Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme Disaster Management Department

Report

Benefit Monitoring & Evaluation

Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme

Disaster Management Department Government of Kerala

Sector 2 Infrastructure Development

Part 4 Harbour Engineering Department

April 2012

(Formerly Centre for Taxation Studies) Government of Kerala Thiruvananthapuram 695018 Kerala India www.gift.kerala.gov.in

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Evaluation Team

Dr. C.S. Venkiteswaran Associate Professor, GIFT

Dr. N. Ramalingam Associate Professor, GIFT

P Rajesh Kumar Social Development Specialist (Consultant)

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Contents

Preface 4

Acknowledgments 5

Abbreviations 6

Evaluation at a Glance 7

Chapter 1 Introduction 8

Chapter 2 Harbour Engineering Department : Evaluation of Schemes 21

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Preface

sunami was one of the worst and most devastating of tragediestragedies to strike the Indian coast in recent times. Governments and several agencies immeimmediimmediatdiatelyatelyely rose to the occasion to take up Tthe task of rehabilitation and resettlement of people aafffectedfected by the disaster. Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) that was impimplemeimplemenlementedntedted by the Disaster Management Department of Government of Kerala is oneone of the largest and the most comprehensive of such i nterventions in terms of its size, scope and reach. Funded by the Planning Commission, Government of India, an amount of Rs.1148 Crores were spent for various livelihood, infrastructure, rehabilitation and resettlement programmes. It was implemented throug h 16 Departments and several government agencies and SelSelff HelpHelp Groups, spread across the coastal region of the state. The Programme was launched in 20072007 and is nearing completion.

The Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (BME) of TRP was entrusted to Gulati I nstitute of Finance & Taxation (GIFT). To conduct the study, an Evaluation Team was formed consisting of two faculty members from GIFT, Dr C S Venkiteswaran and Dr N Ramalingam, and a Social Development Specialist, P Rajesh Kumar as consultant.

This Report was prepared as part of BME -TRP, and relates to the schemes implemented by Harbour Engineering Department under this programme. During the study, we received overwhelming support from the officials of TRP Section and Cell, State , Division , and Section level offices of HED and representatives and officials of Local Self Governments.

We are happy to submit this draft report to the Disaster Management Department, Government of Kerala.

Thiruvananthapuram Dr. D. Narayana 10 April 2012 Director, GIFT

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Acknowledgments

The Evaluation Team of Gulati Institute of Finance & Taxation gratefully acknowledges the help and support extended by the following individuals and institutions:

• Dr Nivedita P Haran, IAS, Project Director, Tsunami RehabilitationRehabilitation Programme & Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Government of Kerala. • Sri. Suman Billa IAS, Former Director, GIFT & Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Kerala • Dr. D Narayana, Director, GIFT • Staff of TRP Section and Cell, Government SecretariatSecretariat,, Thiruvananthapuram • Sri. N. Mohana Kum ar, Chief Engineer, Harbour Engineering Department • Smt. D.K. Baby Giri ja, Executive Engineer, office of the Chief Engineer HED • Smt. Beena. S. Nair , Assistant Engineer, Office ofof the Chief Engineer HED • Sr. P. Harilal, Draughtsman Grade II, Office of the Chief Engineer HED • Sri. M. Rajiv, Executive Engineer, Harbour Engineering Division, Kollam • Sri. Abhilash, Assistant Engineer , Harbour Engineering Section Thankassery , Kollam • Sri. Shibu, Draughts man, Harbour Engineering Division, Kolla m • Sr. Abbas, Port Conservator, Kollam • Smt. P. Latha, Executive Engineer, Harbour EngineerEngineeringing Division, Kozhikode • Sri. C.V.Sasidharan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Harbour Engineering Sub Division, Puthiyappa, Kozhikode • Sri. Mohanakrishnan , Assistant Executive Engineer, Harbour Engineering Sub DivisionDivision , Beypore • Sri. Anzari, Assistant Executive Engineer (Planning) HED, Kozhikode • Capt. Abraham . V. Kuriakose, Port Officer, Beypore • Sri. P. Moosa, Assistant Engineer, Port, Beypore • Academic & Non-ac ademic Staff of GIFT

Thiruvananthapuram Dr. C. S. Venkiteswaran & Dr. N. Ramalingam 10 April 2012 Associate Professors, GIFT

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Abbreviations

ADB : Asian Development Bank AS : Administrative Sanction BME : Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation CBO : Community Based Organisation FGD : Focus Group Discussion GP : Grama Panchayat HED : Harbour Engineering Department KSEB : Kerala State Electricity Board KWA : Kerala Water Authority M³ : Metre Cube NGO : Non-Governmental Organisation PIU : Proj ect Implementation Unit PMU : Project Management Unit PRA : Participatory Rural Appraisal SLEC : State Level Empowered Committee SLSC : State Level Steering Committee TEAP : Tsunami Emergency Assistance Project. TRP : Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme UP : Upper Primary

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Evaluation at a Glance

Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme Harbour Engineering Department

Infrastructure Development in Port and Fisheries SeSectctorsors

Five Areas of Performance Score (Maximum Score -20 for each )

1 Project Concept and Planning 11

2 Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core Objectives 13

3 Co-ordination within and between Departments/Agencies 10

4 Beneficiary Satisfaction, Participation and Community Mobilization 8

5 Innovations and Sustainability 10

Total Score 52

Grade Average *Poor = 20 and Below; Below Average = 21 -40; Average = 41-60; Good = 61-80; Excellent = 81 and Above

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Disaster

sunami that hit the costal arc of Kerala on 26 DeceDecembemberr 2004 inflicted colossal damages to the infrastructure, ports, harbors, fishing jetties, electricity transmission systems, fishing vessels and Tother assets along the coast , and above all, the lives, human settlements and llivivelihoodelihood of the coastal community.

Table No 1.1 An Overview of Damages Caused by Tsunami in Kerala

Component Initial Revised after Assessment In-depth assessment

Coastal length prone to sea erosion (Km) 250 590 Penetration of water into the main land (Km) 1-2 5 Average height of tidal waves (Mts) 3-5 5-10 No of Villages affected 187 226 Population affected (In Lakhs) 4.25 10 Human lives lost (Nos) 171 238 Persons moved to safer places (Nos) 24978 24978 Dwelling places destroyed 2919 2919 Live stock lost (Exc. Poultry) 883 883 Cropped area affected (Ha) Including River Banks near the seashore 949 2151 Boats destroyed (Nos) 10882 3989 Source: Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Kerala

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

The fact that the population density along the entire coastline is the highest and the people inhabiting the coasts are among the poorest, amplify the intensity ofof the impact of the calamity on the lives of the people. It has borne the maximum brunt of devastation in terms of loss of lives, inflictininflictingg of injuries, loss of houses and properties. Even before tsunami, the fish catch from the sea was on the decline, which was further worsened by its impact upon their income lelevevelsls and livelihood.

The State, NGOs, UN agencies, and the world communicommunityty respondedresponded quickly with relief and rehabilitation measures. Tsunami Emergency AssistanAssistancece Programme (TEAP) funded by Asian Development Bank, Prime Minister’s Natural Calamity Relief Fund (PMNRF) and Tsuna mi Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) as additional centrcentralal assistance by Planning Commission of India were the major projects implemented by the Government of Kerala as part of its rehabilitation anandd resettlement efforts.

1.2 Tsunami Rehabilitation Progra mme – National Approach

Looking at the extent of damage, Planning Commission had drawn up the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme for reconstruction of damaged physical anandd socialsocial infrastructure and revival of impaired livelihoods of the coastal communities. A Core Group in the Planning Commission was set up underunder the direction of Honb’le Prime Minister to coordinatecoordinate and manage the National Tsunami Reconstruction effort (PMO UO No. 100/61/C/42/04 -ES-II). The Core Group has representation from Central Ministr ies/Departments, State Governments, Research InstitInstitutioutionsns and the Planning Commission. The objective of TRP is to restore the livelihood and economic activities of the affected population, accelerate poverty alleviation in the tsunami -affected areas that are vulnerable to high incidence of poverty, and rehabilitate and reconstruct public and community -based infrastructure that are vulnerable to natural disasters.

Guiding Principles of Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme

The mandate of the Reconstruction an d Rehabilitation programme for Tsunami affected areas goes beyond the immediate priorities or Tsunami reconstrreconstructuction,ion, and pursues broader social and economic issues that impact upon the household and community -level development and empowerment. The Program me emphasizes improving quality of life, using replacement and up -gradation of assets as means to achieve it. This is in consonance with the Prime Minister’s appeal of “converting the disaster into an opportunity to rebuild and modernize the fishing and co astal economy.” The program also focuses on reduction of susceptibility of the coastal communities to Tsunami like disasters by increasing the efficacy of prediction and response mechanisms. The overarchoverarchiningg principles, which will govern the Programme implementation, include the following: i. Good Environment Management Practices: Attention will be paid to ensure that all program mes/sub programmes emanating from this Programme do not havehhaaveve any adverse - environmental impacts and that they conform with ththee EnvironmentEnvironment and Coastal Regulation .

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

ii. Participatory Approach: Under the Programme Implementation Framework, peoplpeoplee and represe ntative institutions would be involved in the decision making process during programme/sub programme design and execution. This would ensure tthahatt community priorities and aspirations are reflected in programme deliverables . iii. Egalitarian Approach: The Program would in all its initiatives apply principlprincipleess of equity to ensure, that the most disadvantaged amongst the victims are nnoott bypassed iv. Private Sector and Non Profit Sector Participation: It is proposed to encourage participation of private sector , NGOs and expert institutions in the program me so that they are an integral part of the rehabilitation planning process. This will expand the ownership and knowledge base of the programme. v. Gender Sensitivity: A disaster is often more debilitating for women. The program me will ensure that special consideration is provided for women in special circumstances that include women headed households, widows and destitute women. The program me would ensure that women and women groups are involved in all stages o f programme design and implementation so that special needs ooff women are incorporated vi. Concern for children: Nutrition, health and education needs are factors , which directly impact welfare of children. The program me will make provisions for building up the necessary infrastructure through which these services can be delivered to children affected by Tsunami . Special provisions would be made for children rendered orphan due to Tsunami vii. Need Based Approach: The programme would take into cognizance the special needs of tribal and coastal communities affected by the Tsunami. The program me designs under the program me would stay sensitive to region specific culture, climate, life style and economic vocations of the beneficiaries. The norms an d standards would be accordingly defined. viii. Transparency & Accountability: The programme will institute appropriate institutional and procedural mechanisms to ensure the transparen cy and accountability . It is every citizen’s right to know the relief ava ilable to him/her in the event of disasters and whawhatt has actually been distributed. Transparency in rehabilitation and reconstruction operations also ensures that distributive justice is done and reduces complaints and counter complaints. ix. Objectives a nd Outcomes: Planning for each sector would carry clearly identified objectives and outcomes so that at the completion of reconstructioreconstructionn phase, clear achievements and deliverables can be quantified.

1. 3 Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme in Kerala

Governm ent of India announced additional central assistance of Rs 1148 Crores for Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) in Kerala . To accelerate the economic recovery in affected aarreaseas rehabilitation programmes wer e implemented by the Department of Disaster Mana gement in nine coastal districts of the state through 16 line departments and agencies viz; Department of Fisheries,

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Kerala Water Authority, Public Works Department, HaHarborbourur Engineering Department, Kerala State Electricity Board, Health Department, Educati on Department, Social Welfare Department, Animal Husbandry Department, Dairy Development Department, AgricultureAgriculture Department, Irrigation Department, Forest Department, Tourism Department, Science Science & Technology Departmen t, Co- operative D epartment. In addition the Coastal Housing and Resettlement Programme is ddireirectlyctly implemented by the Revenue Department. The total aallocllocationation for Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (Additional Central Assistance) is Rs.1148 Crores. This inc ludes a Special Package of Rs.100 crores being implemented through the District Collectors in four badlybadly affected pockets: Alappad (Rs.42.50 crore), Arattupuzha (Rs.40.00 crores), Edavanakkad (Rs.12.50 crores) and Andhakaranazhy (Rs.5.00 crores).

Government of Kerala for the speedy and effect ive implementation of the programme created the following administrative arrangements

I. State Level Steering Committee (SLSC) II. State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) III. Project Management Unit (PMU) IV. Project Implementation Unit (PIU) V. District Level Monitoring Committees VI. TRP Cell

I. State Level Steering Committee (SLSC)

A State Level Steering Committee was constituted wiwithth the Chief Minister as Chairman, Minister (Revenue) as Vice-Chairman, Head of Department of the Disaster ManageManagemm ent Department as convener and with the following members. Minister for Finance, Minister for Transport, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Local Self Government, Minister for Fisheries, Minister for WaWateterr Resources, Minister for Ports, Minister for Electricity, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Forest, Minister for Housing, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Industries, Minister for Social Welfare, Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary/Secretary, Finance, Transport, Public Works, Local Self Govern ment, Fisheries, Water Resources, Ports, ElectricitElectricityy,, STED, Agriculture, Forest, Housing, Tourism, IndustrieIndustriess and Social Welfare.

Duties & functions of State Level Steering Committee (SLSC)

´ The SLSC would act as an advisory body to provide overall guidance for the effective implementation of the project and to monitor its prprogrogressess from time to time. ´ The Committee will meet at least once in six months. ´ The Committee can co-opt any other Ministers or Officers of State GovernmeGovernmentnt or any expert in the field as member.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

II. State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC)

Government also constituted a State Level Empowered CommitteeCommittee (SLEC) for Tsunami Rehabilitatio n Programme with the Chief Secretary as Chairman and Principal Principal Secretary/Secretary of Disaster Management Department as convener and with PrincipaPrincipall Secretary/SecretarySecretary/Secretary of the following departments as members:- Finance, Transport, Public Works, Local Self Government, Fisheries, Water Resources, Ports, Electricity, STED, Agriculture, Forest, Housing, TourTourism,ism, Industries and Social Welfare.

Duties & functions of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC)

´ The Committee will have the powers to grant requisirequisitete approvals/sanctions for various projects/schemes submitted by the implementing agenagencycy basedbased on the recommendations of the Project Management Unit. ´ The Committee will also monitor and supervise the e ffective implementation of the project. ´ The Committee will meet at regular intervals as per needneed and at least once in three months to review the overall progress. ´ The Committee will have powers to co -opt any other officers of the State Government as MMemem ber.

III. Project Management Unit (PMU)

In addition a Project Management Unit constituted in the following pattern.

Project Director : Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/ Secretary of Disaster Management Department

Members : Executive Director, Kudumbasree, Director of Fisheries, MD, Kerala Water Authority, Member (Distribution), KSEB Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads & Bridges) Chief Engineer, Harbour Engineering Dept. Director, STED Director of Agriculture, Director of Panchayats Director of Social Welfare Chief Conservator of Forests, Secretary, State Housing Board.

Member Secretary : Head of the TRP Cell in Disaster Management DepartmentDepartment.. & Convener

The Unit will have the powers to co -opt any other Officer of the implementing agency if consider it necessary.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Duties & functions of Project Management Unit (PMU)

PMU is responsible for: ´ Providing day-to-day assistance and guidance to implementing agencies. ´ Review of sub projects/proposals from implementing agenciesagageenciesncies for approval for SLEC/ADB and issuance of requisite administrative sanctions. ´ Disbursement and accounting of funds against review ofof financial reports provided by implementing agencies. ´ Consolidation and submission of Progress reports to the SLEC. ´ Quality control and transparency requirements to be followedfollowed by the implementing agencies. ´ Such other related matters for the effective implementimplementationation of the Project.

IV. Proje ct Implementation Unit (PIU)

All the departments involved in Tsunami RehabilitatioRehabilitationn Programme have constituted Project Implementation Units in the respective departments .

The Project Implementation Unit (PIUs) will be responsible for: - ´ Detailed assessment, surveys and planning of reconstrreconstructionuction including public consultation and input from recipient’s local entities and beneficiaries. ´ Preparing and presenting sub project proposals to the respective Executing Agencies. ´ Prioritizing works, preparing detailed designs, specification, schedule of quantity, contacts and related bid documents, issuing requisite technical sanction. ´ Day to day implementation, supervision and quality controlcontrol of reconstruction activities, approving payments to contractors. ´ Maintaining progress report, records and accounts for sub projects. ´ Such other day to day matters relating to the execution of their schemes/projects.

V. District Level Monitoring Committee

District Level Monitoring Committee was formed for the effective monitoring of the project implementation and for taking the course correction actionsactions and for avoiding bottlenecks in field level implementation in the following pattern

Chairman : President of the District Panchayat concerned

Members : Head of District Offices of Public Works, Water ResouResoResources,urces,rces, Agriculture, Tourism, Social Welfare, Industries, Ports and ElectElectricity,ricity, Presid ents of Block and Grama Panchayats in the district concernedconcerned who are implementing the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme

Member Secretary : District Collector of the districts concerned & Convener

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

VI. TRP Cell

Government formed TRP Cell in the Disaster ManagementManagement DepartmentDepartment under an IAS Officer in the rank of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary/ Deputy Secretary with an Under Secretary, one Section Officer, Two Assistants, one Stenographer, oneone Typist and two p eons.

1.4 Terms of Reference

Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation (GIFT) was entrustedentrusted to conduct the Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (BME) of the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme Programme implemented by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Kerala.

Objectives of the Evalua tion

The final project evaluation is intended to provide an objective and independent assessment of the impact of project strategies and interventions. The objectives of the final evaluation are: ´ To assess the quantitative and qualitative output / outc ome of the programs on the target groups vis a vis the stated objectives in key -result areas namely (a) poverty reduction, (b) instiinstitutionaltutional strengthening and community empowerment, (c) strengthestrengstrengthentheningninging social capital, and (d) rebuilding social and physical i nfrastructure . ´ To map the process elements as envisaged in the projprojeprojectectct document and undertake process monitoring to supplement the evaluation results. ´ To document the best practices and the lessons learnlearneded for the benefit of on course correction and f uture planning and guidance. ´ To critically examine the issues related to the sustsustainabilityainability of the gains of the project after its withdrawal. ´ To assess the SHG activities for livelihood developmedevelopmentnt and the benefits derived by the State in post-tsunami operations.

Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation will cover the projects implemented under under tsunami rehabilitation programme completed upto 31st July 2011. The evaluation will covercover a representative sample of nine districts of Kerala (location specif ic) where the Tsunami rehabilitation programme is bbeibeineingngg implemented and the activities of 16 departments (Sector specific). Appropriate sampling design is to be worked out for the selection of the villages and the households. The family should be taken as the basic unit of study at the micro level. For data collection, suitasuitableble interview guides and interview schedules could be used along with focus group discussions, case st udies and observation techniques. The whole exercise of evaluation is to be particip atory, using PRA methods, stakeholder analysis etc.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Furthermore, relevant data from records and reports hhaveave to be gone through. Facts and figures collected from various sources should be triangulatetriangulatedd for ensuring their validity and reliability. The progre ss and achievements of the project will be tested agagainstainst the following standard evaluation criteria:

Relevance:

The main focus will be on the appropriateness of ththee project’s concept and design to the overall situation of the project area, in particular, the: ´ Extent to which the stated objectives correctly and adequately address the problems and real needs of the target groups ´ Relevance of the project design within the frameworkframework of Government policy guidelines

Efficiency:

The main focus will be to ascertain how well the project activities achieved the intended results in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness including:

´ Whether similar or better results c ould have been achieved by other means at lower cost in the same time. ´ Whether project activities were done right i.e. on time, in expected quantity and quality. ´ General implementation and management of the projectproject in terms of quantity, quality, and timeliness of inputs and activities, adherence to work -plans, action-plan s, and budgets. ´ Extent to which internal factors (interventions, structures, culture, systems) influenced (both positively and negatively) achievement of program impimpaact.ct. ´ Adequacy of monitoring and evaluation, technical susuppportport given to the project by all stakeholders ´ Responsiveness of project management to changes in the the environment in which the project operates; ´ Co-operation among project partners and other key stakestakeholdersholders in achieving project results.

Effectiveness:

The main focus will be on the extent to which the project achieved its stated results and purpose in a sustainable way, including:

´ The progress made in achieving the results of the pprrojectoject at all levels ´ Efforts made in capacity building of the local projprojeectct stakeholders for t he projects implemented with community participation and whether the strategistrategieses are working or not and why. ´ Project’s management of risks taking into account tthehe stated risks and assumptions.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Impact:

The main focus will be on whether the project’s overall objectives have been achieved or are likely to be achieved, specific changes that the project has brought about in the lives of target groups, and impacts realized or likely to be realized, including: ´ Extent to which expected change has been achi eved in the indicators against the baseline levels. ´ Extent to which the project has impacted on the tartarggetet communities in bringing about the desired changes. ´ Assess the extent to which the external factors have affected the achievement of the project impact. Sustainability:

The main focus will be on whether the impact, outcomesoutcomes or changes brought about by the project are likely to continue after the end of the project and whether they can be sustained, including:

´ Extent to which the target groups and key stakeholders own the objectives and achievement of the project. ´ Policy support/Resource support available to the project from the relevant Government departments of the State for the continuance/ operatoperation/maintenanceion/maintenance of the programme. ´ Assess the capacity of the communities/Govt. departments andand thethe key stakeholders to continue the project activities after the end of the project, including financial and technical capacities. ´ Extent to which program activities are sustainable by communities wi thout the support from the project.

Specific Tasks

The consultant will be responsible for developing the evaluation design, methods, sample size and tools, with overall coordination from the Project DirDirectorector or from the designated staff in the PMU. All o f this information will be presented to the Project Director/Designated staff in the PMU and concurrence will be given to the consultant before the evaluation begins. Given the objectives, the final evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative m ethods for collecting the required information. The proposed methods include key informaninformantt interviews, focus group discussions, document reviews and surveys. The consultant will uunndertakedertake the following tasks: Develop an evaluation framework and methodolog y in consultation with PMU. The methodology for the evaluation will include sample size selectioselectionn and a mix of quantitative and qualitative tools;

´ Develop an evaluation plan in consultation with PMU; ´ Undertake extensive document review to familiarize with the project; ´ Develop a list of output/outcome ind icators for each type of scheme.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

´ Develop evaluation tools in consultation with PMU anandd conduct validation and field testing of the same; ´ Undertake data collection, tabulation and analysis exercis e; ´ Share draft findings prior to preparation of draft report ; ´ Prepare the recommendations and guidelines for strengstrengthening/thening/ revival/ correction of the scheme which are found achieved the declared objectobjectivesives and outcomes ´ Prepare report; ´ Revise the report based on feedback from PMU, if any;

1.5 Methodology of Evaluation

Evaluation Team

GIFT constituted an Evaluation Team to conduct the aboveabove study and the Team worked out the following methodology.

Desk review and analysis of secondary data

In order to get familiarized with the project activiactivities,ties, the evaluation team carried out extensive document review of sub project plans and implementatiimplementationon modalities. Facts and figures collected from various sources like PMU, PIU and PIOs were subjected to a triangulation for ensuring their validity and consistency. After having an in -depth understanding of the project and the assignmeassignmennt,t, the Team prepared an evaluation plan.

Kollam Port

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Categorization

For organizing the evaluation process and con venience of sampling, and on the basis of the naturenature of the intervention, the projects implemented by varivariousous departments under TRP were categorized by the evaluation team into five sectors as detailed below:

No Sector No Implementing Organisations

1 Fisheries Department

2 Animal Husbandry Department Restoration and Development of 1 livelihoods 3 Dairy Development Department

4 Agriculture Department

5 Public Works Department

6 Kerala Water Authority Infrastructure Development (Roads and 2 Bridges, Water supply & Sewerage, Ports & Jetties, 7 Kerala State Electricity Board Power and ICT and Tourism Infrastructure) 8 Harbour Engineering Department

9 Tourism Department

10 Health Department

11 Social Welfare Department 3 Social Infrastructure and Welfare 12 Education Department

13 Cooperative Department

14 Irrigation Department

15 Forest Department 4 Environment and Coastal Protection 16 Science and Technology Department

17 Kerala State Inland Navigation Corporation

Coastal Housing and Resettlement Project* 5 18 District Administrations Special Package*

*The Coastal Housing and resettlement project comes under the Environment and coastal protection sector and special package addresses the issues of all sectors in the four worst affected villages. However, these two projects which are implemented by the Revenue Department are taken as a separate sector for the study.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Sectoral Allocation Details

Others Livelihood Special package 2.88% 3.62% 8.71% Infrastructure 28.48%

Coastal Housing & Resettlement 27.68% Social Infrastructure Environment & & Welfare Coastal Protection 14.08% 14.55%

Allocation – Infrastructure Sector

Tourism 22.94% HED 33.29%

KSEB 14.92% PWD 6.01% KWA 22.84%

Sampling Strata & Selection

For sampling purposes, a stratified random sampling metmethodhod was adopted. The different strata are:

Stratum 1. Harbour Engineering Department Stratum 2. Two top ranking districts in terms of fund allocation –Kollam & Kozhikode Districts. (Refer Table 2.2 of Chapter 2) Stratum 3. Selection of Sub Projects (Basis: Random selection)

In the case of Harbour Engineering Department , the sample districts were selected on the basis ofof the funds allocated under TRP to each district for implementation of the Scheme(s)/ Sub Project(s). From the nine districts, the two top -ranking districts with regard to fund allocation were selected as sample for evaluation. (Refer Table 2. 2 of Chapter 2)

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Methods Adopted & Evaluation Tools

The project interventions for improving infrastructure in port sector and fisheries sector of the state carried out by Harbour Engineering Department under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme is evaluated using four methods viz; i) Focus Group DiscDiscussionsussions (FGD) ii) Structured Field Observation iii) Informal Interviews with StakeholderStakeholderss and iv) Case studies. As evaluation tools, customized checklists and interview sched ules were prepared.

Grading of Schemes

Based on primary and secondary data, structured obseobservationsrvations and focus group discussions with all the stakeholders like the representatives of PMU, PIU, Departments, Agencies, NGOs and CBOs the Team identified a set of five performance areas are listed below:

Five areas of Performance

1. Project Concept and Planning 2. Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core Objectives 3. Co-ordination within and between Departments/Agencies 4. Beneficiary Satisfaction, Participation and Community Mobilization 5. Innovations and Sustainability

The Grading was done in the following manner

The Scheme was evaluated on the basis of each area of performance with a maximum score of 20 marks each. On the basis of the aggregate score rece ived, the scheme was graded on a five point scale ranging from Poor to Excellent as shown below. The Maximum Score is 100 (20 marks x 5) .

Grade Score

Poor 20 and Below Below Average Between 21 – 40 Average Between 41 – 60 Good Between 61 – 80 Excellent Above 80

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

CHAPTER II

Harbour Engineering Department : Evaluation of Schemes Infrastructure Development in Port and Fisheries Sectors

2.1. The Scheme Harbour and Port structures located adjacent to the sea suffered extensive damages during the tsunami disaster . Still, harbours in the state served the purpose of refuge for the disaster -affected people, and as a safe place for the fishing vessels and gears. But, in most places, the tidal waves hhaadd taken their toll on the structures in the harbours and fish landing centres.

Kerala State Harbour Engineering Department (HED) enentrustedtrusted with the upkeep and development of infrastructure along the coast, were responsible for repairing and rebuilding the damag ed facilities immediately after the disaster.

Under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, the developmendevelopmentdevelopmentt of infrastructure in port as well as fisheries sector was undertaken by the Harbour Engineering Department. They received an allocation of `108.84 crore s under TRP, of which ` 106.64 crores have been utilized so far for implementation of various sub projects.

The sub projects included rectification and reconstruction of damaged infrastructures like breakwaters, wharfs, fisheries/port roads, water supply facilities etc.. In addition to the rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts, sub projects to improve the existing facilities and to create additional facilities in ports, harbours & fish landing centres were also carried out under TRP. The up - gradation o f infrastructure aims to facilitate increased landinlandingg of vessels and thereby the development of the location. These infrastructural interventions were also intended to provide safe refuge for the vessels during rough seasons. Hence, in some cases provisio n is made for creating new infrastructure facilities along with the rectification and up -gradation works.

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

The sub projects are implemented by Harbour EngineerEngineeriEngineeringingng Departments in the port as well as in fisheries sector. The various types of projects undertak en by the department under Tsunami Rehabilitation programme is as follows

A. Fisheries sector

1. Development of Fishing Harbours 2. Water Supply Schemes 3. Construction of Groynes 4. Improvements to Fish Landing Centres 5. Dredging of Fishing Harbour Basins and Chan nels 6. Construction/ Improvement of Fisheries Roads 7. Construction of Bridges B. Port Sector

8. Dredging of Basins and Channel of Ports 9. Extension of Breakwaters of Ports 10. Improvements to Port Roads 11. Construction of T Sheds - Ports 12. Procurement of Cranes to Port Table No. 2.1 Project Details - Fisheries and Port Sector Fisheries Sector Port Sector No Description No of Sub Project cost No of Sub Project cost Projects (` in Lakhs) Projects (` in Lakhs) 1 Total Allocation xx 8679.00 xx 2555.00

2 A.S Received 201 8506.95 11 2595.00

3 Works Completed 194 8641.30 11 2058.48

4 Works Dropped 6 141.65 0 0

5 Up-to date expenditure 194 8641.30 11 2022.29 (Source: Progress Report, PIU Harbour Engineering DDeepartment)partment) An amount of ` 106.64 crores have so far been expended by Harbour Engineering Department under TRP

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Table No. 2.2 District wise project outlay ( ` in Lakhs) District

No Scheme/Sub Project TOTAL puram puram Kollam Kannur Thrissur Alappuzha Kozhikode Ernakulum Kasaragode Malappuram Thiruvanantha 1 Development of fishing harbours 294.76 0 406.85 0 130.08 0 476.93 353.92 0 1662.54

2 Water supply schemes 28.53 13.87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.40

3 Construction of Groynes 0 1024.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1024.74

4 Improvements to Fish Landing centres 0 0 434.02 731.10 28.57 0 0 65.32 0 1259.01 Dredging of Fishing Harbour basins 5 0 0 0 171.28 0 0 753.22 297.12 0 1221.62 and Channel 6 Construction of Bridges 0 3.03 635.33 82.99 0 0 0 0 65.91 787.26 Construction/ Improvements of 7 320.66 341.27 273.48 607.65 350.45 222.82 92.51 266.54 168.36 2643.74 fisheries roads Dredging of basins and Channel of 8 0 249.76 0 0 0 0 202.37 172.88 0 625.01 ports 9 Extension of break waters of ports 0 0 0 0 0 0 678.96 230.18 0 909.14

10 Improvements to port roads 0 86.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86.20

11 Construction of T Sheds - Ports 0 96.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.54

12 Procurement of cranes to port 76.35 76.35 0 0 0 0 76.35 76.35 0 305.40

Total 720.30 1891.76 1749.68 1593.02 509.10 222.82 2280.34 1462.31 234.27 10663.60 Percentage 6.75 17.74 16.41 14.94 4.77 2.09 21.38 13.71 2.20 100 (Source: PIU, Harbour Engineering Department)

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP

Table No.2.3 Project Output Achieved District

No Scheme/Sub Project (Units) TOTAL puram Kollam Kollam Kannur Kannur Thrissur Alappuzha Ernakulam Kozhikode Kasaragode Malappuram Thiruvanantha

1 Development of fishing harbours (Nos) 1 1 1 1 4 2 Water supply schemes(Nos) 1 1 2 3 Construction of Groynes (No of sites) 12 12 Improvements to Fish Landing centres 4 1 4 1 1 7 (Nos.) Dredging of Fishing Harbour basins and 5 141268 435025 233120 809413 Channel (In M³) 6 Construction of Bridges (Nos) 1 1 1 3 Construction/ Improvements of 7 17.720 22.485 20.356 25.115 28.210 22.275 3.920 16.360 9.695 166.136 fisheries roads (In KMs) Dredging of basins and Channel of 8 152330 108945 115251 376526 ports (In M³) Extension of break waters of ports (In 9 300 29 329 Meters) 10 Improvements to port roads (In KMs) 0.670 0.670 Construction of Transit Shed – Ports 11 1 1 (Nos.) 12 Procurement of cranes to port (Nos.) 1 1 1 1 4 (Source: PIU, Harbour Engineering Department)

Harbour Engineering Department BME-TRP [Type text] [Type text]

2.2 Observations

The sub projects implemented by the Department in Kollam and Kozhikode districts were selected for in-depth evaluation. The Department has expended an amount of ` 18.92 crores (17.74 %) for the sub projects in Kollam district and ` 22.80 (21.38%) for Kozhikode district. The Evaluation Team visited various project sites in these districts and interacted with various stakeholders including the implementing officers of HED and the fishermen who were supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of the project.

Kollam District

In Kollam district, the Department planned twelve sub projects in the fisheries sector and four sub projects in the port sector. Out of the twelve sub projects planned in the fisheries sector two of them were dropped and remaining ten have been completed. Regarding the port sector, the Department has completed all the four sub projects planned under TRP.

Table No 2.4 Details of Sub Projects in the Fisheries sector in Kollam District

A.S. Tender Actual Date of Date of Completion Name of the work Amount Excess/Sa Expenditure comme- No Propos- Actual Delay (in ( ` in Lakhs) vings (%) (` in Lakhs) ncement ed date Date months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Improvements to coastal road 1.7 % 1 connecting Lakshmipuramthoppe 975.00 1024.74 19-03-08 18-09-09 28-12-10 15 above and Paravur Improvements to Fish Landing 2 25.00 - - - - # NA Centre at Port Kollam Water Supply Scheme at 15 % 3 20.00 13.86 07-03-09 6-6-09 29-12-09 6 Manroethuruthu above Construction of 4 - - 1.48 - - # NA Cheekkamthuruthu Foot Bridge Road from Kurissady clay mine to 8 % 5 19.70 23.49 17-04-08 16-08-08 15-12-08 4 Puliyorath in Perinadu above Road kadavu to Pallimukku road in 10 % 6 20.30 18.96 22-02-08 21-06-08 15-02-09 20 East Kallada above Road from Pulikkamukku to 11% 7 11.00 9.62 09-01-08 08-05-08 17-03-08 -2 Ashtamudikayal in Thevalakkara below Construction of Neeleswaram 30 % 8 77.00 1.54 04-12-09 31-03-10 — NA Thoppumukku Bridge above Construction of Coastal road from 11.7 % 9 Neendakara Bridge to joint 12.60 12.67 20-11-08 19-02-09 31-03-09 1 below junction in Neendakara Improvements to AKG Road in 10 % 10 10.00 9.48 02-02-09 01-05-09 30-10-09 5 Neendakara above Improvements to road from Ramankulangara to 10 % 11 Sakthikulangara old culvert via 70.00 74.17 29-03-10 28-06-10 31-01-11 7 above Maruthadi (In lieu of Cheekam thuruth Bridge) Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

A.S. Tender Actual Date of Date of Completion Name of the work Amount Excess/Sa Expenditure comme- No Propos - Actual Delay (in ( ` in Lakhs) vings (%) (` in Lakhs) ncement ed date Date months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maintenance of road from Water tank junction to Yakshikkavu 10 % 12 17.00 20.92 21-01-08 20 -4-08 06-05-08 Nil kadavu road in Paravoor above Municipality. TOTAL 1257.60 1210.96 # Work Dropped (Source: HED, Kollam Division,) Out of the above mentioned sub projects, Item No. 2 waswawass dropped and closure agreement signed with the contractor for want of reclamation of site for improvement of fish landing centre at Kollam port. The Administrative Sanction of sub project shown agains t Item No. 4 was cancelled and another work was sanctioned with this allocation.

Table No 2.5. Details of Sub Projects in Port sector in Kollam District

A.S. Tender Actual Date of Date of Completion Name of the work Amount Excess/ Expenditure commen No Propos ed Actual Delay (in ( ` in Lakhs) Savings (` in Lakh) cement date Date months) 20 % 1 Construction of T Shed 120.00 96.54 06-03-08 5-11-08 13-01-10 14 above Procurement of 5 T capacity Done by 2 200.00 NA 76.35 - - NA Mobile crane to Thankassery Port port dept. Construction of road from 6 % 3 90.00 86.19 21-12-07 20 -8-08 31-12-09 16 Thankassery to Kollam Port above 67 % 4 Dredging at Thankassery Port 150.00 249.76 25-01-10 31 -3-10 31-7-10 4 above Dredging at Thankassery Port - 17% 5a 8.00 11.38 04-04-11 15 -6-11 30-7-11 1 Second Phase above TOTAL 568.00 622.69 (Source: Harbour Engineering Division, Kollam) Fisheries Roads Many of the coastal roads in the district were in a bad condition, especially those lying adjacent to the coastline due to the effect of tidal sea tidal waves. For instance, the road connecting Lakshmipuramthoppu and Paravur was broken in many places due to sea erosion. This roadroad which was once the most commonly used by the coastal commcommunitunityy for transportation and travel was fully damaged. This road was reconstructe d under TRP by the Harbour Engineering Department, andand after reconstruction, has again become useful for the fishermen community. However, during the visit of the Evaluation Team it was seen damaged at Paravoor Pozhikkara and as a result the road has lost connectivity with Paravoor town. It was learned that the road in this portion was cut to release the water from the Paravoor backwaters to avavoidoid flooding. It was done by the district administration to avoid any mishap due to flooding of dwelling places an d the agricultural lands in the area.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

In addition to the reconstruction works, the construction of the new roads like Kurissady clay mine to Puliyorath in Perinad Panchayat and the Kadavu to Pallimukku road in East Kallada Panchayat etc. were also carrie d out under the project. The construction of these roads were demanded and awaited for a long time by the local community.

Lakshmipuram thoppu- Paravoor Road The road eroded by sea at Paravvor Pozhikkara

Construction of Transit shed

At Thankassery port a t ransit shed of 68 x 20 metre area has been constructed under TRP. A similar shed w as already constructed earlier in the same location under Tsunami Emergency Assistance Project with the assistance of Asian Development BankBank.. But, as of now, both these structures are only minimally utilized as the port is not yet fully functional. The por t and its related infrastructure are yet to be made operational and is dependent on the availability of funds. At present, in the absence of full-fledged facilities , only very few ships and sailing vessels arrive at this port. But the port authorities are hopeful that the investment is likely to be useful in in the near future. Many development works like dredging of channels and basbasiin,n, rectification of break waters, construction of transit shed etc have been carried out under TRP and TEAP. In addition the co nstruction of a separate Overhead Service Reservoir built under TRP by Kerala Water Authority for feeding the port area has ensured availability of fresh water. This was a major intervention with regard to the development of the port. In these circumstance s the authorities are hopeful that the port will be a reality in the near future. In which case, the investment made for the transit shed is also likely to reap benefits. However, at present the transit shed is kept unutilized.

Dredging

Capital dredging of the approach canal and basin in Thankassery port was executed under TRP. The dredging work that was originally planned was completed within the planned timeframe and with an investment of ` 2.49 crores. After the completion of such dredging asas per the original plan, HED undertook the second phase of dredging work with an outlay of ` 1.14 crores by utilizing the savings from other sub projects and also with the funds allocated for the projects that were dropped.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Despite all these investments, ships and sailing vessvesselsels have not yet started landing in this port at thethe desired frequency, obviously for lack of other infrastructural facilities.

Transit shed at Thankassery port

Port Roads

Dredging of approach channe l and basins, procurement of mobile crane etc. were undertakenundertaken under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme in Thankassery Port.Port. In addition many developmental works were also executed in this port under ADB assisted Tsunami Tsunami Emergency Assistance Project. Improve d road connectivity to Thankassery, especially from Kollam port and the National Highway was the most significa nt component of the development plan. It will facilitfacilitateate commercial operations of these ports apart from its use for dayday to day travel and transp ortation by the local fishermen in this thickly populated area.

Procurement of Mobile Crane for Thankassery Port

Like all other investments made in this Port, the crane too is kept idle. This mobile crane can only handle small cargos and commo dities that are shipped in sailing vessels called ‘urus’. It cannot be employed to transport containers that are commonly used by cargo ships.

As a result of all this, this mobile crane of 5 Ton ne capacity that was procured at ` 76.35 Lakhs has so far ear ned only a meager amount of ` 73,000 in two years.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Table No. 2.6. Details regarding usage of the Crane in Thankassery Port Amount No Date Hours TR 5 Register Ref Received (```) 1 18.11.2010 3 3060 56/507 2 23.12.2010 2 2040 87/504 3 26.02.2011 2 2040 40/506 4 05.03.2011 3 3060 54/506 5 07.04.2011 2 2040 95/506 6 01.09.2011 11 11220 22/507 7 11.10.2011 14 11480 25/507 8 20.10.2011 11 9020 39/507 9 17.11.2011 1 820 48/507 10 19.11.2011 11 9020 53/507 11 24.11.2011 10 8200 57/507 12 05.01.2012 2 2040 68/507 13 30.01.2012 9 9180 77/507 Total 81 73220 (Source: Port office, Kollam)

Mobile crane at Thankassery, Kollam

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Kozhikode District

In Kozhikode district, the Department has implemented sub projects both in portpoporrtt and fisheries sector. Out of the ten works planned in fisheries sesector,ctor, nine have been completed and one was dropped. In the port sector, development works of ththee Beypore port like modifi cation and extension of break water, dredging of approach channel and basins etc. were carried out. A mobile crane was also procured for the port under TRP.

Table No. 2.7. Details of sub project in Fisheries sector in Kozhikode District

Approved Tender Completion Date of Date of Completion Name of the work Project Cost Excess/ cost commence No Propos ed Actual Delay (`In Lakhs) Savings (` In Lakhs) ment date Date (Months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Upg radation of Beypore Fisheries 29 % 1 385.00 476.10 31.08.08 03.01.10 23.09.10 8 Harbour Above

Puthiyappa Fishery harbour – 41 % 2 Removal of sediments from 300.00 Above 411.34 09.08.08 08.10.09 30.01.10 3 approach channel and basin

Chombal Fishery harbour – Removal 41 % 3 of sediments from approach channel 250.00 Above 341.80 09.08.08 08.08.09 30.04.10 8 and basin

Repairs to the Kunnathupadi- 4 10.50 Nil 11.73 25.01.08 24.04.08 30.09.08 5 Sreedevi School road, Kadalungy GP

Improvement Neermoochi- 3.6 % 5 Mandakkad – Marad Road in 8.50 Below 9.98 02.02.08 01.05.08 30.09.08 4 Beypore GP 14 % 6 Puthiyangadi beach road (Koya road) 5.10 6.19 30.04.08 29.06.08 31.03.09 9 Above Improvement to Varakkal Temple 22 % 7 28.00 35.10 08.12.08 07.05.09 20.07.09 2 road – Kozhikode Corporation Above Madakkara School –Ezhukudikkal Nil 8 15.50 16.66 05.01.09 04.04.09 04.04.09 Nil Road Resurfacing of Sudarsanamukku 15 % 9 10.00 12.02 02.10.09 30.11.09 30.11.09 Nil bypass road to Chombal harbour Above

TOTAL 1015.6 1327.68 (Source: Harbour Engineering Division Kozhikode )

In addition to the works mentioned above, constructiconstructionon of Gurukulam beach road in Koyilandy Municipality was also planned. After tendering and execution agreements, the work was dropped as some portions of the proposed site were occupied by Irrigation Depa rtment for stocking materials for construction of g roynes at the same location.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Table No. 2.8. Details of sub project in Fisheries sector in Kozhikode District

Approved Tender Actual Date of Date of Completion Name of the work Project Cost Excess/ Expenditure commence No Propos ed Actual Delay (` In akhs) Savings (` In Lakhs) ment date Date (Months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beypore port - Modification and 25 % 1 600.00 678.96 25.06.08 24.09.09 24.09.09 Nil extension of break water Above Beypore port - Dredging of Final bill 2 255.00 Nil 18.02.10 22.04.10 19.05.10 1 Approach channel and basin pending Beypore port – Procurement of 5 T Done by 3 200.00 NA 76.35 NA NA NA capacity Mobile crane. port dept.

Total (Source: Harbour Engineering Division, Kozhikode)

Development Works in Fishing Harbours Under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, development works are done in three fishingfishing harbours; Beypor e, Puthiyappa and Chombal. The E valuation Team visited the Beypore fishing harbour to to evaluate the outcome of the investment.

Auction hall constructed under TRP at Bey pore Fishing Harbour , Kozhikode Beypore Fishing Harbour This development initiative at the Beypore fishing harbour harbour undertaken under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme was the most significant oonene since its establishment in the 1960s.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Additional wharf of 150 metres len gth with 6 metres width and an auction hall adjoiniadjoininngg this wharf was constructed in Beypore fishing harbor . The auction hall constructed now under TRP is of the size 88m x 10.6 m whereas the size of the existing hall isis 53m x14 m. But the newly constructed structure has not started functioning as there is no electricity connection or any arrangements for lighting. Likewise, there is no adequate parking area adjoining the hall, which is essential for loading and movement of vehicles transporting fish cargo. These facilitie s were actually included in the original plan, but were later dropped due to scarcity of funds resulting from cost escalation in other works. The ins ulated vehicles that carry fish to distant destinations ideally need a roofed parking area. Hopefully a solution to this problem is in sight, as an extensiextensioonn work is planned in the two acres of land adjacent to the hall that has been reclaimed for this pur pose, which also includes space for parking.

The pea k hours of fish business are usually the wee hours of the day, as majority of the fishing crafts land early in the morning. So, it becomes impossible to work without proper lighting arrangements in the hall. As a result, this auction hall is left unutilized - says Mohanan Vypingal a fisherma n who usually sails from here for fishing. Other essentialessential facilities like water supply and drainage are alsalsoo not available in this structure.

Considering the number of the crafts landing here during the peak seasons the need for an additional auction hall is agreed, but this structure has remained idle for the last two years. .At present, this wide open hall is used by the fishermefishermenn to mend fishnets and to take rest.

Earlier this harbour had only half the capacity which was inadequate to cater to the large number of fishing crafts landing here in sea son. After construction of the new wharf, it is expected that around 250-300 boats can land in this harbour.

Development of Fisheries Roads Improvement works of six roads are undertaken in thethe district by HED under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. All these roads were in poor condition.

The Evaluation Team visited the three sites namely, Koya road, Varakkal Temple road in Kozhikode corporation and Madakkara School –Ezhukudikkal Road in Koyilandy. At present, all the three roads are seen in good condition, even two years af ter their construction. The beneficiaries with whom the Evaluation Team interacted also endorsed that the work was carrcarriieded out in a better manner compared to similar routine government worksworks.. In the Varakkal temple road, surface tarring was done after increasing the height of the road along with construction of drainages on both sides. The intervention proved to be a sustainable solution for managing storm water intrusion which used to cause d amages to the road and disrupt traffic during rainy seasons. The HED authorities ssaaidid that they were able to plan the development wo rk in a holistic manner as adequate funds were made available under TRP.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Madakkara School – Ezhukudikkal road is a shortcut to the Ezhukudikkal beach. This road is very useful for the students of Madakkara UP School. The distance to Ezhukudikkal beach by the alternate road is more circuitous compared to the new one. Auto -rickshaws , Bikes and private cars depend on this short cut to reach Ezhukudikk al beach, whereas bus service is plying through the other road which is wider.

Madakkara Schoo l – Ezhukudikkal beach road in Koyilandy, Kozhikode DisDistrtrictict

Development of Beypore Port Beypore is an estuarine harbour situated on the river Chaliyar in Kozhikode district. This is one of the port sites in the state that still holds great potential for development. The port was active in handling cargo from time immemorial. The existing breakwbreakwatersaters at the northern and southern sides of the estuary were completed in 1991 and have a lenlengthgth of 860m and 830m respectively.

Extension and modification of brea kwater and the dredging of approach channel and basin were the two major components of the development work of the BeyporeBeypore port that were carried out under TRP in 2008.

Through capital dredging, 10.89 Lakhs M³ of silted soil was removed from the basins an d approach channels of this port. The breakwater in this port was extended further by 330 meters under the project. Along with the extension, rectification work of the existing breakwater was also undertaken. According to the Port authorities, both these w orks, completed in 2010, were initiatives very significant to the overall development of the port.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Table No. 2.9. Details of Cargo / Passenger ships called at Beypore Port

No of vessels called No of Passengers Quantity of cargo# Year Passenger Barges / Sailing Disembarke Embarked handled (in ships Ships vessels d Tonnes) 2006-07 45 109 256 4262 4555 46507

2007-08 47 112 256 4746 4445 93554

2008-09 76 156 385 6548 7192 120102

2009-10 80 157 358 7942 8117 104672

2010-11 99 162 314 9808 10744 107750

2011-12 44 54 320 5324 5429 74692 * 2011-12 Upto January only (February and Mach falls under peak season) (Source: Port office Beypore)

# Cargos handled in this port are Soda ash, wheat, building materials, cattle feed, aanndd cement, hollow blocks, vegetables etc

Table No. 2.10. Annual percentile growth

Total Cargo Year Total Vessels called Total Passengers Handled 2006-07 410 (100) 8817 (100) 46507 (100)

2007-08 415 (101) 9191 (104) 93554 (201) 2008-09 617 (150) 13740 (156) 120102 (258)

2009-10 595 (145) 16059 (182) 104672 (225)

2010-11 575 (140) 20552 (233) 107750 (232) 2011-12* 418 (102) 10753 (122) 74692 (161) * 2011-12 Upto January only (February and Mach falls under peak season) (Source: calculated from table No.) Figures within the brackets denotes percentage

The Table No.2.10. shows that during 2009-10 and 2010 -11 there was significant increase both in the number of vessels called as well as in quantity of cargo handled in Beypore port after the intervention under TRP , though it has dipped slightly in the current year. This trend indicates that the TRP interventions has made positive impact upon the mariners.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Procurement of Mobile Crane A mobile crane of five tonne ca pacity was procured for use in of Beypore port. Different from the other three cranes stationed at Kollam, Vizhinjam and Azheekode ports,ports, this crane is put to use here. The port at present is charging ` 990 + tax per hour for the use of mobile crane .

Already there are five fixed and two mobile cranes in Beypore Port. Among them, threethree of the fixed cranes and the two mobile cranes are very old and inin need of constant repair. So it is during contingencies when the other cranes become dysfunctional, that the mobile cran e is used more. The vessels stand in queue for loading and unloading the cargo. In such situations some vessels that don’t have time to wait for the fixed cranes to become free, prefer to use the mobile cranes at higher rates. Normally the vessels always p refer the fixed cranes, as only ` 360 per hour is charged for this whereas they have to pay ` 990 + tax for the use of the mobile crane procured underunder TRP.

Though the warranty for the cranes is still active, the services given by the supplier agency of t he crane is very poor. There is inordinate delay in replacement of spare parts and repair of the crane. According to authorities it is due to the fact that the numbers of such cranes of the same category are very few in the state.

Table No.2.11. Details about the Use of Crane at Beypore Port

No Month and Year Hours used

1 November 2010 0.00 2 December 2010 0.00 3 January 2011 5.50 4 February 2011 8.50 5 March 2011 56.36 6 April 2011 129.59 7 May 2011 75.12 8 June 2011 9.29 9 July 2011 11.60 10 August 2011 6.00 11 September 2011 5.50 12 October 2011 83.50 13 November2011 11.40 14 December 2011 136.00 15 January 2012 73.00 16 February 2012 110.00 Total 721.36 Average use per month 45.00 (Source: Port office Beypore )

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

The Table given above shows that the machine is underutilized when compared to the quantum of investment. However the port authorities are hopefulhopeful that it will be more intensely utilized, when the construction of additional wharf at the port is completed. But the wharf project, which is a centrally spons ored scheme and part of Lakshad weep Development Programme, is still in pipeline and will take time to commence. Under the same , a separate wharf is envisaged for the vessels p lying between Beypore and Lakshad weep. 2.3. Analysis

Roads – A Much-needed Intervention Many of the fisheries rods at the time of the project intervention were in a bad condition and had put the fishermen at a disadvantage with regard to transportation of fish using goods carrier vehicles from fish landing centres to the markets. In additionaddition,, these roads were also commonly used by the coastal population for their everyday travel needs. The condition of the roads was further aggravated by the general econ omic backwardness and vulnerability of the coastal area.area. Some portions o f the coastal roads very near the seashore were washed out during the tsunami disadisaster.ster. The reconstruction and development of port roads and fisfisheriesheries roads under TRP have been well re ceived by the fishermen community as a visible interveinterventionntion for improving their living conditions.

The roads in K ollam district before intervention (File Photos)

In case of construction of new roads under TRP, manymany backward areas in the coastal Grama Panchayats which were long neglected were covered.

Issue of Competitiveness To attract maximum number of vessels to their coast, there is tough competition between ports with in the state as well as from outside. The ships anandd sailing vessels prefer to land at ports that offer state of the art facilities, better services and are least expensive. Ports with minimum facilities in the state like Kollam and Azhikode are used by sailors only in unavoidable circumstances. The Kollam port is only used for movement of commodities lilikkee sand which is needed for the construction sector in south Kerala. The availability of fre sh water, cranes of good quality and

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

proper capacity, sufficient and spacious wharf, safe transit shed, adequate depth for movement of all types of vessels maintained through timely dredging,dredging, enabling labor environment etc. are some of the factors that att ract vessels to a port. So, if tangible outcomes aarree to be derived from the investment, the ports have to become full -fledged and equipped with all facilities. This calls for holistic planning, efficient management and timely and proper maintenance suppor ted by adequate budgetary provisions.. Otherwise, interventions likelike this will remain piecemeal and ad hoc.

Sustainability of Assets/Investments

The dredging activities at such a scale were possible only because TRP funds were available to the Departmen t. There is no routi ng dredging to maintain the p ort at its optimum level, as adequate funds are not allocated for the same on an annual babasis.sis. This seems to have severely affected the sustainability of outcomes from investments in the ports in the state. For instance, the incidence of silting is high during the monsoon season, but the dredgingdredging activities are not often undertaken to address this issue in a timely manner, but only on occasions when funds bec ome available from any project. The situation remai ns the same in the case of the cranes procured for thisthis port under TRP too. It has been kept almost idle for the last two years in two of the locations and now, may incur higher maintenance expenses than a crane which is in regular use.

A Business Plan t o Synchronise Assets with Opportunities

There is a need to develop a business/revenue model for each port by taking into account their specific strengths in terms of location, facilities,facilities, infrastructure, manpower, and seasonal climatic conditions with strategies to optimise present business potential and to expand future business. This also has to take into account the ways in which the business and seasonal advantages of each port in the State can be coordinated in a synergistic manner. Such a plan will al so enable Port Department to offer better and more attractive service conditioconditionsns and rates to their present and future customers.

As an immediate intervention, a bridge investment iiss essentialessential to make the existing facilities fully functional and thus to increase the volume of cargo, number of passengers andand package of services.

Cranes -a dead investment

In Thankassery port the m obile crane is kept idle for the last two years. Same is the situati on in other ports also except for Beypore. This crane can h andle only small cargos and goods carried by small sailing vessels. Even in Beypore, the five tonne capacity mobile crane is not much in demand as the sailors prefer the fixed cranes which are available at lesser rent and are more convenient to use. It i s learned that the crane at Azheekode is kept totally idle except when used to lift the vehicles during some road mishaps. The Department has enteredentered into into a five years annual maintenance contract with the supplier, and this investment becomes an additional burden as the machines are not operational and do not require any maintenance. In these circumstances th e government may

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

consider relocating these idle machines to other locations whwhereere it can be utilized more efficiently and economically.

Trimming of Schemes and Dropping of Components The delay in finalizing the sub project plan resulted in cost escalation and trimming of projects in order to match the available resource quantum. The HarbourHarbour Engineering Department had either dropped certain components in the sub projects or limited the quantitquantityy of work to suit the available allocation. For instance, the development work origioriginallynally planned at Beypore fishing harbour includes components like parking area, electricity and water supply arrangemen ts in the auction hall along with the construction of wharf adjoining the auction hall. These four components were inevitable to an integrated plan in order to provide basic facilities for landing fishing crafts. DueDue to the cost escalation, the water su pply and electricity arrangements were dropped withowithoutut which the auction hall cannot be made functional. In addition the drainage works of the auction hall were also not done. The real use of the wharf can be made only when the auction hall becomes functio nal. Without drainage, water supply and lighting arrangement s the auction hall can in no way be made functional. Thus, the entire investment is left unproductive. Only thethe berthing facility in the new fish landing area is at present utilized by the fisherm en. Effective planning and time management was needed to avoid cost escalation and consequent dropping of essential components from the original scheme.

2.3. Grading of Schemes

Table No. 2.12. Grading of Schemes

Five Areas of Performance Score (Maximum Score -20 for each )

1 Project Concept and Planning 11

2 Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core ObjectiveObjectivess 13

3 Co-ordination within and between Departments/Agencies 10

4 Beneficiary Satisfaction, Participation and Community Mobilization 8

5 Innovations and Sustainability 10

Total Score 52

Grade* Average *Poor = 20 and Below; Below Average = 21 -40; Average = 41-60; Good = 61-80; Excellent = 81 and Above

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Project Concept and Planning

Harbour and port structures being closely located to the sea, suffered severe damages during tsunami. In addition the port roads as well as the fisheries roads in the coastal belt of the state were prone to disasters and in many locations were badly damaged due to sea erosion. Hence the investment for rectification and rehabilitation of thethe infrastructures in the disaster pro ne coastal belt of the state was very relevant and much needed inteinterrvention.vention. In the case of roads, the results achieved were tangible and positive. But in the case of development of infrastructure at the ports and fishing harbours, the planning process cou ld not fully address the ground realities. These isolated investments like mobile cranes and auction halls,halls, did not take into account issues like sustainability or business potential as relevant criteria. As a result investments at Beypore, Thankassery and Perumathura etc stil l remain idle or underutilized. Without support systems like water supply and electricity the se structures are kept idle. Dredging of approach channchannelel and basins, rectification of break water, construction of transit shed at Thankasser y port etc also met with a similar fate in the absence of the holistic vision and revenue model. The investment in many of the ports in the state under TRP has not created tangible results, and is not likely to generate any in the near future if supplement ary investments are not made.

Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core Objectives

Implementation of the project appears to have been promptly monitoremonitomonitorrededd as almost all the works executed by the Department are completed and in googoodd condition. In case of th e fisheries and port roads the user groups have a very favourable opinion about the significance of the intervention and also, the quality of work. But cost escalation and resultant shortage of funds in some cases led to trimming of projects and dropping o f core components especially in the development worksworks at fishing harbours and fish landing centres. This approach proved to be an impediment in generating the envisaged impact for the investment. However ththee Department has succeeded in achieving the core project objectives in the case of schemes like roads, bridges, water supply schemes, groynesgroynes etc.

Coordination Within and Between Departments

There was good coordination within the Department anandandd genial networking with other stake - holding agencies like Po rt Department, Fisheries Departments and local governmegovernmengovernmentsntsts during the implementation of the project.

Beneficiary satisfaction, Participation and Community Mobilisation

The beneficiaries of the roads, bridges and groynes were well satisfied with the project intervention as well as with the quality of the work. But the fishermen communities who are supposed to be the primary stakeholders of TRP are not satisfied with the p roject interventions for the development of the fishing harbours, auction halls and fish landing centres. These interventions have not yet borne fruit due to lack of various support facilities necessary to make them fully functional. By the naturenature of the intervention there was little scope for community parparticipation,ticipation, except for public consultations for need assessment.

Harbour En gineering Department BME-TRP

Innovations and Sustainability

There were no visible or mentionable attempts at innoinnovationvation on the part of the Department during planning, implementation or post implementation phasesphases of the project. There is no room for concern over the sustainability of the infrastructures created unde r the project as the concerned departments have established administrative and techntechnicalical machinery for their operation and maintenance. But the bleak prospects for future allallocationsocations by the state government to bridge the gap and for regular maintenance ar e cause for worry, for without it, the advantages created by the interventions cannot be sustained. Over and above the sustainability issue, the utility of the project structures and value for public money invested are matters of concern.