| Commissioning Unit: | India |
|---|---|
| Evaluation Plan: | 2013-2017 |
| Evaluation Type: | Project |
| Completion Date: | 05/2014 |
| Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: | India
|
| Documents Related to overall Management Response: |
|
Key Action Update History
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/30]
This has been discussed with the focal point- the principal secretary and additional chief secretary, government of Tamilnadu. However, he is of the view that the forest department should continue management of the Trust and its activities since the focus of the initiative is on conservation and biodiversity management. In addition, if the Trust is under the charge of an IAS official, it will be the District Collector, who is already overburdened as he is the Chairperson of all administrative and development works in the project district. He will not be able to accord sufficient time to the demands of the project.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discussed with the nodal officer who is not supportive of this recommendation
[Added: 2014/12/30] |
Nodal Officer | 2014/12 | Completed |
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/30]
The Trust is involved in monitoring developmental activities that may have an impact on the coastal biodiversity, though not legally empowered. However, this is a sensitive subject due to an ongoing clash between the government and production sectors in the neighbouring state, where a high level expert committee proposed zero-development activity in a biodiversity rich ecoregion. As a result, the officials of the Trust thought it wise to take up the subject at an appropriate time.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To be taken up by the Trust when the subject of ecosensitive areas is less politically sensitive
[Added: 2014/12/30] [Last Updated: 2017/06/15] |
UNDP Project Officer | 2015/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: UNDP CO supported the state govt, but due to the political sensitivity of the matter, it was put on hold. since the project is closed in the meantime, UNDP is not in a position to influence the state govt anymore] History |
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/30]
The Trust is of the view that the corpus that was created during the project is sufficient to support the livelihood initiatives of the local communities for the time being. The corpus can support local level business startups that are not detrimental to the coastal biodiversity, however, successful business enterprises can explore opportunities elsewhere.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No action required
[Added: 2014/12/30] |
N/A | 2014/12 | Completed |
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/30]
This has been proposed to the Trust officials who maintain that the entire corpus fund is used for carrying out community based projects that support livelihood promotion of local people. They agree with this suggestion, though they are of the view that the amount is not sufficient to be diverted from the main corpus. Another option is to scale up the amount through tie-ups with ongoing rural development initiatives and schemes of the government.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To be followed up by the Trust
[Added: 2014/12/30] [Last Updated: 2017/06/15] |
Project Officer | 2015/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: The State govt was not agreeable to this recommendation, this could not be implemented ] History |
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/30]
The Trust officials are of the view that auditing of the project activities is not necessary as the Trust strictly monitors fund utilization.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No action required
[Added: 2014/12/30] |
NA | 2014/12 | Completed |