Inception Report 2005 (2)
Annual Project Report (APR/PIR)for UNDP/GEF Projects
2005
Official Title: / Atoll Ecosystem-Based Conservation of Globally Significant Biological Diversity in the Maldives’ Baa AtollCountry: / Republic of the Maldives / Region : / Asia and Pacific
UNDP Project Number: /
MDV/02/G31
/ GEF Project Number: /1044
Date of Report: / 01 August 2005 / Date of Previous Report: / N/AIs this the Terminal apr/pir? / No: / X
Yes: / Date Project was Operationally Closed :
1. BASIC PROJECT IDENTIFIERS- Please enter all date (DD/MM/YEAR)
Focal Area / Biodiversity
operational programme / OP 2: Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems
Strategic priority / BD-2 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Productions and Sectors
Project Size (Full, medium sized) / Full Size
Date Of Entry in WP / 15-Oct-2002
ProDoc Signature Date / 31 March 2004
Duration (months) / 60 months
Date of First Disbursement
Closing Date / Original:31 March 2009
Revised 1:
Revised 2:
Project Funding / GEF / 2,370,100
Co-Financing / 5,967,950
Total : / 8,698,050
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (To be filled by Regional Coordinating Unit)
As it appears in PIMS. Please adjust if required.
This project will pilot the ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in two atoll ecosystems. A broader, more integrated perspective on conservation and resource management characterizes an "ecosystem approach."
Has it been adjusted? :
NO:
1
10/05/18
Inception Report 2005 (2)
3. PROJECT PERFORMANCESRF Goal (*): / Environmentally sustainable development to reduce poverty
SRF Sub Goal (*) / Sustainable environmental management and energy development to improve the livelihoods and security of the poor
Strategic Area of Support (*) / Energy & Environment, Poverty Reduction
(*) The UNDP Country Office will fill out these fields
3.1 OBJECTIVE :(pls. describe) / Public and private stakeholders are conserving biological diversity by mainstreaming biodiversity into productive sector activities; applying new alliances to conservation at the local level, and pursuing new livelihoods, thereby reducing pressure on reef resources
Description / Value in year 0 / Mid-term Target Value
(Year XX) / End of Project Target Value (Year YY) / 2004Value / 2005Value / Last year Rating / This year Rating[1]
Indicator 1: / Surveys in year six show coral reef diversity levels
maintained and atoll ecosystem health indicator levels at
similar or improved levels.
Baseline level of diversity in coral reef ecosystems is
conserved/remains unchanged in MPAs and other
priority areas.
Hermatypic coral communities continue to recover,
colonizing bleached areas (increased density of coral in
monitored areas). / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
Indicator 2: / Populations of indicator and flagship species remain at
current levels or increase (reef sharks, sea turtles,
grouper, sea birds). / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
Indicator 3: / Quality of priority habitat maintained or improved
(nesting beach extent, area of roosting and nesting
forests, coral communities, shark nurseries maintained). / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
Overall Rating / N/A
Project Comment on rating / The implementation of project activities had a significant delay due to the impact of the tsunami of 26th December 2004. Neverhtless,following project management arrangements required for full project implementation have been completed to the reporting period:.
- The Project Director appointed by the GoM;
- 2 Project Managers hired.
- The Project Steering Committee institutionalized;
- Project Working Group established
- The PIU provided with office space by The Ministry of Environment.
- Aproject accountopened in the Maldives Monetary Authority through the Ministry of Finance and Treasury.
- The annual work plan and budget requirements ready.
Country Office Comment / Delays are due to shortage of qualified personnel for key staffpositions; and Tsunami disaster.
UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator Comment
UNDP/GEF Principal Technical Advisor Comment
3.2 OUTCOMES.[2]-
Outcome 1:
(pls. describe) / Biodiversity is mainstreamed into sectoral institutions and policies
Description / Value in year 0 / Mid-term Target Value
(Year XX) / End of Project Target Value (Year YY) / 2004 Value / 2005 Value / Last year Rating / This year Rating[3]
Indicator 1: / Ministerial advisory boards apply biodiversity
objectives and ecosystem benefit/biodiversity value
information to decision making processes.
Indicator 2: / Fisheries, tourism, infrastructure development, and
planning policies incorporate biodiversity objectives
and ecosystem management principles by end of year 2.
Indicator 3: / MoT integrated biodiversity objectives/criteria into
resort island selection, development and management.
Outcome 1 rating: / N/A
Outcome 2:
(pls. describe) / Stakeholders establish model sustainable biodiversity conservation practices in Baa Atoll
Description / Value in year 0 / Mid-term Target Value
(Year XX) / End of Project Target Value (Year YY) / 2004 Value / 2005 Value / Last year Rating / This year Rating
Indicator 1: / Accessible database of information on species,
communities, and processes established and being
utilized by multi-sectoral decision makers.
Indicator 2: / Ongoing field monitoring and research generates new
and valuable information being used by policy makers
and practitioners.
Indicator 3: / Atoll ecosystem and coral reef diversity research,
monitoring, and management linkages with international
programs like ICCRI, GCRMN.
Outcome 2 rating: / N/A
Outcome 31:
(pls. describe) / Stakeholders pilot sustainable natural resource management and livelihood development practices in Baa Atoll
Description / Value in year 0 / Mid-term Target Value
(Year XX) / End of Project Target Value (Year YY) / 2004 Value / 2005 Value / Last year Rating / This year Rating[4]
Indicator 1: / Atoll developme nt and environment plans specify
environmental health objectives and these are met by
year 5 (water quality, turbidity levels, erosion rates, etc.)
Indicator 2: / Water quality unchanged or improving in monitoring
sites by year 4.
Indicator 3: / Island youth organizations have mapped boundaries of
customary fishing and agricultural areas and terrestrial
and marine wildlife habitat.
Outcome 3 rating: / N/A
3.3 WORK PLAN
For outcomes rated MS or U please describe priority Actions planned for the following reporting period to overcome constrains / TIMING
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT: The tsunami event of December was an unforeseen limitation and had a significant impact on all program/project implementations in the Maldives. Thus the project activities had to be rescheduled.
PRIORITY ACTION: It is planned to review the Logical Framework of the project through a workshop asap where all the partners and key stakeholders will be invited as well as some of the international consultants. During the workshop it is anticipated that the annual workplan will also be endorsed.Adaptive Management Advisor is to be hired in January as soon as Ms. Hudha Ahmed, CO staff is back.T
Targets have been set for 2006 in the revised workplan.
BY WHOM: Project Team / Date Entered:
Expected
Completion:
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
PRIORITY ACTION:
BY WHOM / Date Entered:
Expected
Completion:
3.4 RISKS
Risk Description / Describe Status of Risk at start of project (Year 0) / Describe Status Last Year / Describe Status this Year / Rating*
A / Restructuring of Government Organizations / L / L / On-going / H
B / Shortage of qualified technical staff / H / H / Nearly resolved / H
C / Tsunami Disaster of December 26, 2004 / L / H / Tsunami Recovery efforts are prioritized over the regular program interventions
D
Additional Risks or unexpected problems encountered during the last year of implementation
E
F
(*) H= High ; S= Substantial ; M=Modest ; L= Low. Please refer to Instruction sheet for definition of ratings for risks
Please describe actions taken or planned to respond to High and Substantial risks1. In regard to restructuring process with the GoM institutions such as Ministry of Environment, Energy and Water which previsouly was mandated with only environment sector now reprofiled for handling of multiple issues on water and energy. These areas have been emerged as priorities aftermath of Tsunami disaster. There were changes in staffing in regard to the main counterpart agency for the project. In addition, the Ministry of Atolls Administration has undergone through extensive changes leading to change of upper management the Minister himself. This has negatively affected on the project initiation.
2. The project has not been able to launch due to unavailability of the project manager who would oversight the launching & implementation process for the project. Upon signing of the project document in March 2004, the UNDP MCO has been searching for the suitable candidate to fill the position and due to unforeseen circumstances, a few candidates that have been identified and approached were not able to join. And after a lengthy process, we were able to hire a Project Manager in June 2005.
3. Unforeseen risk of natural disaster hitting hard the country has lead to changes in the Government as well as the country’s priorities to be addressed.
1
10/05/18
Inception Report 2005 (2)
4. ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL PROJECT STRATEGYPlease indicate whether changes have been made at any of the four levels of the Logframe hierarchy. Where changes have occurred, please describe. (Not applicable)
Changes to: / Y/ / If Yes, please describe:
Goal
Objective
Outcomes
Inputs/Activities
Has the Logframe been modified? / While the logframe has not bee changed, we are proposing to change it for better reflection of changes occurred in last 1.5 year.
5. LESSONS
5.1 Are there lessons that could benefit the design or the implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth of developing case studiesof good/bad practice
N/A
5.2 Have these lessons been exchanged with other GEF or NON-GEF-funded projects? If so, please list the projects and describe the process.
N/A
6. PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES
This section refers to collaboration among institutions to achieve mutually shared or agreed upon objectives and goals that draws on individual strengths and maximizes synergies. For the purpose of this report partners are understood as those that either: i) cooperate with the project (through in kind, or financial collaboration); or ii) are subcontracted providers of project services.
6.1 Please provide the following information
Partner Full Name
(Do not give acronym only!) / Type (*) / Role (*) / $ Value
Contributed (leveraged) / Contracted
Baa Atoll Community / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Baa Atoll Resorts / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Baa Atoll Chief and Atoll Devt Committee / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture & Marine Resources / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Ministry of Tourism / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Ministry of Environment and Construction / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Ministry of Planning and National Development / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Ministry of Finance and Treasury / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Ministry of Education / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Project Steering Committee / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Project Working Group / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
UNDP/GEF / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Department of External Resources / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
NGOs / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
Fishermen / Not yet defined, but with initial discussion held during inception workshop in 2005/06.
(*) Please refer to Instruction sheet for guidelines on how to fill out this section.
6.2 Please describe any changes on partnership strategy (if any) from previous year
The challenges related to government restructuring and local circumstances which were discussed during the inception workshop were emerged again after the reforms in the government. Hence we need to revisit the partnership strategy itself.
6.3 Additional information on Private Sector Involvement.
This refers to companies that contribute to a project as opposed to receiving financing from it as subcontractors. N/A
- What economic sector does the company work in (e.g. tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture)?
- How is the company contributing toproject objectives?
- How is the company being involved in project implementation?
- What benefit is the company deriving from contributing to the project?
- If the project has not involved companiesbut could benefit from their resources please explain, given sufficient resources, what could be done within the project to develop such involvement?
7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
This section refers to the extent to which project environmental benefits continue once GEF assistance has come to an end.
7.1What are the key changes produced (or that will be produced)by the project which must be maintained so that project environmental benefits continue after project closure?
N/A
7.2 What are the critical conditions that must be maintained in order for these changes to be sustained?
Please refer to instructions for additional guidance. N/A
Condition Required / Indications that it will be maintained
1)
2)
Etc
7.3
a. Does the project make use of a micro-finance facility?
b. If so, was such a facility developed specifically for the project, or was an existing one used? How effective is it?
8. NON-PROJECT ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY CO AND UNDP/GEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT
This section aims to identify activities carried out by UNDP (either the country office or the GEF unit) that were not a part of the project, or which resulted from an unanticipated problem, but that have directly contributed towards the achievement of project objectives. It encompasses activities such as advocacy, policy dialogue, and knowledge management efforts. If soft assistance is not an issue for the project or too sensitive to address, this section can be left empty.
- MONITORING AND EVALUATION.
CO Field Visit / LAST: September 28, 2005 / NEXT: December 2005 / The project was launched in Baa Atoll and the awareness workshop on environmental issues was carried out on September 28-30, 2005.
UNDP GEF Field Visit / LAST: / NEXT:
Tripartite Review / LAST: / NEXT: June 2006
Mid-Term Evaluation / PLANNED: 2006 / DONE:
Final Evaluation / PLANNED: 2009 / DONE:
Other Evaluations or studies (*) / Annual financial audits (independent) and quarterly reporting mechanisms in place
(*) Please explain whether the project has been subject to any additional review e.g. UNDP Country or Outcome Evaluations, GEF Thematic Reviews, others.
10. FINANCIAL INFORMATION –Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502)
10.1 PROJECT FUNDING. Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3,5)
Grant
/ Loans (*) / Credits / Equity invest. / In -kind /Total
A. GEF Funding
/P
A
/ 2.7B. Co-Financing:
/ 4.6UNDP (TRAC) / P
A / 1.3 / 1.3
UN Agency / P
A / 0.142 / 0.142
Government / P
A / 3.0 / 3.0
Bilateral Donors / P
A / 0.087
Multilateral Donors / P
A
Regional Banks / P
A
Non-Govern. Org. / P
A
Private Sector / P
A / 0.074
Other / P
A / 0.045
Total
Co-Financing
/ P / 1.3A / 4.65
TOTAL FUNDING
/Proposed
/ 8.6ACTUAL / 7.38
P=Proposed ; A=Actual
(*) Concessional or market rate
10.2 PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS. From project start up to date of this reportCumulative actual disbursement ($millions) / 0.010
Cumulative planned disbursement ($millions)(*) / 3.37
Disbursements ratio
(% of actual vs. planned expenditures) / 3.1%
(*) As stated in original budget in PRODOC
11. PROCUREMENT DATANote : For projects or project components executed by UNOPS this section must not be filled in - data will be provided by UNOPS headquarters-.
Please report the US$ value(in Thousands, e.g. 70,000 = 70) ) of UNDP/GEF Payments to Supplying Countries for Procurement in GEF Donor Countries. Please enter Project expenditureaccumulated from project start up to the date of this report into the matrix against the donor country supplying the personnel, sub-contract, equipment and training to the project. Please report only on contracts over US$ 2000.
Supplying Country / Personnel(US$ thousands) / Sub-contracts
(US$ thousands) / Equipment
(US$ thousands) / Training
(US$ thousands) / Total
(US$ thousands)
Maldives / 10.5
Annex 1.
Impacts and Strategies related to the Strategic Priorities (*)
(*)Where projects pre-date the strategic priorities, include their contributions in all relevant sections
Answer all applicable questions / State: Yes, No or In- ProgressBD1: Protected Areas
How many new protected areas have already been established as a result of this project? (if any) / In progress / If yes, name these:
Has the project resulted in any changes to the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment of protected areas? / In progress / If yes, list these:
Has the project raised awareness or knowledge about protected areas in people beyond the project team? / In progress / If yes, amongst which target audiences:
Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates concerning protected areas / In progress / If yes, list these:
How many protected areas already have improved management capacity as a result of this project? / In progress / If yes, name these:
Have any new financial mechanisms for protected areas been created, or existing mechanisms strengthened as a result of this project. / In progress / If yes, list these: eg. environmental service payments, trust funds, etc
Has the project improved relationships between protected areas and local communities? / In progress / If yes, how?
Has the project worked with Indigenous communities? / No / If yes, name the groups:
Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? / In progress / If yes, what?
Has the project assessed the carbon benefits of the protected areas with which it is working? / No / If yes, state number of tonnes.
BD2: Mainstreaming
Has the project mainstreamed biodiversity into political and spatial planning for an area such as a whole country, province, district or community? / In progress / If yes, what is the area covered? (ha)
Has the project mainstreamed biodiversity into any government sectors? / In progress / If yes, list main sectors, eg. forestry, fisheries, oil, tourism
Has the project mainstreamed biodiversity into any businesses, including households? / In progress / If yes, list businesses: eg. tourism, coffee production, cotton farming
Has the project resulted in certification or certification systems for any products? / No / If yes, list products being certified: eg. timber, coffee, etc
Has the project increased the level of sustainable use of any species, races or groups of species or races? / In progress / If yes, list the species, races or groups: eg. medicinal plants, wild rice relatives, Prunus africana.
Has the project resulted in an improvement in the level of sustainable use of particular areas? / In progress / If yes, what is the area over which sustainable use has been improved (ha)?
Has the projects increased the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of BD? / In progress / If yes, list the actions being taken: eg. changing policy, changing regulations, training communities, raising awareness, etc?
Has the project involved Indigenous communities? / No / If yes, name the groups:
Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? / In progress / If yes, what?
Has the project assessed the carbon benefits of the protected areas with which it is working? / No / If yes, state number of tonnes.
BD3: Biosafety
Has the project resulted in the enactment of any legislation affecting biosafety? / No
Has the project helped put in place any institutional arrangements to address biosafety? / No / If yes, explain
Has the project helped put in place a national biosafety framework? / No
Has the project helped to launch the implementation of the national biosafety framework? / No
BD4: Lessons learning, dissemination, uptake
(for BD 1, BD 2 and BD 3 projects please report on lessons through section 5 of main PIR document)
Has the project compiled any lessons or good practices? / In progress / If yes, list the subjects of these
Does the project have any demonstrations of good practice in place? / In progress / If yes, list the subjects of these.
Have any of the lessons or demonstrations from the project been adopted elsewhere? / No / If yes, list the subjects of these and where they have been adopted.
1