Coastal Resilience Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Gambia
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
02/2018
Completion Date:
02/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document UNDP GEF Terminal Evaluation Terms of Reference TemplateRR Gambia April 2018.docx tor English 67.37 KB Posted 514
Download document Sample TE Evaluative Matrix.docx related-document English 20.30 KB Posted 514
Download document UNDP Gambia Coastal Resilience Terminal Evaluation Final Report.pdf report English 1156.47 KB Posted 598
Title Coastal Resilience Project
Atlas Project Number: 00074214
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Gambia
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2019
Planned End Date: 02/2018
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.3.1 Data and risk-informed development policies, plans, systems and financing incorporate integrated and gender-responsive solutions to reduce disaster risks, enable climate change adaptation and mitigation, and prevent risk of conflict
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG Target
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
  • 13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 40,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Richard Sobey timosobey@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4724
PIMS Number: 4782
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: GAMBIA
Lessons
Findings
1.

3.1. Project Strategy
3.1.1 Project Design
Project Formulation

The project was prepared on behalf of MECCNR and their NEA. NEA had managed at least one similar project and were considered transparent and competent. However, the NEA lacked accreditation to directly implement the project on behalf of UNDP, therefore a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) was established to act as the ‘intermediary’. Partnership arrangements with allied responsible implementing partners were not clarified beyond the project document. Component 1 at the output and activity level was far from clear (Section prodoc, project workplan – outputs & activities, p52). Also, the NEA is primarily a ‘regulatory institute’ and not an implementing agency for infrastructure, especially one that is designed across sectors. The NEA’s mandate covers EIA and it has a limited ‘coastal programme’. The capacity of NEA to implement the project was considered at design through for example, secondment from NEA of a team leader and mangrove development officers, however UNDP rules on procurement precluded this. Instead the positions were advertised, NEA staff applied and were fortunately selected.
A ‘project support team’ was envisaged by the project design (Project Organisation Structure, prodoc, p64), with representatives from 10 sections of government. It was only active for first year, as it was considered an extra layer that was not technically effective and needed extra management by the PIU. A ‘project implementation technical support team’ was also envisaged by the project design, with 12 added experts and / or project staff. These were partly hired to conduct consultant studies, although certain project staff positions were not created, e.g. for community liaison advisors (24 months x 4 staff).


Tag: Implementation Modality Procurement Project and Programme management Country Government UNDP Regional Bureaux

2.

3.1.2 Design Assumptions & Risks
The project design and perceived expectations were that the following would be achieved during
implementation:
- The EU GCCA project would deliver a working database
- An NEA coastal engineer would be hired
- The mandates of sectoral offices would be clear and there would be a high degree of collaboration
between these offices
- Capacity in coastal engineering would be progressively built / greatly enhanced
- Sea and river defence policy would be updated
- There would be a clear link with research institutes
These expectations were not realized.


Tag: Election Public administration reform Risk Management

3.

3.1.3 Results Framework Indicators & Targets

The results framework with eight main indicators was mostly logical, practical and feasible within the project timeframe as originally designed, except for Outcome 1. Outcome 1 (policies & institutions strengthened) had three indicators which concerned: national and local capacity; coastal monitoring using a database; and
sea & river defence investment plans (SRDIPs) financed 7 . The project maintained a focus on reporting against the eight main indicators, which was good, but it meant that other indicators, baselines & / or targets were not always reported against. However, the TE has reported against the complete logframe, and where there
was only a baseline or target, the TE re-constructed the indicator 8 . One or two indicators were not so SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic/Relative, Timebound). The main problem was that they were not easily measurable. The table below just gives an indication again the eight main indicators.


Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Results-Based Management

4.

3.1.4 Gender Design
‘The project will focus on women and children living in and deriving an income from along the coastal zone’ (prodoc, p21). Agriculture represents the main source of income for up to 90% of women (& 70% men), thus agricultural interventions are likely to be gender sensitive. Component 3 is designed to work towards
women’s empowerment and gender equality where socio-cultural practices weigh heavily on the social status of women and girls. The project is consistent with the Agricultural & Natural Resource (ANR) policy (2006-15) in terms of (i) including women in research & extension; (ii) targeting women in value chain approaches for selected commodities; (iii) encouraging the leadership of women in producers’ organizations. The GNAIP (2001-15) has called for gender-sensitive rural financial services and facilitate land tenure and irrigation issues. The Bureau of Statistics is one of the few national statistics offices with an institutionalized gender unit, however they do not sufficiently apply a gender perspective in the collection & analysis of data.


Tag: Global Climate Fund Gender Equality Women's Empowerment Agriculture

5.

3.2. Project Implementation
3.2.1 IA and EA Coordination & Operational Management

UNDP were the GEF / LDCF Implementing Agency (IA). Office of the President was the Executing Agency (EA), with MECCNR as the Implementing Partner (IP). MECCNR delegated implementation to NEA who with the support of UNDP established a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) to operate under UNDP National Implementation Modality (NIM), including using UNDP procedures for the procurement of goods, works and services.
 


Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Government Cost-sharing Least Developed Countries Fund Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management Risk Management Country Government UNDP management

6.

3.2.2 Institutional Mechanisms
Project-level operational partnership arrangements are briefly described in the previous section, whereas this section considers state institutional mechanisms and capacity which are the backbone for delivering new policies and services. The section thereafter considers local partnerships. Coastal & Marine Environment Working Group (CMEWG)
- The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, 1994) is the Gambia’s primary environmental legislation articulating management of the coastal zone and wetlands 13 , however there isn’t an institution solely responsible for coastal zone management.
- NEMA stipulates that a Coastal & Marine Environment Working Group (CMEWG) advises the National Environment Management Council and NEA on coastal zone matters. The CMEWG is chaired by the NEA and coordinates a coastal & marine environment program. However, the TE could find no evidence of this group being operational at national level, at least since the project began in 2014. CMEWG has not been in session since 2014 and has not supported the project.
 


Tag: Environmental impact assessment Human and Financial resources Implementation Modality Project and Programme management Service delivery

7.

3.2.3 Local Partnerships / Stakeholder Engagement
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Each regional government operates a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), with the governor as the chief executive officer (as decreed by Local Government Act). Under the TAC, there is a multi-disciplinary facilitation team which plans and conducts the required activities of the TAC. The TAC membership includes
public and civil bodies / CSOs. The public officials include a regional NEA officer, a regional national disaster management officer (under the OoP). Concerning sea & river defence at sub-national level, the TAC one of the main communication and coordination mechanisms. Under the project selected TAC members, village development committee members and womens’ groups received training in sea & river defence management / enhancing community resilience.


Tag: Women's Empowerment Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Capacity Building

8.

3.2.4 Finance & Co-finance
UNDP Financial management
UNDP financial support to the EA / IP and PIU was adequate, with UNDP providing a quarterly advance on expected expenditure, due to re-imbursement of invoices taking too long. UNDP was responsiveness to the IP, in terms of directly managing all procurement contracts, especially the hard infrastructure (SGKB revetment & TBDR), which UNDP CO needed to confirm with Addis and New York. On top of construction costs, UNDP has committed an extra $100,000 for consultant management of the contractor under the defect liability period (DLP) for the SGKB and TBDR infrastructures.
 


Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Human and Financial resources Procurement UNDP management Operational Services

9.

3.2.5 M&E Systems – Design & Implementation

The M&E officer made a commendable effort in identifying, mobilising and supporting communities. The officer put in a very high effort in not only in managing the M&E workload, but also working in a major community development role. The officer and has been central to success of project, especially in delivering the overall objective in terms of reducing the risk of vulnerable communities to climate change through enhancing and diversifying practices and raising income.
The M&E office maintained detailed spreadsheets of project progress, in terms of gender disaggregated beneficiary data, physical interventions and equipment for example. Some extracts are presented in Annex 12 (Integrated farming system – D&I, Tendaba; Community vegetable gardens; households benefitting from physical interventions – facilities & equipment; support to fisheries and oyster collectors; mangrove restoration communities & areas planted).

MTR
The recommendations of the MTR were considered by UNDP / NEA and the PIU, but assessed as not warranting major change. Some recommendations were followed up: the preparation of an exit strategy. The TE concurred with the MTR recommendation: mixed species mangrove forest should be planted beginning with the nursery production of Rhizophora; and adding value to Outcome 1 (rewriting or simplifying policy guidelines / other mainstreaming documents and following through on their usability / integration in policy and planning, plus increase consultation with stakeholders)
Exit Strategy (August 2017) – an NEA / PIU memo to the NEA Director of Agriculture
- NEA to apportion responsibility for project sustainability to two of its units
o hard infrastructure (SGKB, TBDR and Tendeba Polder) works be taken up by the NEA’s CMU
o IFS (D&I), Tendaba rice cultivation and fisheries, Horticulture in five communities, & Baobolon Fishermen Association) activities be taken up by NEA’s Agriculture & Natural Resources (ANR) Unit
- NEA to ensure sustainable management of the project actions via MoUs between NEA and the stakeholders [ TE comment – this is not a handover]
- For the ANR Unit Director to formally agree to the project board before Oct 2017. However, the project was extended until end 2018, with no known update. GEF Tracking Tool - AMAT
The GEF tracking tool is the Climate Change Adaptation - LDCF/SCCF Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tool (AMAT) 22 . Indicators for the tracking tool were identified in the prodoc, however not updated since.

 


Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management

10.

3.2.6 Adaptive Management (Work planning, Reporting & Communications)
Work planning
AWPBs were prepared 2014-2018.
- AWPBs were approved by the PB Chair (& Permanent Secretary to MECCNR)
- AWPB 2018 is assessed: Total allocated resources: $8,900,000, Total requested budget for 2018:
$1,499,245, UNDP TRAC contribution to 2018 budget: $225,000, GEF Contribution to 2018 budget:
$ 1,274,245, Government contributions: In kind
 


Tag: Communication Project and Programme management

11.
 

3.3. Project Results

The TE assessed the three levels of the project results framework - Objective, Outcome and Output. This was guided by the indicators and targets set at each level. Success is also built upon achievement of the Outputs, according to ‘framework logic.’ The Objective and Outcome levels include a rating according to UNDP GEF
guidance as described in Annex 10.
The PIU provided two tables:
- Progress towards Objective and Outcomes (Indicator-based) which is described in Annex 1, and
- Progress towards Outputs which is described in Annex 2 According to TE guidance, these tables were rated and commented on. A detailed result-level analysis follows firstly of the Objective, Outcomes and Indicators, then secondly of the Outputs.

 


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Ecosystem based adaption Service delivery

12.

3.3.2 Effectiveness – Achievement of Outcomes 1-3
Effectiveness - Outcome 1 at the Outcome Indicator Level
Outcome 1: Policies, institutions and individuals mandated to manage coastal areas strengthened to
reduce the risk of climate change
(three indicators)

There have been significant short-comings under the implementation of this component, partly due to its over-reaching and confusing design, not least in setting off on another path (SRDM) when ICZM planning was also being attempted by NEA. There was the difficulty in bringing together the various types of planning (defence, disaster and investment) into a coherent policy, let alone management strategy. The lack of donor coordination between UNDP and EU is clear, especially if you consider the limited management and technical capacity of NEA. Ten percent (US$0.95m out of US$9.50m) of the prodoc budget was allocated for Outcome 1. This should have been the largest single investment in project and NEA staff time to deliver the four outputs from this Outcome. However, the project only managed to spend half this amount (US$482,985 ~51% of the plan) 29 . Consultant reports were produced covering institutional and policy requirements, however a practical /realistic ‘simplified’ plan of action was not created or taken up by NEA, or even advised by UNDP. With the establishment of a PIU, NEA responsibility entered a void. Project design for Outcome 1 should have been streamlined at project preparation or inception, but it was just left to fester. By MTR time, it was too late.


Tag: Effectiveness Project and Programme management Capacity Building

13.

Effectiveness - Outcome 2 at the Outcome Indicator Level

Outcome 2: Vulnerability of coastal investments to climate risks reduced through the design, construction & maintenance of coastal protection measures (two indicators)

Number of hard & soft coastal protection schemes implemented to reduce erosion risks

(Baseline - No functioning protection schemes at target sites; Target – Two hard and three soft protection schemes planned and constructed)

Hard protection schemes

The two schemes were: SGKB revetment (1035m long); and TBDR (80m long) and highway coastal works (120m long)31, with. They have successfully been completed.

Soft protection schemes

The three schemes were the: -Darsilami and Illiassa (D&I) integrated farming systems at with river defence dykes have been constructed, but they have a number of internal (inside the dykes) problems to be now worked on by -Tendaba polder and sea dyke – has been successfully constructed, although the future management remains an issue. The polder covered 3.7 ha, was 30-60m wide, shoreline length of 670m, section length of 760m, was 4m deep infilled, and a sea wall constructed -Mangrove restoration at various sites – From eroded and bare tidal coast areas, 1,197 ha of new mangroves have been planted and have been successfully maintained (out of a target 2,500ha - 48%)

Number of families benefiting from LDCF resources used for design & build structures

(Baseline - Vulnerable communities to climate change in coastal and estuarine areas are becoming in higher risk without adaptation measures; 1,500 families will benefit directly from protection measures) The target is achieved with 1,506 families directly benefiting from the project. This includes four communities provided canoes, two provided houses for rice machines, five provided community centres, three provided four larger boats, and two provided beehives. From 1,506 beneficiaries, 1,281 were women (85%). The beneficiaries included 619 fishermen and oyster collectors / cultivators who have received direct project support in terms of equipment, including 433 women (70%). From the total, a project calculation of (x8) eight indirect beneficiaries benefitted which would be equivalent to 12,048 persons. (See Annex 10 for) the detailed breakdown)


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Vulnerable Effectiveness Data and Statistics

14.

Effectiveness - Outcome 3 at the Outcome Indicator Level Outcome 3:Rural livelihoods in the coastal zone enhanced & protected from the impacts of climate change through demonstration of coastal adaptation technologies and economic diversification (two indicators)

Rice & fish pond production to produce sustainable income for local community (Baseline - Uneconomic / degraded rice production and no fish farming in target communities; (Target - Rice & fish production provides a sustainable income for 1,800 community members) The number of rice growers and fish producers realizing a sustainable income is 1,278 from a target of 1,800 (1,500 rice farmers, and 300 freshwater pond fish farmers) (71%). The short-fall is linked to the 300 fish farmers at D&I not having freshwater fish pools that work, and the rice-paddies not being fully operational yet.

(Target - 20 wards in the Lower & Central Valleys) Twenty-one wards in both the lower and central valleys were selected with activities undertaken.

(Target - 1,500 rice growers) 1,278 paddy rice farmers were supported out of a target of 1,500 (85%). The short-fall was due to the D&I schemes not yet being fully operational, including the salt pans at Darsilami

(Target - 300 horticulture producers diversity income) The five community vegetable gardens with freshwater supply from solar-powered boreholes were operational. Five community meeting houses were constructed. Beneficiaries included 736 of which 663 were women (86%). With indirect beneficiaries (x8) estimated at 5,888.

Number of farmers that receive agricultural extension services and alternative livelihoods

(Baseline - No / negligible knowledge of farmers that will receive agricultural extension; Target 1,500 rice farmers to receive agriculture support)

-The project provided extension / alternative livelihoods training for 1,502 persons of which 1,289 were women (86%). With indirect beneficiaries calculated with a ‘times eight’ factor equaling 12,016.

o Of which 1,303 farmers were trained in horticulture – vegetable gardening (with composting, and IPM) and community facilities management

o Other training included bee-keeping, agroforestry, community bank accounts, saving and book-keeping, dyke management, rice tiller / rotovator operation, rice threshing & milling machine operation, fish feed formulation, tie & dye batik

-Separately in fisheries, 174 persons received training in oyster wild collection, and managed cultivation, including 170 women (98%)

-Rice farmers received technical support from NARI in salt-intruded paddy rice production


Tag: Agriculture Fishery Climate Change Adaptation Effectiveness Impact Innovation Capacity Building Inclusive economic growth

15.

3.3.3 Achievement of Outputs Outcome 1 (Policies & institutions strengthened to reduce the risk of climate change to coastal areas) at the Output Level (4 Outputs)

Climate risk management capacity development for coastal areas

A number of quite different activities were designed for this output:

-The expectation was to support the CMEWG (which existed, but was not operational). This was not achieved.

-The output introduced ‘sea & river defence risk management’. A consultancy on ‘risk’ management was undertaken, which examined ‘disaster risk’, however, the project design was about policy, planning and practical adaptation to climate change, i.e. strengthening coastal & river defences. It was not so much about ‘disaster risk management’. In other words, the ‘D’ should have stood for ‘Defence’and not ‘Disaster’.

-A formal collaboration between the GCCA and GEF projects should have been established, but was not. Collaboration with MoWTI was based on an MoU in the prodoc, but it was not developed further into a close relationship. Rather the MoWTI were called-up for supervision visits only, as opposed tobeing a key recipient of capacity building in coastal management and being responsible for implementing parts of Outcome 1 and 233.

-It was expected that the project would review the organizational structure of MoWTI (so that it could assist with SRDM), however the NEA deemed that without such a cross-sectoral mandate, they couldn’t do this, but forgetting that this was a role for the project and PIU, not NEA34. What was simply required was to identify and strengthen coastal engineering capacity.

Revision of National & Regional Development Plans

There were three main activities for this output:

-Design planning tools

- A key planning tool was to be ‘integrated coastal zone management’ (ICZM)35, as developed by the EU GCCA project, but this didn’t happen. Sea & River Defence Management (SRDM) planning was new to the institutions and the link to ICZM unclear36.

-A Sea & River Defense Investment Plan (SRDIP, 2016) was prepared by the project. It is a useful starting point, although it has not been integrated with state and donor budgets, apart from the GCF ‘breakwater scheme’. The SRDIP has a large budget proposal of €143m for 16 infrastructure-based solutions in the nine cells, however there are only nine organisations / other listed as financiers.

-The project prepared an environmental policy guideline to support SRDM (2014). It focused on Sea and River Defence implications under the 1999 EIA regulations.

High-level institutional mechanism to guide climate change resilient development of coastal zones

There were two main activities for this output:

-Coastal policy framework (2014) was prepared

– the report links ICZM with sea and river defence risk management, but failed to really identify the institutional requirements.

-Institutional reform to support regional and district coordination in SRDM

– A number of consultancy reports were prepared (as described) but they largely missed the overarching point regarding ‘institutional coordination’. The project design mainly concerned physical outputs (reports) and underestimated the institutional, leadership and strategic management needs to achieve a workable SRDM approach.

Coastal monitoring protocols and standards programme There were three main activities:

-A sea & river defence guidance manual (2014)

– the report focuses on the academic side of ecological zones41 and the legal responsibilities. This activity was equivalent to the preparation of standards and protocols for SRDM (data). It covers the first step in this process

-Develop a database for SRDM

– It was expected that GCCA would provide a working database, however this was not the case. The NEA GIS Unit was unable to present any coastal or sea and river defence database.

-Develop an R&D programme

– no funds were allocated for this as there wasn’t an appropriate science programme in the country

– It was an excessive design request


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Blue Economy Implementation Modality Policies & Procedures Risk Management

16.

3.3.3 Achievement of Outputs

Outcome 2: (Construction of coastal protection measures) at the Output Level (3 Outputs)

Outcome 2: (Construction of coastal protection measures) at the Output Level (3 Outputs)

The outputs focused on the physical interventions in the field – the two hard schemes (SGKB / TBDR); and three soft schemes (paddy rice reclamation (with dykes at D&I and Tendaba and added polder at Tendaba, and mangrove plantation.) Environmental & Social Management Plans were prepared for SGKB, as well as for D&I and Tendaba.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Fishery Climate Change Adaptation Vulnerable Environmental impact assessment Site Conservation / Preservation Tourism Harmonization Project and Programme management

17.

3.3.3 Achievement of Outputs

Outcome 3 (Demonstration of coastal adaptation techniques & the introduction of economic diversification) at the Output Level (4 Outputs)

Outcome 3 was designed provide technical support to Outcome 2 interventions and provide alternative income and sustainability options to three main types of community (paddy-rice growers, fishing communities; and vegetable producers), as well as develop awareness and engagement in climate resilience. The project rationalised the interventions for Outcome 3 effectively.


Tag: Agriculture water resources Fishery Disaster risk management Vulnerable Shared Services Trade and Development Technical Support

18.

3.3.4 Efficiency Efficiency Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

There should have been an overlap and rationalisation with the EU GCCA project (both housed within NEA), but this didn’t happen. This indicated the lack of leadership and direction within NEA to direct donor funds (of GEF/LDCF and EU) towards feasible outcomes. Instead, neither project has managed to support Gambia to develop an institutionally-based sea & river defence strategy. The process remains highly donor-driven, highly expensive foreign investment (grant and loan) infrastructure-based, and largely without any in-country capacity built. There were a high number high number of consultant reports commissioned, but in quite a few cases, their technical level and usefulness was limited. The latter was because they were written as consultant reports and not converted to project deliverables (e.g. a report and not a strategy or plan; or not linked to an institutional mechanism) and not approved for implementation by the PB55. There was little oversight or strategic linkage of the various consultant reports (Outcome 1) to create an over-arching approach to coastal defence for the country.


Tag: Efficiency Oversight Project and Programme management Risk Management

19.

3.3.5 Relevance

The project was based on NAPA priorities with coastal zone management at the forefront. The project design and implementation remained highly relevant, especially with climate change issues becoming more acute.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Relevance Programme/Project Design

20.

3.3.6 Country Ownership & Mainstreaming

The project was unable to deliver on mainstreaming. Whilst it produced a number of relevant reports, these were not converted into draft policies, presented at workshops or put out to consultation. There was little ownership of SRDM planning as practical approach. This was in part due to the project failing to deliver a coherent strategy or institutional mechanism. Th project did however produce a comprehensive report – A Policy framework for coastal management (2014). Most of the larger interventions were undertaken by outside consultants and contractors, thus in-housecapacity-building was not very successful.


Tag: Challenges Implementation Modality Programme/Project Design

21.

4. Sustainability

 4.1. Financial Risks to Sustainability

Government funds are highly limited, but are needed for SRDM planning. At present SRDM planning is not high enough on the political agenda (e.g. the inter-ministerial CMEWG is not operational) of the OoP or MoFEA to warrant budgeting for activities. The project didn’t manage to provide a cohesive SRDM strategy or institutional structure to go with it, despite some effort in developing the individual pieces on paper (consultant reports). The lack of workshops in developing such a strategy was apparent as was government inertia in this sector. The Atlas risk and the Risk log tables outline the risks (see section 3.1 project design). Some of the advances made by the project are not sustainable without further donor funds. In spite of this, the project interventions in the field have less financial risk to their sustainability with either further investment being sought by UNDP for a breakwater scheme to protect SGKB; or the expected self-sustainability of the three rice paddy fields. The cost-benefit (environmental strength) of civil engineering falls over time (>15 years) against bio-engineering solutions which increases, however benefit of the revetment works to the country is clear, in terms of maintaining a tourist industry and collecting tax revenue. Ecosystem-based solutions are often considered more cost-effective in the long term, however the port and tourist industry has already been built on the coast and needs protection. The tax returns of the tourist industry to the government do not cover the cost in the medium term.


Tag: Tourism Sustainability Risk Management

22.

4.2 Socio-economic

Risks to Sustainability

The SGKB revetment heavily supports the SGKB hotels, with expected tax revenue to continue, however, the believe from cost-benefit analysis is that these private companies have largely benefitted from international donor development funds, without having to financially contribute. As the government, at project design stage, failed to gain agreement with these operators in levying a fee or a longer-term tax for the revetment, then it was too late thereafter.

The cost of sea defence infrastructure is high. The SGKB revetment (US$3.2m) and planned breakwater scheme (US$11.4m) together are expected to cost ~US$14.6m. The revised approach to the GCF finance proposal indicated that the breakwater scheme would be classified as high risk and therefore not eligible to sole GCF financing, with redesign of the concept to include local communities and not just the tourist hotels at Kololi beach. In fact, this should have been a lesson learned from the GEF project – with the high benefit to the tourist hotels of the SGKB and TBDR works and with lessor benefit to more vulnerable communities.

The rice paddies should become sustainable, but this is only probable with the continued input of NARI for the next five years, especially for D&I. The project missed a trick in not pursuing a market / value chain analysis for the oyster producers, however they are in a stronger position than pre-project, especially with the provision of new canoes.

 


Tag: Vulnerable Tourism Sustainability

23.

4.3. Institutional & Governance

Risks to Sustainability

NEA were not supported sufficiently for this project, bearing in mind their serious lack of capacity and mandate to implement new institutional structures with new technical skills. There was also insufficient political willpower and leadership from MECCNR and the OoP. The clear lack of government direction interms of allocated funding for sea and river defence made this apparent.


Tag: Sustainability Programme/Project Design Country Government

24.

4.3. Environmental Risks to Sustainability

The sustainability of the SGKB revetment scheme is dependent on another breakwater scheme, which is currently at a project concept stage with the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It has been budgeted at US$11.4m. Together with the ‘breakwater scheme’, and appropriate maintenance of both, the sustainability is estimated at 50 years.

Mangrove ecosystems differ depending on tidal flow and salinity, so the Rhizophora may not last in the longer term. Therefore, there is a need to pilot Avicennia self-seeding or produce in nurseries and plant .

For greater resilience to climate change (ecological functioning) and wood supply, additionally planting the larger Avicennia from seedling should be encouraged with support of the Forestry Department. This would strengthen the mangrove ecosystem from upstream (rainfed) flooding and downstream tidal sea level rise / surges. Another benefit of mangrove establishment is in providing nursery areas for fish and crustaceans and in providing other NTFPs products.

Government and public awareness of ecological system is not that high with for example road causeways having been constructed across tidal wetlands without EIAs undertaken or respected, and thus causing mangrove death.


Tag: Environment Policy Environmental impact assessment Sustainability Global Climate Fund

25.

5.Impact and catalytic effect

5.1. Impact

Reduction in stress on ecological systems

Early indications of 1,197 ha plus mangrove plantation are very positive. Survival rates remain in the high nineties after 2-3 seasons of planting. Oyster cultivation requires another project to develop a sustainable racking system as opposed to wild collection, or racks being constructed out of mangrove (which ratherdefeats the objective). The stress of the beach washing away at SGKB has been reduced by the revetment, but this not considered sustainable until a further breakwater scheme is constructed. The TBDR has reduce stress on the river tributary sand bank and shoreline.

Regulatory & policy changes at national and local levels

Whilst the project developed out of the 2009 NAPA plan which identified coastal zone management as its number one priority, the project was unable to effectively strengthen policies and institutions mandated to manage coastal areas. Indeed, the mandate to manage coastal areas remains cross-sectoral and confused, missing any overarching strategy or institutional mandate. In hindsight, the governmental level of NEA was too low to manage inter-ministerial environmental management issues, despite NEA being a semi autonomous agency and appearing to be the correct choice. But the backing of the OoP and MECCNR was just not there. The OoP, MECCNR and NEA all went through major appointment changes during the project lifetime, which has not helped their own political standing, or ability to support the project.


Tag: Impact Change Management Policies & Procedures Sustainability

26.

5.2. Catalytic Effect Scaling-up

What has been key, is the learning curve to develop dyke / gate system for salt-intruded paddies. This can be scaled up and replicated. However, scaling-up of this still requires paddy management techniques (water flow and flushing practice) and the use of salt-tolerant rice varieties, hence again the importance of the continued technical support by NARI.

Replication (outside of the project)

SRDM planning is now at a consolidation stage. Capacity still needs to be built and government line-agencies need to be more involved – collaborative via an institutional mechanism. The various aspects need to be brought together. Is the GCF project proposal the right vehicle for this? Cross-over in skills in the West Africa region and / or further abroad are needed in oyster cultivation techniques. At present the wooden racks are not suitable or sustainable.

Demonstration Lesson-learned -

The project has been a clear demonstration of what works at present in the country. The concern is that the same mistakes will be made under the proposed GCF project, indeed this appears to be happening. In order for GCF to fund the breakwaters scheme, the concept needs to identify more local beneficiaries, however the overriding major beneficiary remain the private hotel operators along SGKB. Also at present, they are not expected to be significant contributors, outside standard taxation. This should be re-thought, through a public-private sector partnership (PPP) arrangement.

Production of a new technologies /approaches

The five solar-powered water-supply systems are successful. The boreholes can not only be used for the community gardens but for additional needs, such as flushing the rice paddy at Illiassa.


Tag: Innovation Programme/Project Design

Recommendations
1
  1. The hard engineering schemes have a five-year defect liability period, during which MOWTI should be involved, so that they learn the required maintenance methods and build their internal capacity [UNDP letter to MoWTI, cc to NIRAS and NEA]
  2.  
2
  1. Formal handover of the soft engineering schemes and equipment to local communities needs to be completed. [UNDP]
3
  1. The Darsilami and Illiassa schemes need to be formally handed over even if they are not 100% operational.  The amount of further work that either UNDP or NEA could do is very limited.  The communities here can only take responsibility, once such ownership is handed over.  The communities can then continue to construct internal sub-plot bunds themselves to support gravity-based drainage / flushing of the salt-intruded paddies.  However, the continued technical support of NARI is imperative, not least in the provision and testing of salt-tolerant seed.  This needs to be funded. [UNDP]
4
  1. The fish ponds were unsuccessful.  The bolehole-pump-pipe system for the fish ponds at D&I should be re-directed to support salt-flushing of their rice paddies.  The rice paddies are far more important for the community livelihoods, plus they also have new rice mills, provided by the project.  The water pump for Illiassa needs to be delivered from NEA to the community so that it can be used for flushing the rice paddy. [NEA]
5
  1. Tendaba polder is new public land.  The project needs to handover to local government with an official community stakeholder committee to be established.  This would be to balance the control of the Tendaba Camp owner in favour of all Tendaba villagers.  The Right of Way along the complete polder must be maintained for the community.  There was evidence of Tendaba camp workers throwing rubbish over the polder wall into mangroves where important wildlife forage (Western Red Colobus monkeys (IUCN Endangered). [OoP letter to the local government at Tendaba District]
6
  1. Oyster cultivation is at an early stage of development, however the opportunities to add market value are obvious in supplying the tourist hotels with fresh oysters.  The project can easily support this beginning with a letter to the tourism board and hotel association indicating that they should meet the 10 oyster farming groups that the project has supported.  The project should discuss with the 10 groups if they wish to form a cooperative, so that their marketing power is enhanced. [PIU letter]
7
  1. A 10-year national mangrove restoration plan needs to be produced [Department of Forestry]
1. Recommendation:
  1. The hard engineering schemes have a five-year defect liability period, during which MOWTI should be involved, so that they learn the required maintenance methods and build their internal capacity [UNDP letter to MoWTI, cc to NIRAS and NEA]
  2.  
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

The engineering structure (revetment) will be handed over after the five-year defect liability period. However, during this period, the Ministry of Infrastructure will be heavily involved in maintenance activities to learn the skills/methods for eventual take over. NEA and MECCNAR will facilitate this.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
During the liability period Ministry of Infrastructure will undertake maintenance work in coordination with contracting frim to gains skills and capacity for eventual handover
[Added: 2019/03/26]
National Environment Agency 2021/01 Overdue-Not Initiated
2. Recommendation:
  1. Formal handover of the soft engineering schemes and equipment to local communities needs to be completed. [UNDP]
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Upon the arrival of the UNDP RR, formal handing over of the soft engineering schemes and equipment to local communities through NEA will be conducted- hopefully in May 2019

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Handover of soft engineering schemes to local communities
[Added: 2019/03/26]
UNDP 2019/05 Overdue-Not Initiated
3. Recommendation:
  1. The Darsilami and Illiassa schemes need to be formally handed over even if they are not 100% operational.  The amount of further work that either UNDP or NEA could do is very limited.  The communities here can only take responsibility, once such ownership is handed over.  The communities can then continue to construct internal sub-plot bunds themselves to support gravity-based drainage / flushing of the salt-intruded paddies.  However, the continued technical support of NARI is imperative, not least in the provision and testing of salt-tolerant seed.  This needs to be funded. [UNDP]
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

The handing over will be done in late April or early May 2019. NEA will facilitate NARI’s involvement

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Handover of Darsilami and Illiassa schemes
[Added: 2019/03/26]
UNDP 2019/06 Overdue-Not Initiated
4. Recommendation:
  1. The fish ponds were unsuccessful.  The bolehole-pump-pipe system for the fish ponds at D&I should be re-directed to support salt-flushing of their rice paddies.  The rice paddies are far more important for the community livelihoods, plus they also have new rice mills, provided by the project.  The water pump for Illiassa needs to be delivered from NEA to the community so that it can be used for flushing the rice paddy. [NEA]
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

NEA will hold consultations with relevant communities in both Dasilami and Iliassa to determine the best way forward with regards to the fish ponds, rice paddies and the water pump. This should happen immediately the facilities and equipment have been handed over

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Facilitate a community based follow-up action plan for livelihood support in Darsilima and Illiassa.
[Added: 2019/03/26]
UNDP 2020/07 Overdue-Not Initiated
5. Recommendation:
  1. Tendaba polder is new public land.  The project needs to handover to local government with an official community stakeholder committee to be established.  This would be to balance the control of the Tendaba Camp owner in favour of all Tendaba villagers.  The Right of Way along the complete polder must be maintained for the community.  There was evidence of Tendaba camp workers throwing rubbish over the polder wall into mangroves where important wildlife forage (Western Red Colobus monkeys (IUCN Endangered). [OoP letter to the local government at Tendaba District]
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

The issue has been resolved and community right of way established and maintained. Official communications have been provided to this effect

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Support establishment of community stakeholder committee for newly created land in Tendaba and support handover to local government.
[Added: 2019/03/26]
Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Lands 2020/09 Overdue-Not Initiated
6. Recommendation:
  1. Oyster cultivation is at an early stage of development, however the opportunities to add market value are obvious in supplying the tourist hotels with fresh oysters.  The project can easily support this beginning with a letter to the tourism board and hotel association indicating that they should meet the 10 oyster farming groups that the project has supported.  The project should discuss with the 10 groups if they wish to form a cooperative, so that their marketing power is enhanced. [PIU letter]
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Now that the project is over, NEA in consultation with the hotel industry should meet the 10 oyster farming groups to agree on the way forward. This should commence immediately after the handing over in late April/early May 2019

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Facilitate engagement of oyster group with hotel industry for supply of oyster. Support oyster value chain.
[Added: 2019/03/26]
UNDP and NEA 2020/06 Overdue-Not Initiated
7. Recommendation:
  1. A 10-year national mangrove restoration plan needs to be produced [Department of Forestry]
Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/26] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

NEA /Ministry of Environment will engage the Department of Forestry to develop a 10-year mangrove restoration plan. The process will start in 2019 and finalized in 2020

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Development of 10 year mangrove restoration plan
[Added: 2019/03/26]
Ministry of Environment and National Environment Agency 2021/09 Not Initiated

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org