i. basic project data - reefbase

Milne Bay Project PIR 2006

of 25

ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT (APR/PIR) FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECTS - BIODIVERSITY

(1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006)

I. Basic Project Data

Official Title: Community-Based Coastal and Marine Conservation in Milne Bay Province

Country/ies: Papua New Guinea PIMS Number 1068

Atlas Project Number 00014509

Focal Area BD-Biodiversity Project Type (FSP/MSP) FSP

Strategic Priority Predates SPs (More BD2 with elements of BD1)

Operational Programme OP 2 Coastal Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem

Date of Entry into Work Programme

8 November 1999 Planned Project Duration 5 years

ProDoc Signature Date 29 November 2002 Original Planned Closing Date

28 Nov 2007

Date of First Disbursement July 2003 Revised Planned Closing Date 1

Is this the Terminal APR/PIR?

NO Date Project Operationally Closed (if applicable)

Date Mid Term Evaluation carried out 2 (if applicable)

14 June – 26 July 2006 (interim)

Date Final Evaluation 1 carried out (if applicable)

Dates of visits to project by UNDP country office

7-14 August 2006 Date of last TPR Meeting November 2004

Date of last visit to project by UNDP-GEF RTA

21-23 April 2006

1 Please explain any entry here in section V on “Changes in project schedule” 2 If an evaluation has been carried out in the last 12 months the report should be attached to this document.


of 25

Project Contacts:

Title Name E-mail Date Signature National Project Manager / Coordinator

Dr Mikkel Christensen Modi Pontio Steven Gibson

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

01/09/04 01/09/01 01/03/03

Government GEF OFP 3 (optional)

UNDP Country Office Programme Manager

Gwen Maru [email protected] 18/05/06

UNDP Regional Technical Advisor

Dr Sultana Bashir [email protected]

Project Summary (as in PIMS and Prodoc)

Milne Bay Project will conserve a representative sample of the Milne Bay Province’s exceptional high levels of marine biodiversity of global significant and its marine ecosystems and coral reefs. The project is a ten year intervention, divided into two phases with four different geographic zone areas, will focus on mitigating the threats to marine biodiversity through the establishment of community managed protected areas and building capacities at the provincial, local and ward committee level governments, with the aim of transferring management to local ownership for sustaining project outcomes.

Phase 1 will pilot the conservation approach in the first of the four target zones, where social feasibility analysis undertaken during the course of project preparation have indicated that prospects for successfully mitigating threats to biodiversity are strong. Activities during the phase will test and adapt appropriate conservation models to reflect social, economic and ecological specificities in the area, while also establishing an enabling institutional and policy framework.

3 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)

and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1

country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name for each

signature.


of 25

II. Progress towards achieving project objectives 4

Project Objective and Outcomes

Description of Indicator 5

Baseline Level 6 Target Level 5 Level at 30 June 2006 5

1. At least 6 MPAs within Marine conservation Zone 1 established by the end of Phase 1

No MPAs 6 MPAs by Nov.2007

Communities at 6 sites have accepted MPA establishment & LLG government in process of drawing up relevant laws

2. There is no increase in destructive fishing practices (blast fishing, use of cyanide) within Marine Conservation Zone 1 beyond the established baseline

Blast fishing and use of cyanide almost non-existent

Blast fishing and use of cyanide almost non-existent and remains so

Only one incidence of cyanide use recorded and legal action taken by community to stop the company responsible

Objective: 1. To establish a representative

system of community based Marine Protected in Milne Bay for the conservation biodiversity and sustainable use and protection of marine resources to achieve sustainable development and livelihood benefits for vulnerable small island communities

2. A community based marine

conservation framework is established in partnership with national and provincial government, the private sector and NGOs

3. Biennial biological surveys confirm that reef condition (measured by fish diversity, coral diversity and relative damage from human and natural causes) in MPAs does not degrade beyond established baseline

Reef Condition Indices for 56 sites sampled in 2000 range from 171 to 240

Reef condition at chosen sites remains equal to, or improves on, baseline state by end of 2007

Baseline surveys conducted, but no follow-up surveys conducted yet

1. Effective management structures and strategies established and maintained

No MPA management plans integrated into LLG Development Plans

6 MPA management plans are integrated into LLG Development Plans

Management plans for 4 MPAs complete, draft laws in progress

2. LLG marine conservation programs incorporated into Provincial Development Plans (MBPG) by year 5

LLG MPA plans (Louisiade, Bwanabwana and Maramatana) and program not incorporated into PDP

All MPA plans (Louisiade, Bwanabwana and Maramatana) and program incorporated by year 5

Draft laws and recommended management structures identified, but not yet formalized and incorporated

3. LLG legislation developed or enhanced for at least 6 LLGs by Year 5

No laws relevant to MPA management of candidate MPA sites enacted by LLGs

Laws relevant to MPA management of candidate MPA sites enacted by LLGs

Draft laws developed

4. Customary ownership and use surveys for at least 6 communities by Year 5

No genealogy work complete for MPA sites

Genealogy work complete for 6 MPA sites by end of 2007

Genealogy work complete for 4 MPA sites, in progress in 2 more

Outcome 1: An enabling environment for marine and near-shore resource management is established at the Provincial, Local Level Government, and Ward levels

5. Strategic partnerships formed with environmental advocacy and legal service entities by Year 4

No strategic partnership with NGOs in place

Strategic partnership with 3 NGOs in place by end of 2007

Partnership with SELCOR

4 This is based on the logframe of the inception report and amended accordingly 5 This should describe the quantitative indicator 6 This should be a quantitative numerical value


of 25




6. Conservation initiatives incorporated in at least 6 Community Development Plans in target communities by year 5

No management plans for MPAs developed and endorsed by communities

Management plans for 6 MPAs developed and endorsed by communities by end of 2007

Management Plans for 2 MPAs endorsed and 2 further plans developed

7. SMIP indices are entered into the PNG RIS by Year 4

No indices for poverty reduction on small islands available

Indices for poverty reduction developed by SMIP and entered into PNG RIS by end of 2006

Draft poverty indicators developed but not adopted

1. At least 6 MPAs in Zone 1 gazetted by Year 5

No MPA sites gazetted

6 MPA sites are gazetted by end of 2007

None gazetted, but in progress

2. Co-management plans developed for dedicated MPAs by Year 5

No management plans for MPA sites developed or endorsed

Management plans for 6 MPA sites developed and endorsed by end of 2007

Management Plans for 2 MPAs endorsed and 2 further plans developed

3. Fisheries management plans for 4 commercially exploited species by Year 5

No Fisheries management plans finalized

National Fisheries Authority will develop these plans by end of 2007

Project has given input into draft laws

4. 30% of representative ecosystems, communities, habitats and species adequately protected by year 5

No representative ecosystems, communities, habitats and species adequately protected

30% of representative ecosystems, communities, habitats and species adequately protected by end of 2007

Mapping and habitat assessment complete for ± 150 sq.km comprising 41 different habitats

5. Species management plans for turtle and dugong by year 5

No management plans for turtle and dugong developed or endorsed

Management plans for turtle and dugong developed and endorsed by end of 2007

Draft management plan for turtle complete

6. 40 WDC members, VET members and village recorders trained in MPA management and conservation by Year 3

No WDC staff, VETs and village recorders trained in MPA management and conservation

40 WDC staff, VETs and village recorders trained in MPA management and conservation by end of 2005

22 VETs and 12-community recorders trained in marine survey, socio-economic & turtle monitoring techniques, genealogy and

Outcome 2: A representative network of community-based marine conservation and sustainable near-shore resource management areas is established

7. Independent monitoring confirms that MPA zones are being adhered to and infractions are being reported and penalized by Year 5

No MPAs, so no need for monitoring

Independent monitoring confirms that MPA zones are being adhered to and infractions are being reported and penalized by end of 2007

Baseline surveys conducted, but too early to conduct follow-up surveys

Outcome 3: Environmental education program & conservation awareness campaigns that are imparting marine conservation values to

1. Communities understanding of environmental and social sustainability is enhanced

No Communities actively engaged in an awareness program

30 Target Communities actively engaged in the awareness program

26 communities engaged in the awareness program


of 25




2. Conservation curricula developed and integrated into existing school curricula (all Zones) by Years 3 & 5

No conservation curriculum developed

180 Elementary; 175 Primary; 7 Secondary; and 8 Vocational schools by end of 2007

22 Elementary, 22 Primary, 2 Secondary and 1 Vocational school engaged

3. Inform and train School inspectors, superintendents and senior teachers in marine conservation and resource management issues

No educators trained in conservation issues

60 Educators in 20 Elementary; 150 in 25 Primary; 50 in 6 Secondary and 20 in 7 Vocational schools

25 Educators in 22 Elementary; 34 in 22 Primary; 5 in 3 Secondary and 6 in 1 Vocational school

4. Church groups in targeted sites are utilizing developed teaching aids and resource materials by Year 4

No church groups in targeted sites are utilizing developed teaching aids and resource materials

10 church groups in targeted sites are utilizing developed teaching aids and resource materials by end of 2007

18 church groups involved in development of curricula and teaching materials

5. Lukim Nau PNG and other at least 2 other promotional events are supported by the Project

No promotional events are supported by the Project

At least 3 promotional events are supported by the Project every year

Lukim Nau PNG supported in 2004, 2005 & 2006, Best exhibit 2005, Kenu Festival supported 2004 & 2005

6. Communication strategy and regular media and interpretive material established by Year 2

Communication strategy and regular media and interpretive material not available

Communication strategy and regular media and interpretive material established by end of 2004

Draft strategy complete but requires revision, some interpretive materials produced

7. Improved waste disposal, sanitation and other amenities in target villages by Year 5

Waste disposal, sanitation and other facilities unavailable in target villages

Improved waste disposal, sanitation and other amenities in target villages by end of 2007

Water supply projects initiated for Netuli, and in progress for Nuakata, Wialoki and Mwanewa

students in formal and informal settings

8. Lessons documented and communicated in all forums) by end of Year 5

Little documented experience available for Milne Bay

All lessons learned in all sectors documented and communicated by end of 2007

In progress, draft to be completed by end of 2006

1. 30 farming families on 5 islands are engaged in sustainable agricultural activities by. Year 4

Few or none of the families on small islands are engaged in sustainable land-use activities

30 families on 5 islands engaged in sustainable land-use activities by end of 2006

±40 families on 2 islands and in 2 communities engaged

2. Net improvements in economic status and relative wealth in 4 communities by year 5

Net improvements in economic status and relative wealth in 4 communities by end of 2007

Net improvements in economic status and relative wealth in 4 communities by end of 2007

Baseline data collected but too early to implement follow-up

Outcome 4: Conservation objectives are overlaid into land use strategies on densely populated small islands

3. Food security-marine resource awareness materials are produced and disseminated to 45 islands by Year 5

No food security or marine resource awareness materials available for small island communities

Food security and marine resource awareness materials are produced and disseminated to 45 islands by end of 2007

Materials for all sectors in early stages of development, to be completed by end of 2006


of 25




4. All PNGDA affiliated dive operators are in full compliance with the dive fee system and are engaged in fee adjustment negotiations by Year 2

Dive operators and Tourism Bureau have basic system in place that requires adjustment

All PNGDA affiliated dive operators are in full compliance with the dive fee system and are engaged in fee adjustment negotiations by 2003

Joint programme initiated (mooring buoys, COTs control etz.), but progress with dive fees delayed substantially, but PNGDA and CORAL have hired a staff member to address the issue

5. Improved community health and hygiene in 5 island communities by year 5

Community health and hygiene in small island communities very poor with little or no access to public services

Improved community health and hygiene in 5 island communities by end of 2007

Health assessments complete for 7 communities and MOU partnership agreement with Counselling Service

6. Monetary benefits from tourism equitably distributed to clans and resource owners by Year 5

Few monetary benefits from tourism as very few operators (dive tourism is one exception)

Monetary benefits from tourism equitably distributed to clans and resource owners by end of 2007

Dive fees being equitably distributed to resource owners. CORAL partnership and dive fee system project well advanced.

7. Improvements in women and youth participating in community and livelihood activities and leadership

Few women and youth participate in community and livelihood activities and leadership

60% of women and youth in target communities participating in community and livelihood activities and leadership by end of 2007

Women & Youth needs assessment complete for 7 communities and work program initiated. Community leadership training conducted on Nuakata Island. Special programme for disadvantaged community members continuing.


of 25

Rating of Project Progress towards Meeting Objective 7

2005 Rating

2006 Rating

Comments

National Project Manager/Coordinator

Satisfactory Satisfactory


UNDP Country Office Satisfactory Satisfactory UNDP Regional Technical Advisor

Satisfactory Satisfactory

Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating Where a project has received a rating of MU, U or HU describe the actions to be taken to address this: Action to be Taken By Whom? By When?

7 Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S –

Satisfactory; MS – Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory; HU –

Highly Unsatisfactory. 8 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP

(optional) and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from

more than 1 country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name

for each signature.


of 25

III. Progress in Project implementation List the 4 key outputs delivered so far for each project Outcome:

Project Outcomes Key Outputs

1. Options papers for Netuli and Nuakata have been presented to communities, feedback collected and final options paper prepared.

2. Draft Management plans for MPAs of Netuli, Nuakata, Wialoki and Mwanewa have been prepared and discussed with communities.

3. Laws supporting creation of MPAs at LLG level have been researched and initial discussions held with LLG officials.

Outcome 1: An enabling environment for marine and near-shore resource management is established at the Provincial, Local Level Government, and Ward levels

4. Recommendations for management structure at national, provincial and LLG levels has been researched and documented in a final report for submission to stakeholders and for expert panel review.

1. Marine and socio-economic surveys of Netuli, Nuakata, Wialoki and Mwanewa completed and results used to guide development of sustainable use agreements with these communities.

2. Genealogy work completed for Netuli, Nuakata, Wialoki and Mwanewa, which allows for clear identification of Resource Owners and Resource Users in these areas.

3. Draft management plans for Wialoki and Mwanewa have been accepted by communities and finalized.

Outcome 2: A representative network of community-based marine conservation and sustainable near-shore resource management areas is established

4. Draft management plans for Netuli and Nuakata have been presented and await finalization.

1. The National Teacher’s Guide “Fishing for the future” for Vocational Secondary Schools completed and printed, and now in use in these schools throughout PNG.

2. The village engagement teams and staff have conducted awareness work on sustainable resource use and environmental management in 26 communities.

3. The project has supported schools and the community on World Environment Day, World Food Day and other events, to spread the word on sustainable resource use and community-based natural resource management.

Outcome 3: Environmental education program & conservation awareness campaigns that are imparting marine conservation values to students in formal and informal settings

4. Coast care programme has held Environment Days, started tree and mangrove planting programmes and conducted awareness work with schools in Alotau and communities in Lelehudi and East Cape.

1. Suitable land-use options identified for Netuli, Nuakata, Wialoki, Mwanewa and Dawadawa and presented to, and discussed with, the communities.

2. Demonstration farms for small livestock, drought-resistant crops and new varieties established at Nuakata, Bubuleta and Mwanewa, and further research into sustainable land-use systems at Misima continued.

3. Community-based Fisheries Management Committees set up in 3 Netuli communities and in 2 Nuakata communities, in line with the National Fisheries Authority’s fisheries management policy, and in close alignment with the CMMA management committees being set up by the project.

Outcome 4: Conservation objectives are overlaid into land use strategies on densely populated small islands

4. Programmes for nutrition, health care, domestic violence and disadvantaged members of the community initiated with women’s groups in the Netuli and Nuakata communities.


of 25

Rating of Project Implementation9

2005 Rating

2006 Rating Comments


Satisfactory Marginally Satisfactory

The mid-term review highlighted a number of issues that need to be addressed, particularly with regards to the financial management of the project and with some aspects of the technical work (e.g. community approach, NGO funding). These issues are now being addressed.


UNDP Country Office

Satisfactory Marginally satisfactory

The evaluation findings particularly in environmental education and awareness suggested positive outcomes of communities to interest for environment protection through sustainable use of natural resources however other key outputs of the project were not achieved since the project inception due to diversion of project objectives thus implementation is given that ranking.

UNDP Regional Technical Advisor

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory There were growing concerns regarding project implementation in the months leading up to the evaluation, particularly due to funds for project activities having been exhausted by October 2005, as well because of growing differences between the CTA, the executing NGO and UNDP

Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating Where a project has received a rating of MU, U or HU describe the actions to be taken to address this: Action to be Taken By Whom? By When?

9 Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S – Satisfactory;

MS – Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory; HU – Highly

Unsatisfactory. 10 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)

and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1

country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name for each

signature.


of 25

A major revision of all major aspects of project management and implementation(ie financial, technical, HR etc) is being undertaken by the key partners as a result of the interim evaluation to agree how to proceed with the project The process started in July and is still on going.

CI, UNDP, Milne Bay Provincial Government, Project Team

Before end 2006


of 25

IV. Risks 1. Please annex to this report a print out of the corresponding Atlas Risk Tab Please refer to risk report at the end of PIR. 2. For any risks identified as “critical” please copy the following information from Atlas:

Risk Type Date Identified Risk Description Risk Management Response

A. Financial Inadequate funding available from project partners

2006 As determined in the evaluation report, the project effectively ran out of funds in early 2006 and requires substantial further funding to achieve its outcomes/outputs.

UNDP made a further US$500,000 (see supplementary ProDoc) and CI made a further US$191,000 available. This has kept the project going at a minimal level, but further funding is required. Discussions between national and provincial governments, UNDP & CI are ongoing.

B. Strategic Loss of community support

2006 Community support may be lost due to loss of confidence in partners as a result of the results of the evaluation.

The project needs to start implementing fieldwork with the affected communities and other stakeholders as soon as possible (pending availability of funding).

C. Political Change of political will

2006 The ongoing conflict between partners and the upcoming elections could adversely affect the support given by one or more partners.

Project partners need to resolve the outstanding management and financial issues as soon as possible.


of 25

Adjustments to Project Strategy Please report any adjustments made to the project strategy, as reflected in the logical framework matrix, since the Project Document signature:

Change Made to: Yes/No Reason for Change Project Objective

No (The wording was made more specific in the Inception Report than was the case in the ProDoc, but the content and intent remain the same. All changes were approved by the Project’s National Steering Committee.)

Project Outcomes

No

Project Outputs / Activities / Inputs

Yes / No Outputs remain the same, but some changes made to activities and indicators. In particular: • indicators were aligned more closely with the GEF’s

requirements; • the focus was put on working closely with Local Level

Governments rather than the Ward Development Committees, as proposed in the ProDoc (Output 1);

• a stronger focus was put on institutional strengthening (Output 1); and

• less focus on developing and implementing an environmental curriculum, as this needs to be done at the national level (Output 3).

Adjustments to Project Time Frame If the duration of the project, the project work schedule, or the timing of any key events such as project start up, evaluations or closing date, have been adjusted since project approval please explain the changes and the reasons for these changes. Change Reason for Change


of 25

V. Financial Information Please present all financial values in US$ millions to 2 decimal places only (e.g. $3,502,000 should be written as $3.50m)

Name of Partner or

Contributor (including the

Private Sector)

Nature of Contributor11

Amount used in Project

Preparation(PDF A, B)

Amount committed in Project Document

12

Additional amounts

committed after Project

Document finalization

11

Estimated Total

Disbursement to

30 June 2006

Expected Total

Disbursement by end of project

GEF Contribution

UN Agency $0.34m $3.2m $3.06m $3.20m

Cash Co-financing – UNDP Managed UNDP (TRAC)

UN Agency $0.50m $.50m $0.50m $0.50m

Cash Co-financing – Partner Managed Conservation International

NGO $1.65m $1.65m $1.65m

Japanese Human Development Trust Fund

Bilateral Donor

$0.31 $0.31m $0.35m

National Government

National Government

$0.57m $0.57m $0.57m

In-Kind Co-financing Provincial Government

Provincial Government

$0.20m

Total Co-financing $3.73m

Total for Project $6.93m

11 Specify if: UN Agency, other Multilateral, Bilateral Donor, Regional Development Bank (RDB), National

Government, Local Government, NGO, Private Sector, Other. 12 Committed amounts are those shown in the approved Project Document. These may be zero in the case of new

leveraged project partners.


of 25

Comments Please explain any significant changes in project financing since Project Document signature, or differences between the anticipated and actual rates of disbursement:

There have been some significant changes, with the UNDP allocating an additional US$500,000 to the project at the beginning of 2006 and CI allocating an additional US$191,000 for the 2006/07 financial year (beginning July 2006).

This has been necessitated by the project running out of funds towards the end of 2005. The reasons for this are not clear and would require a detailed financial audit to be clarified. Further funding will have to be committed by the partners to continue the project until the closing date (28th Nov 2007).


of 25

VI. Additional Financial Instruments used in the Project This section only needs to be completed if the project provides funds to any Financial Instruments such as Trust Funds, Sinking Funds, Revolving Funds, Partial Credit Risk Guarantees, Microfinance services, Leasing or Insurance mechanisms. If this project does not use any Additional Financial Instruments skip this and go to Section VIII.

Financial

Instrument Financial

Institution Responsible for

Management

Basis for Selection of Financial Institution

One-off grant for community support services

Milne Bay Church Fund Development Association

All 25 churches active in Milne Bay are members of the Association. In addition, churches have the best access to remote communities, often working in communities where no other public or private organizations are present. The grant was given to strengthen the Association and to initiate their involvement in environmentally-friendly and sustainable projects in the project’s target communities.

One-off grant for micro-finance services

Milne Bay Micro-Finance Fund Inc.

The Fund was chosen as it has trained, professional staff and implements a micro-finance loan facility for poor rural community members. The project financed a broad package of small-scale loans to be administered by the Fund in the project’s target communities.

For Each Financial Instrument please complete the following two tables: Name of Financial Instrument: Milne Bay Church Fund Association

Source of Funds (add rows for each

source)

Funds Committed in Project Document

Amount Disbursed

to Date

Issues or Comments

CI None US$33,768 US$50,000 committed by CI as an additional “Small Grant”


of 25

Rating of Performance of Financial Instrument13 2006

Rating Comments


MS Disbursement of funds delayed, causing delay in start of community projects. The evaluation also expressed concern over this approach, with which the project management team does not agree – the failure of CI to honour its financial commitments led to the identified difficulties, but these could not have been foreseen as CI’s “Small Grants” programme is a world-wide initiative with a long and successful history.

Government GEF OFP UNDP Country Office MS UNDP Regional Technical Advisor

MS

Overall Rating MS Name of Financial Instrument: Milne Bay Micro-Finance Fund Inc

Source of Funds (add rows for each

source)

Funds Committed in Project Document

Amount Disbursed

to Date

Issues or Comments

CI None US$75,000 US$75,000 committed by CI as an additional “Small Grant”

Rating of Performance of Financial Instrument14 2006

Rating Comments


S Disbursement of funds to community delayed, as CI delayed disbursement to the Fund. Work has now commenced and a number of small-scale community projects will receive loans within 1-2 months.

Government GEF OFP UNDP Country Office MS UNDP Regional Technical Advisor

MS

Overall Rating

13 For ratings, use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S – Satisfactory; MS – Marginally Satisfactory; MU -

Marginally Unsatisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory; HU – Highly Unsatisfactory. 14 For ratings, use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S – Satisfactory; MS – Marginally Satisfactory; MU -

Marginally Unsatisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory; HU – Highly Unsatisfactory.


of 25

Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating Where a project has received a rating of MU, U or HU describe the actions to be taken to address this:

Action to be Taken By Whom? By When? Ensure that the funding is released by CI CI, project As soon as

possible

End of Project Situation What is to happen to any funds remaining in the Financial Instrument at the end of the project? No funds will remain after project ends. It is intended that both the Association and the Fund will be in a position to actively continue to seek funding from external sources after the project is ended, thereby ensuring that funding for small-scale community projects and small-scale loans for micro-businesses are available to vulnerable communities on remote small islands after the project is closed.


of 25

VII. Procurement Data

Note: 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 made to GEF Donor Countries for Procurement. Please enter Project expenditure accumulated 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$ 2,000.

Supplying Donor

Country Personnel

(US$ thousands) Sub-contracts

(US$ thousands) Equipment (US$ thousands)

Training (US$ thousands)

Total (US$

thousands)

PNG • 26.16 (Marine & Terrestrial Surveys)

• 59.08 (Hydrographical surveys)

6.75 (TV Commercials for Canoe Festival)

• 30.625 (4-WD Vehicle)

• 10.97 (boat) • 41.375

(computers) • 10.375 (radios) • 6.5 (Satphones) • 17 (furniture) • 6 (GIS

equipment) • 4.4 (Steel

mooring pins for diving)

• 5 (FADS) • 2.875 (T-shirts)

• 10.78(Training in MBP)

• 3.44 (Training elsewhere in PNG)

241.33

Australia • 6.5 (Tourism Consultant)

• 5.25 (Educational Panels)

• 4.25(Training) • 22.47

(Conferences)

38.47

New Zealand • 11.56 (Training)

11.56

USA • 2.875 (Training)

2.875

Total 91.74 12 135.12 55.375 294.235


of 25

VIII. Lessons

Are there any lessons from this project that could benefit the design and implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth developing into case studies of good/bad practice.

i) Monitoring & Evaluation:

This aspect could be developed into a useful case study generally but particularly with respect to financial management, as the conflicts between the financial management systems of the NGO implementing agency (CI) and the UNDP resulted in neither party being able to pick up on financial difficulties in time to take action. This could have be avoided given careful planning and could serve as a guide to “best practice” when developing financial management systems for projects managed by external agencies such as NGOs and consultancy firms.

ii) Long-term sustainability: The project has developed several models for securing the long-term sustainability of the project, including trust funds, setting up a so-called provincial “Special Purposes Authority”, community management committees etc.

Based on this, it is suggested that it might be useful to document these proposals and possibly hold workshops that would allow an independent expert review to provide input and improve/test the models.


of 25

IX. Project Contribution to GEF Strategic Targets in Biodiversity For all Projects:

Please answer all questions

State: Yes, No or In-

Progress

Additional Notes

BD1: Protected Areas

Have any new protected areas been established as a result of this project? (if any)

In progress

Nine candidate Marine Protected Areas have been identified, and four MPAs are well advanced in the process of establishment

Has the project resulted in any changes to the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment of protected areas?

In progress

The legal advocacy component of the project has commenced and proposed changes will be finalized and submitted to the relevant government agencies in the coming 12 months.

Has the project raised awareness or knowledge about protected areas in people beyond the project team?

Yes The project raised awareness, knowledge and understanding of protected areas in 22 communities in Zone 1, and across the Milne Bay in general.

Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates concerning protected areas

In progress

The Institutional Strengthening component of the project has commenced and a number of changes and improvements will be proposed and submitted in the coming 12 months.

How many protected areas already have improved management capacity as a result of this project?

None There are no MPAs set up in Milne Bay at present.

Have any new financial mechanisms for protected areas (such as user fees, tourist taxes, payments for environmental services, etc) been created, or existing mechanisms strengthened as a result of this project?

Yes Two new financial mechanisms for MPA and sustainable use interventions have been created:

→ Milne Bay Church Development Fund → Milne Bay Microfinance Project.

In addition, a voluntary conservation and an improved dive user fee system are in development.

Has the project improved relationships between protected areas and local communities?

Yes By improving understanding of natural processes, the project has affected how communities respond to outside threats to their resources, e.g. by the Live Reef Food Fish trade.

Has the project worked with Indigenous communities?

Yes The project is currently working with some 30 indigenous communities from 6 language groups on:

→ Raising environmental awareness → Natural processes → Resource management → Sustainable resource use


of 25



Progress

Additional Notes

Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change?

Yes The project has initiated a Community Coast Care programme that supports activities dealing with coastal erosion and sea level rise.

Has the project assessed the carbon benefits of the protected areas with which it is working?

No Beyond the scope of the project.

Does the project have a budget for activities related to dissemination?

In progress

Reports on lessons learned and methodologies tested are being prepared.

BD2: Spatial Mainstreaming:

Has the project resulted in any changes in the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment so that biodiversity is better addressed in the political and spatial planning for an area such as a whole country, province, district or community?

In progress

Work has commenced on legislative changes for biodiversity conservation and protected areas at the Provincial and local level government levels, relevant to all candidate MPA sites. These cover in excess of 140 sq.km.

Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates so that biodiversity is better addressed in the political and spatial planning for an area such as a whole country, province, district or community?

In progress

Work has commenced on improving institutional structures required for biodiversity conservation and protected areas at the Provincial level, together with detailed survey work for six candidate MPA sites. These cover in excess of 140 sq.km.

Has the project resulted in any changes in practices such that biodiversity is better addressed in the political and spatial planning for an area such as a whole country, province, district or community?

In Progress

Two LLG governments have requested assistance with drafting laws relating to sustainable use of turtles. The LLG government have been briefed on legal changes required to implement LLG laws and this will be implemented in the coming year.


In progress

The project’s ‘Community Coastcare programme’ includes a beach protection and rehabilitation component and covers an area of some 50 ha.


No

BD2: Sectoral Mainstreaming:


of 25



Progress

Additional Notes

Has the project resulted in any changes in the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment so that biodiversity is better addressed in a particular government sector such as forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, agriculture, etc.?

In Progress

Work has commenced on legislative changes for biodiversity conservation and protected areas at the Provincial and local level government levels, relevant to all candidate MPA sites. Environmental laws are being drafted for LLGs.

Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates so that biodiversity is better addressed in a particular government sector such as forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, agriculture, etc.?

In Progress

Work has commenced on improving institutional structures required for biodiversity conservation and protected areas at the Provincial level, together with detailed survey work for six candidate MPA sites.

Has the project resulted in any changes in practices so that biodiversity is better addressed in a particular government sector such as forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, agriculture, etc.?

In Progress

The project cooperates closely with the National Fisheries Authority’s community-based coastal fisheries project that is drafting new legislation that will enable community-based management of fisheries resources.


In progress

The project initiated a ‘Community Coastcare program’, which includes a beach protection and rehabilitation component. 2 MOUs have been signed with communities.


No

BD2: Market Mainstreaming:

Has the project resulted in any market changes such that they encourage more biodiversity friendly (conservation or sustainable use) practice?

No This is beyond the scope of the Project

Has the project improved the markets or profitability for any biodiversity or biodiversity based products?


Has the project resulted in certification or certification systems for any products?



of 25



Progress

Additional Notes

Has the project increased the level of sustainable use of any species, races or groups of species or races?

In progress

→ Management plans for turtles and dugongs are almost complete and these will be enhanced through LLG legislation.

→ Funding for a restocking programme for sandfish (sea cucumber) is being sought.

Has the project resulted in an improvement in the level of sustainable use of particular areas?

In progress

The MPA (=CMMA) areas have no-take zones, seasonal closures and other management systems that ensure improved resource use over an area in excess of 140 sq.km.

Has the project increased the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of BD?

No

Has the project involved Indigenous communities?

Yes The Project works with 22 indigenous communities across 6 main language groups.


In Progress

The Coast care programme supports communities with coastal erosion work, such as planting mangroves.


No

BD2: Organization or Business Mainstreaming

Has the project resulted in any changes in the practices or behaviour of organizations or businesses such that biodiversity is better addressed?


Do these changes affect the business efficiency of the organization in any way?


Have these changes been imposed by legal or regulatory means?


Have these changes been driven by market considerations in any way?


Have these changes been made as a consequence of decisions regarding corporate environmental responsibility.


Were there any other causes of these changes in practice or behaviour?



of 25



Progress

Additional Notes





BD4: Lessons learning, dissemination, uptake

Has the project compiled any lessons or good practices?

In progress

A lessons learned report is one of the main priorities for the coming year and substantial progress has been made in writing this document.

Does the project have any demonstrations of good practice in place?

Yes Sustainable land-use systems (2 demonstration areas on Nuakata Island, and one each at Netuli and on Mwanewa Island).

Have any of the lessons or demonstrations from the project been adopted elsewhere?

No It is too early for this to take place.


of 25

For BD3: Biosafety Projects Only

Answer all applicable questions State: Yes, No

or In Progress

Additional Notes

Has the project resulted in the enactment of any legislation affecting biosafety?

N/A

Has the project helped put in place any institutional arrangements to address biosafety?

N/A

Has the project helped put in place a national biosafety framework?

N/A

Has the project helped to launch the implementation of the national biosafety framework?

N/A

Business Unit: PNG10Award Id: 00014509Description: Milne Bay Coastal and Marine ConservationImplementing Partner: 02512 NGO (Int'l)Award Start Date: 01/11/2002 Award End Date: 31/12/2007Report Period From: 01/07/2005Report Period to: 30/06/2006 Total Award Amount: 3,392,273.51

Section 1. Project Implementation

A. UPDATED PROJECT RISKS

Type Date Description Date Manager Resp Critical Status

ENVIRONMENTAL 03/10/2006 Overfishing of commerciallyvaluable sedentary species

N03/10/2006 The projects aims to work withNational Fisheries Authorityand local fishing industry topromote the benefits ofsustainable fisheriesmanagement, and constructivelyengage in BDM and sharkfisheries management.

FINANCIAL 03/10/2006 Inadequate funding availablefrom project partners

Y03/10/2006 UNDP made a further US$500,000(see supplementary ProDoc) andCI made a further US$191,000available. This has kept theproject going at a minimallevel, but further funding isrequired. Discussions betweennational and provincialgovernments, UNDP & CI areongoing.

FINANCIAL 03/10/2006 Misuse of project funding N03/10/2006 The new financial managementsystem being implemented bythe UNDP in partnership withthe Provincial Government willresolve this issue.

OPERATIONAL 03/10/2006 MPAs fail to performsatisfactorily

N03/10/2006 Best practises and lessonslearned from elsewhere in PNGhave been adopted for allaspects of project work andthis should ensure that thisrisk is minimized.

OPERATIONAL 03/10/2006 Low capacity of provincialgovernment threatensachievement of project outputs

N03/10/2006 A registered training providerwill provide cost-effectivecapacity building and targetedtraining for all ProvincialGovernment staff.

ORGANIZATIONAL No Record

POLITICAL 03/10/2006 Change of political will Y03/10/2006 Project partners need toresolve the outstandingmanagement and financialissues as soon as possible.

Project Quarterly Progress Report

UN Development Programme Page 1 of 5Report ID: UNPMQTRR Run Time: 18-10-2006 01:10:01

POLITICAL 03/10/2006 Political cycle changes inProvincial and Nationaladministration shiftspriorities and level ofsupport for the project

N03/10/2006 Maintain and strengthenestablished relationship withthe Provincial Government. Develop and strengthenrelationship with nationalgovernment through ProvincialGovernment, particularly withDepartment of Environment(DEC) and National PlanningOffice

REGULATORY 03/10/2006 MPA establishment increasedincidence of territorialdisputes

N03/10/2006 The project has focussed oncompleting comprehensivegenealogical studies andcustomary ownership surveysprior to conducting othermarine or social surveys. Resource owners can then usethis information to helpresolve ownership disputes.

SECURITY 03/10/2006 Security of staff and property N03/10/2006 UNDP will monitor thesituation on a regular basisand security measures will bemaintained or upgraded asnecessary.

STRATEGIC 03/10/2006 Loss of community support Y03/10/2006 The project needs to startimplementing fieldwork withthe affected communities andother stakeholders as soon aspossible (pending availabilityof funding).

STRATEGIC 03/10/2006 Process of MPA establishmentgenerates unrealisticexpectations amongst resourceusers.

N03/10/2006 The project will continue totry to manage expectationsthrough the communityawareness program.

STRATEGIC 03/10/2006 Inequitable distribution ofbenefits yielded by theproject.

N03/10/2006 Conduct socio-economic impactstudies to design incomedistribution structures thatensure sustainable developmentand equitable distribution ofincome and benefits.

X_OTHER 03/10/2006 Socio-cultural controlmechanisms and village leveljudicial systems areinadequate to ensure MPA rulesenforcement withincommunities.

N03/10/2006 Continue to develop leadershipstructure and capacities atthe community level throughboth the “Training AssistanceProgram” and through ourcommunity awareness program.

X_OTHER 03/10/2006 Community perception that MPAsdo not benefit households &communities

N03/10/2006 Community awareness campaignthat focuses on describingwhat benefits the creation ofMPAs will bring to thecommunity and how they will bedirectly involved.

B. UPDATED PROJECT ISSUES

Type Date Description Date Manager Resp Solved Status

Project Quarterly Progress Report

UN Development Programme Page 2 of 5Report ID: UNPMQTRR Run Time: 18-10-2006 01:10:03

i. basic project data - reefbase

Documents