List of Annexes

Annex A: Incremental Cost Analysis A-1

Annex B: Logical Framework Matrix B-1

Annex C: STAP Roster Technical Review C-1

Annex C-1: Response to STAP/Council/IA Comments D-1

Annex D: Letter of endorsement

Optional Annexes

Annex E: Wetland and Coastal Biodiversity Representation at Project Sites E-1

This Annex describes the biodiversity at each of the project sites. It includes a table showing globally threatened species occurring at each site.

Annex F: Stakeholder Participation F-1

This Annex describes the process of stakeholder consultation conducted during the PRIF phase as well as the plan for stakeholder involvement during the implementation phase of the project

Annex G: References G-1

Annex H: Maps H-1

1

A-

Annex A: Incremental Cost Analysis

Broad Development Goals

  1. Bangladesh is among the world’s least developed countries in terms of per capita income, literacy and life expectancy. Its economy is heavily dependent on natural resources—the economic activities of over 80% of the population take place within the primary sector. Poverty alleviation is the primary goal of the Government of Bangladesh (GoB). The country is committed to the basic principles of sustainable human development. Its people, numbering some 123 million, are viewed as key participants in the development process. The current Fifth Five-Year Plan (1997-2002) presents, inter alia, strategies for participatory rural development, strengthening of local government institutions, poverty alleviation, employment, human resource development, environment and sustainable development.

2.  In recent years, it has become clear that previous development strategies had paid inadequate attention to environmental factors. Bangladesh has therefore begun to focus more closely on ensuring that its development policies and trends are in line with principles of sustainable development and global environmental protection. A number of important actions have been taken in this regard, including the establishment in 1989 of a Department of Environment (DoE), as part of a newly formed Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).

3.  Internationally, Bangladesh has been actively involved in issues relating to environment and development. The country is a signatory to key international environmental conventions and other agreements including, inter alia, Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Convention and the Ramsar Convention.

2. Baseline

i.  Threats and Causes

4.  A number of factors are combining to threaten the globally significant wetland biodiversity of Bangladesh in general, and the project sites in particular. These may be divided into two categories. The first is related to erosion of the biological resource base due to overharvesting, or simply inefficient harvesting, of resources. Globally significant biodiversity under particular threat include at least 67 threatened species. A second category of threat relates to the degradation and loss of habitats and even entire ecosystems, such as coral areas at St. Martin’s Island, mangroves at Sonadia Island and the ecologically valuable haor ecosystem found at Hakaluki Haor.

5.  A key cause of the above threats at each project site is the lack of any legally instituted protection measures for ecologically critical areas such as those represented by the project sites. Despite their ecological importance, it is inconceivable in the Bangladesh context to turn the project sites into fully protected areas. Nevertheless, some type of special status is needed which would allow for appropriate and integrated measures to conserve the areas’ rich biodiversity resources. Closely linked with the need for a special regulatory status for the areas is the need for such a status, once promulgated, to be enforced. Poor enforcement of regulations, once enacted, would seriously compromise the effectiveness of such an approach to threat removal.

6.  A second central factor underlying threats to biodiversity at the sites is the limited degree of local community participation in decisions relating to the use of their resources. Decisions are either taken by Government departments or by individuals without special regard for the Community’s well-being or the sustainability of their actions.

7.  Key additional factors leading to loss of globally significant biodiversity include the following:

·  Inadequate information on status and functioning of critical ecosystems

·  No integrated management planning for ecologically critical areas

·  Limited opportunities for alternative sustainable livelihoods

·  Lack of alternative sources of fuelwood and fodder

·  Limited public awareness of environmental issues

·  Lack of technical knowledge, capacities.

ii.  Baseline Activities and Scenario

8.  While a good deal of work has been done in the area of policy related to conserving biodiversity, e.g., the National Conservation Strategy of 1991 and the Environmental Conservation Act of 1995, effective field-level implementation has lagged behind. Currently, the Department of Environment has very little effective outreach at the field level. Regional offices of DoE are poorly funded and have limited staffing. The staff that it does have are focused mainly on ‘brown’ issues related with pollution control, etc., and have little involvement with, or exposure to, conservation issues.

9.  One important measure related to pollution control with a potentially significant impact on one of the project sites is a plan to replace an ageing fertilizer factory located in the general vicinity of the Hakaluki Haor site with a modern and more environmentally friendly version. While the current factory’s impact on the project site has not been quantified thus far, nevertheless this development will have important potential benefits for water quality in the general area.

10.  The Cox’s Bazar site also has one large-scale development as part of its baseline, which is the construction of a beach-side road linking the town of Cox’s Bazar in the north with Teknaf in the south. This road, expected to be completed by the year 2002, will benefit the site by reducing the need for using the beach itself as a road, which has had important negative ecological impacts in the past. However, there will remain a need to ensure that driving along the beach does indeed stop and that new pressures associated with opening up of the area are managed.

11.  In the meantime, technical co-operation related to management of natural resources in these areas, notably fish resources, focuses mainly on commercial aspects of fisheries management. Little work has been done in the areas of habitat management or restoration, or species conservation.

12.  Finally, a number of NGOs are actively involved with local communities in the project areas. Their focus is on areas like capacity building, awareness and credit. Limited effort has also been made by NGOs in the area of marine turtle monitoring and conservation. In general, however, resources available to NGOs are extremely limited and their impact correspondingly low.

13.  As a result of the current limited efforts and major resource constraints, and in the face of previously described threats, globally significant biodiversity at the project sites remains under severe threat. If present trends were to continue, significant losses of genetic, species and habitat diversity may be expected to result.

3. Global Environmental Objective

14. The global environmental objective of the present project is to establish an innovative system for management of ECAs in Bangladesh that will have a significant and positive impact on the long-term viability of the country’s important biodiversity resources. The project will support DoE efforts to operationalize the ECA concept at the two project sites, one (which includes three ECAs) within the country’s long and biodiversity-rich coastal zone and the second at one of the largest and most important of the country’s many inland freshwater wetlands. Through a combination of GEF incremental cost financing and baseline and co-financing, conservation and sustainable use of these sites will be demonstrated. This demonstration should create important opportunities for replication in coastal, freshwater wetland and other ecosystems throughout the country, including additional sites recently nominated as ECAs.

4. Alternative Project

15. The project will address threats to globally significant biodiversity as well as associated challenges to sustainable development, as follows (see also project matrix below):

·  Inadequate legal protection: This shortcoming is being addressed through the establishment of Ecologically Critical Areas under Section 5 of the Environment Conservation Act of 1995. Detailed rules will be promulgated regulating various activities, particularly those related to resource use and extraction. At the national level, mechanisms will be established for coordination and management of the newly established ECA system.

·  Limited field-level environmental management: An effective field-level presence will be established to manage project site ECAs. This will include the establishment of ECA management units, staffed by DoE personnel and supported for the period of the project by project staff.

·  Insufficient awareness, participation and coordination: These issues will be addressed through the establishment and activities of Village Conservation Groups, and Local ECA Committees.

·  Existence of urgent conservation needs: Urgent conservation actions are planned which will help to demonstrate early on the effectiveness of the project’s approach.

·  Limited ecological information: Data bases and ecological monitoring programmes will be established, as will a system for collection, processing and dissemination of information.

·  Lack of a management plan for ecologically critical areas: Management plans will be established and implemented, including zonation and detailed strategies for managing core protection and buffer areas.

·  Alternative sustainable livelihoods are unavailable: This issue is of particular importance at the Cox’s Bazar site, where there is an evident need to reduce long-term pressures on limited marine fish and other resources. Through support from a major UNDP project in this area, alternative livelihood options will be explored and implemented.

·  Threats from pesticide use: Techniques of integrated pest management will be transferred to local communities.

·  Lack of integrated coastal planning (Cox’s Bazar): A multi-donor programme is being developed in this area, which will help to alleviate threats associated with infrastructural and other developments at the site.

5. Scope of Analysis

16. In geographical terms, the systems boundary for the assessment includes the defined areas of four ECAs. Baseline figures show the estimated overall costs associated with management of these areas in the absence of a GEF project. The analysis captures the expenditure changes that would occur, relative to the baseline situation, within 21 areas of intervention (outputs). Changes within each area of intervention involve the creation of global and/or national benefits and constitute a project output.

6. Costs

17. Baseline expenditures within the systems boundary of the 19 project outputs are estimated at US$15.23 million. These are the estimated costs of all relevant investments, programmes and management activities in project areas that would have taken place in the absence of a GEF project.

18. Including the above baseline expenditures, the total cost of the alternative project necessary to ensure sustainable development and the conservation of globally significant biodiversity is US$28.512 million. The total additional, or incremental cost, which is the difference between the baseline and the alternative project, is therefore US$13.282 million.

19.  Financing from the Bangladesh Government for incremental components of the alternative project totals approximately US$3.24 million (based on an official UN exchange rate for May 1999 of TK49: US$1). An additional estimated US$3.77 million is expected to be available as co-financing from various bilateral and multi-lateral donors. Chief among these is UNDP, which is expected to provide approximately $3.33 million.

3

A-

/ Baseline (B) (existing environmental management) / Alternative (A) (additional biodiversity conservation measures / Increment (A-B) /
Global Benefits / ·  No legally instituted or enforced protection measures for ecologically critical wetland areas
·  Funding, capacities, etc., for urgent conservation measures are lacking
·  Low levels of awareness, information, planning, co-ordination and capacities lead to depletion of globally significant species & genetic diversity & degradation of key ecosystems / ·  Declaration, establishment and enforcement of Ecologically Critical Areas (ECAs)
·  Urgent conservation measures are undertaken to conserve globally significant biodiversity
·  Village Conservation Groups and ECA Management Units are established, information gathered, management plans prepared, IPM introduced, etc. / ·  Efforts to conserve globally significant biodiversity are facilitated by effective legal protection
·  Risks of major and imminent loss of biodiversity are eliminated
·  Ecosystem, genetic and species diversity conserved by effective programmes, management
Domestic Benefits / ·  Key nutritional sources (fish) face long-term threat
·  Land resources are depleted through poor land use practices
·  Sustainable livelihoods are lacking for large numbers of people, particularly in the coastal area / ·  Fisheries are made increasingly sustainable
·  Long-term land productivity is enhanced
·  Pressures on renewable resources are reduced
Costs / Activities
Objective 1: Cox’s Bazar Site
Output 1.1: Utilizing existing legal mechanisms, legal protection is established and enforced for Cox’s Bazar sites / ·  Existing legal mechanisms provide inadequate legal protection, contributing to loss of biodiversity at Cox’s Bazar sites / ·  Designation of Cox’s Bazar sites as ECAs, specification, monitoring and legal enforcement of rules help to ensure sustainable use and conservation of globally significant biodiversity / GoB
UNDP
TOTAL / 165,000
50,000
215,000
GoB
TOTAL / 125,000
125,000 / GoB
UNDP
TOTAL / 290,000
50,000
340,000
Output 1.2: An effective field-level environmental management system is operated by DoE / ·  Very limited environ-mental management of the Cox’s Bazar sites, with no focus on biodiversity / ·  ECA Management Unit provides strong field-level implementation of ECA / GoB
GEF

TOTAL

/ 125,000
550,000
675,000
GoB
TOTAL / 20,000
20,000 / GoB
GEF

TOTAL

/ 145,000
550,000
695,000
Output 1.3: Village Conservation Groups and a Local ECA Committee are established to ensure local participation, inter-sectoral coordination and to implement urgent conservation activities / ·  Local people lack awareness and decision-making authority over natural resources and therefore have no incentive to conserve them / ·  Village Conservation Groups ensure sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity / GoB
UNDP
GEF
Ford Found.

TOTAL

/ 35,000
385,000
1,450,000
60,000
1,930,000
GoB
TOTAL / 100,000
100,000 / GoB
UNDP
GEF
Ford Found.

TOTAL

/ 135,000
385,000
1,450,000
60,000
2,030,000
Output 1.4: Ecological information concerning critical ecosystems at Cox’s Bazar sites is available to and used by managers / ·  Limited information collected and research performed on commercially significant resources (mainly fisheries) / ·  Adequate information available to manage globally significant resources / UNDP
GoB
GEF

TOTAL

/ 70,000
1,000,000
250,000
1,320,000
GoB

TOTAL

/ 500,000
500,000 / GoB
UNDP
GEF

TOTAL

/ 1,500,000
70,000
250,000
1,820,000
Output 1.5: Management plans covering conservation and sustainable use of project ECA sites are developed and implemented / ·  Development taking place with limited and uncoordinated management and planning; road construction / ·  An effective management plan reduces pressures on globally significant biodiversity / GoB
UNDP
GEF

TOTAL

/ 1,500,000
210,000
850,000
2,560,000
GoB

TOTAL

/ 10,000,000
10,000,000 / GoB
UNDP
GEF

TOTAL

/ 11,500,000
210,000
850,000
12,560,000
Output 1.6: Alternative sustainable livelihoods and sustainable use strategies are developed and implemented / ·  Local people have few alternatives other than to over-exploit locally available resources / ·  Alternative livelihoods are available, along with credit, etc., reducing pressure on renewable resources / GoB
UNDP
TOTAL / 125,000
1,420,000
1,545,000
GoB

TOTAL