mangroves, migratory birds and their habitats and other topics as envisaged in the project proposal will be conducted. Assessment and utilization of EEZ resources like sea weeds, ornamental fishes, and other commercially exploitable species will also be carried out for developing an information database for the management of the

Biosphere.

Overall rating S

3.3 WORK PLAN TIMING For outcomes rated MS or U please describe priority Actions planned for the following reporting period to overcome constrains ISSUE/CONSTRAINT: Date Entered: PRIORITY ACTION: Expected BY WHOM Completion:

ISSUE/CONSTRAINT: Date Entered: PRIORITY ACTION: Expected BY WHOM Completion:

3.4 RISKS.

Risk Description Describe Status of Risk Describe Status Describe Status this Year Rating* at start of project (Year Last Year 0) A The alternative employment There is no attempt to Some attempts Many activities were L options may not fully reduce develop alternative were made by proposed in the current the pressure on the Biosphere employment option. NGOs and its workplan and people are Reserve. applicability is receptive. being studied. B The fishermen will not accept Fishermen are totally The fishermen are The park management is able M demarcation of Park against the idea of apprehensive to convince the villagers of

boundary. demarcating the park about this some villages where pilot boundary. proposal. project is proposed. C Co-operative marketing of fish Existing co-operative Realisation about Training programme is L by reducing the role of is not involved in co-operative proposed to train the middlemen. marketing of fish. marketing is very fisherfolk in developing a less. community based marketing strategy. D Additional Risks or unexpected problems encountered during the last year of implementation E The project implementation was slow and not clearly focused towards overall objectives. A monitoring study of the project implementation was taken up, clubbed with Log Frame Analysis exercise. A Revision in the Work Plan is suggested based on the findings of the study and this will assist in the better definition of the milestones and success indicators.

The implementation of the project is going slowly due to the following reasons: i) Lack of staff with the required aptitude and technical expertise: The staff is mainly deputed from the Forest, Fisheries and Rural Development departments of the Tamil Nadu state government and their capabilities are not matching with the staff proposed in the project document. Specialist positions like Biodiversity Programme Officer, Marine Biologist, Sociologist are not posted due to non- availability of these staff in the government departments. ii) Lack of delegation of power to the Trust Director: The Trust Director is vested with the powers of the Conservator of Forests which is very inadequate for making speedy decisions. Each and every item of work is reviewed by the Project Steering Committee which consumes lot of time in the decision making process. iii) Results of the monitoring study: The monitoring study has recommended series of remedial actions and change in the administrative structure and they will be carried out in consultation with the Vice-chairman of the GoMBRT. iv) Changes proposed to improve the implementation: The Logical frame work of the project will have to be simplified as in its present format is very unclear. The grass root level implementation will be delegated to the selected NGOs operating in the coastal areas. The work plan will be approved by the sub-committee instead of the project steering committee to hasten the process of decision making. Additional powers will be given to the Trust Director for better implementation.

F (*) H= High ; S= Substantial ; M=Modest ; L= Low. Please refer to Instruction sheet for definition of ratings for risks

Please describe actions taken or planned to manage High and Substantial risks

4. ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL PROJECT STRATEGY Indication of any major adjustments in strategies, targets and outcomes. a. Have the project's expected outcomes changed in the course of implementation? Without changing the original objectives of the project, Eco-development concept was introduced. b. Explain how and when changes were made. The villagers were formed into Eco-Development Committees which will manage the resources of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve in a participatory manner. c. Was the logical framework matrix of the project updated to reflect changes in activities/outputs/objectives? The logical framework will be changed accordingly later this year. d. Has this affected the project's objectives or overall goal? No, in fact it will improve the performance of the project in achieving the objectives. 5. LESSONS 5.1 Are there lessons that could benefit the design or the implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth of developing case studies The project is at the initial stages of implementation. The concept of joint management of the Bio-Resources of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere region with the strong co-operation of local fisherfolk is a unique model which can be replicated in other marine biodiversity areas. The fishing villages were formed into organized entities called Eco-development committees which form the fulcrum of the project implementation. Development and adoption of suitable alternative employment options will be carried out by the Eco-development committees with the assistance of the local NGOs. The EDCs will be given revolving fund from which the self help groups will get soft loans for undertaking the alternative livelihood initiatives and value addition techniques. The funds from the UNDP-GEF will be initially utilized for this purpose and depending on the further requirements long term funding mechanism will be resorted to. Therefore the Steering Committee deferred the financial sustainability component. 5.2 Have these lessons been exchanged with other GEF or NON-GEF-funded projects? If so, please list the projects and describe the process.

6. PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES This section refers to collaboration among institutions to achieve mutually shared or agreed upon objectives and goals that draws on individual strengths and maximizes synergies. For the purpose of this report partners are understood as those that either: i) cooperate with the project (through in kind, or financial collaboration); or ii) are subcontracted providers of project services. 6.1 Please provide the following information Partner Full Name Type (*) Role (*) $ Value (Do not give acronym only!) Contributed Contracted (leveraged) M.S.Swaminathan Research NGO Research and Advisory _ _ Foundation Government of India GOV Co-financing, Policy and _ _ advisory role

06/01/18 12 0b50860dad8b10d5cd4c7935b1bfe849.doc Government of Tamilnadu GOV- Co-financing, Policy and _ _ LOC advisory role DHAN Foundation NGO Advisory _ _ Arumbugal Trust NGO Awareness programme 3000 Santhanam Foundation NGO Participatory Rural appraisal 3000 Tagore De Rose Society NGO Participatory Rural appraisal - COODU NGO Participatory Rural appraisal - CAARE NGO Participatory Rural appraisal -

(*) Please refer to Instruction sheet for guidelines on how to fill out this section. 6.2 Please describe any changes on partnership strategy (if any) from previous year

Not applicable.

6.3 Additional information on Private Sector Involvement: The middlemen in the fish trade are categorized into small traders, bulk purchasers and exporters. The first two categories will give loans to the fishermen in the range of Rs 50,000 to 1,00,000 and buyback their produce at a price much lower than the market price and gradually the fishermen have no other option except to sell it to these money lenders. Therefore it is proposed to meet the credit requirements of the fisherfolk through the co-operative societies as is being practiced in the Kerala coast to increase the bargaining power of the fisher folk. There are a few exporters of marine produce like Nila Sea Food Exports, DSF, Baby Marine Sea Foods and Liberty Sea Foods who have employed purchase managers for procuring the prawns, cuttlefish and crabs and they also give loans to the trawler owners, mechanized vallam owners and buy back their produce in the same manner. Simply by providing their credit needs the pressure on the Biosphere will be reduced. Currently the private industries are not concerned with the conservation and sustainable utilization of the marine resources.

This refers to companies that contribute to a project as opposed to receiving financing from it as subcontractors. 1. What economic sector does the company work in (e.g. tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture)?

2. How is the company contributing to project objectives?

3. How is the company being involved in project implementation?

4. What benefit is the company deriving from contributing to the project?

5. If the project has not involved companies but could benefit from their resources please explain, given sufficient resources, what could be done within the project to develop such involvement?

7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

06/01/18 13 0b50860dad8b10d5cd4c7935b1bfe849.doc 7.1 The sustainability of the project initiatives is predicted based on the results obtained in the World Bank aided eco- development project which was successfully implemented in the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, where initially the revolving fund given to the EDCs has grown considerably at the end of the project period and the EDCs are self sustaining now. Similarly, the revolving fund will be given to the project villages of our area from 2005 onwards. The guidelines and criteria will be evolved based on the performance of the EDCs in the current year. The Trust will continue to co-ordinate and integrate the activities of Line Departments of the state government.

7.2 What are the critical conditions that must be maintained in order for these changes to be sustained? Please refer to instructions for additional guidance. Condition Required Indications that it will be maintained 1) Revolving Fund for Eco-Development Committees are very active and vibrant each project village 2) Bilateral funds from Trust will secure bilateral funds from other donor agencies. Long term funding mechanism.

7.3 a. Does the project make use of a micro-finance facility?

Yes, there are about 1108 Self Help Groups created by the DHAN foundation in the project area and they are integrated into federations. These Self Help Groups have to be integrated into the Eco- Development Committees for effective implementation of project. b. If so, was such a facility developed specifically for the project, or was an existing one used? How effective is it? This facility was developed through the funds given by the UNDP through the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, which is part of the co-finance for this project. 8. NON-PROJECT ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY CO AND UNDP/GEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT This section aims to identify activities carried out by UNDP (either the country office or the GEF unit) that were not a part of the project, or which resulted from an unanticipated problem, but that have directly contributed towards the achievement of project objectives. It encompasses activities such as advocacy, policy dialogue, and knowledge management efforts. If soft assistance is not an issue for the project or too sensitive to address, this section can be left empty.

9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION Comments CO Field Visit LAST: Apr, May, Oct, NEXT: August 2004 To ensure acceptance of Nov. 03 and June 04. recommendations of the Monitoring Study. UNDP GEF Field Visit LAST: NEXT:

06/01/18 14 0b50860dad8b10d5cd4c7935b1bfe849.doc Tripartite Review/NSC LAST: 5.9.2003 NEXT: Mid-Term Evaluation PLANNED: N.A. DONE: Final Evaluation PLANNED: N.A. DONE: Other (*) A special review was commissioned by an independent consultant to look at the issues related to the slow pace of project implementation. (*) Please explain whether the project has been subject to any additional review e.g. Country Evaluations, GEF Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR), GEF Thematic Reviews.

10. FINANCIAL INFORMATION – Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502)

10.1 PROJECT FUNDING. Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502) Equity Loans (*) Credits In -kind GRANT invest. TOTAL A. GEF P 7.650 FUNDING A 7.650 B. CO-FINANCING:

P 1.000 UNDP (TRAC) A 1.000 P UN AGENCY A P 16.965 GOVERNMENT A 16.965 BILATERAL P DONORS A MULTILATERAL P DONORS A REGIONAL P 1.120 BANKS A 1.120 NON-GOVERN. P ORG. A P PRIVATE SECTOR A P OTHER A TOTAL P 19.085 CO-FINANCING A 26.735 TOTAL FUNDING PROPOSED ACTUAL 26.735 P=Proposed ; A=Actual (*) Concessional or market rate

10.2 PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS. From project start up to date of this report Cumulative actual disbursement ($millions) 0.288 Cumulative planned disbursement ($millions)(*) 2.23

06/01/18 15 0b50860dad8b10d5cd4c7935b1bfe849.doc Disbursements ratio 13% (% of actual vs. planned expenditures) (*) As stated in original budget in PRODOC

06/01/18 16