technical assistance consultant's report · technical assistance consultant's report ....

TA Number: 4965 April 2010

INDIA: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management PPTA Final Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Technical Assistance Consultant's Report

FINAL REPORT

TA 4965-IND: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project

PREPARED FOR

The Asian Development Bank and the Government of India

ANZDEC LIMITED

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

ASR Marine Consulting and Research, New Zealand

April 2009

ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project Final Report

i

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 17 April 2009)

Currency Unit – Indian Rupee(s) (Rs) Rs 1.00=$0.0204

$1=Rs 49.00

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank BED Beach Erosion Directorate BMI Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation CBO Community Based Organization CED Coastal Erosion Directorate CESS Centre for Earth Science Studies CICEF Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fisheries CIMU Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit CMZ Coastal Management Zone CPCB Central Pollution Control Board CPDAC Coastal Protection and Development Advisory Committee CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone CWC Central Water Commission CWPRS Central Water and Power Research Station CZM Coastal Zone Management DDMAP District Disaster Management Action Plan DMF Design and Monitoring Framework DPC District Planning Committee EA Executing Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPA Environment Protection Act GoI Government of India HTL High Tide Line IA / SIA Implementing Agency / State Implementing Agency ICMAM Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management IDCMC Institutional Development Change Management Consultants IITM Indian Institute of Technology Madras INCOIS Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services KCZMA Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority KERS Karnataka Engineering Research Station LSGI Local Self Government Institution LTL Low Tide Line MERI Maharashtra Engineering Research Institute MMB Maharashtra Maritime Board MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoD Ministry of Defense MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests MoES Ministry of Earth Sciences MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs MoS Ministry of Shipping MoWR Ministry of Water Resources MST Ministry of Science and Technology MTDC Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation NCPP National Coastal Protection Project NCZMA National Coastal Zone Management Authority NGO Non Governmental Organization NIO National Institute of Oceanography NIOT National Institute of Ocean Technology NITK National Institute of Technology Karnataka O&M Operation and Maintenance


ii

P&IWT Ports & Inland Water Transport PDSC Project Design and Support Consultants PMDC Project Management and Design Consultants PPMS Project Performance and Management System PPP Public Private Partnership PPTA Project Preparation Technical Assistance PWD Public Works Department RFP Request for Proposal SCR Swaminathan Committee Report SCZMA State Coastal Zone Management Authority SLWG State Level Working Groups SPCB State Pollution Control Board TA Technical Assistance ToR Terms of Reference WRD Water Resources Department


iii

CONTENTS Page

I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY 1

II. THE PROPOSAL 5

III. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 5 A. Performance Indicators and Analysis 5 B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities 5

IV. THE PROPOSED PROJECT 10 A. Impact and Outcome 10 B. Outputs 10 C. Special Features 14 D. Project Investment Plan 15 E. Financing Plan 15 F. Implementation Arrangements 16

V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 21

VI. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS 21 A. Financial and Economic Analysis 21 B. Benefits of New Technologies and Skills for India 22 C. Benefits and Impacts from Planned Development 22 D. Environmental Impacts 23 E. Social and Gender Issues 23 F. Land Acquisition and Resettlement 23 G. Indigenous Peoples and Minority Groups 23 H. Risks 24

VII. RECOMMENDED ASSURANCES AND CONDITIONS 25 APPENDIXES

1. Design and Monitoring Framework 26 2. Sector Assessment, Road Map and Investment Strategy 30 3. External Assistance 40 4. Cost Estimates and Financing Plan 41 5. Summary Economic and Financial Analysis 47 6. Organizational Plan and Implementation Arrangements 50 7. Summary of Sub Projects 51 8. Long List of Provisional Development Proposals 74 9. Procurement Plan 80 10. Implementation Schedule 84 11. Summary Poverty Reduction and Social Strategy 85 12. Summary Initial Environmental Examination (SIEE) 91 13 Summary of Capacity Building and Training Program 97 14. Outline Scope of Consultancies 102


iv

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIXES (separate volumes)

A. Analysis of the Coastal Sector B. Planning and Design for Shoreline Protection and Management C. Institutional Assessments D. Mirya Sub Project Feasibility Study E. Coco Beach Sub Project Feasibility Study F. Colva Beach Sub Project Feasibility Study G. Ullal Sub Project Feasibility Study H. Long List of Provisional Development Proposals I. Overall Project Costs J. Economic and Financial Analyses K. Financial Management L. Role of the Private Sector in the Coastal Areas M. Environmental Assessments N. Social and Gender Assessments O. Summary of Public Consultations P. Procurement and Analysis of Costs


1

I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Borrower India, States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka

Classification Targeting classification: General intervention Sector: Agriculture and Natural Resources Subsector: Water Resources and Environment Themes: Sustainable economic growth, Environmental sustainability

Environment Assessment Initial environmental examinations have been completed for the four subprojects proposed for Project 1.

Project Description The project area comprises 1,100 km of sea coast and a significant number of estuaries along the three States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka. The Coastal Protection and Management Project is designed to address the immediate coastal protection needs through the implementation of economically viable protection works using environmentally and socially appropriate solutions. The project will also address the causes and potential causes of coastal erosion and coastal instability. Investments in this part will be directed mainly at other coastal infrastructure that is presently causing, or potentially cause damage to the natural coastal processes. In addition the project will support investments for natural protection measures such as the development and planting of dunes, planting of mangrove or other trees for protection or shelter.

The project will also support investments in the wider area of coastal management including water quality, navigational entrances, dredging, and training of river and drain mouths. Some financial support and investment will also be provided to increase the economic value or amenity value of the coast and shoreline.

In parallel to the investment program the project will develop the institutional capacities to meet the long term needs of sustainable coastal protection and management. Initiatives under this theme include the development of the capacities at central, state and district level in shoreline planning, detailed planning, modeling, and design; and coordination and management of coastal infrastructure. The project will also support initiatives to increase the participation of the private sector and communities in the planning, design, financing, implementation and maintenance of coastal protection and management projects. The project implementation has been planned based on 3 project phases; each phase would form a separate loan tranche under the Multi Tranche Financing Facility. The first loan tranche referred to as Project 1 has been fully planned including the detailed designs and tender documents for the four sub projects. The planning second and third loan tranches are provisional with detailed planning programmed during project.

Rationale The coastal zone forms a key part of the economy in the three states. Rural poor communities as well as urban areas are affected by coastal erosion and issues relating to poor coastal management.

The National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) estimates that 50% of the total of 1,100 km of coastline in the three states is facing erosion to some degree. Many of the coastal protection strategies employed in the past have been ineffective. Sea level rise and increased number and intensities of storms will result in increased hazard of erosion. While coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon, it is in many cases initiated and/or exacerbated by human activities.

The coastline of the three states is increasingly subject to a wide range of economic developments; many of which create conflicts and


2

pressures on the increasingly disturbed natural coastal environments; erosion, sedimentation, water quality are a few of the issues. The proposals in the NCPP and subsequent projects implemented in the states are based almost entirely on the continued expansion and rehabilitation of rock protection works. The use of rock protection largely addresses the effects of erosion, but in many cases further contributes to the degradation of the beach and the social environment of the coastal zone.

The mandate for coastal erosion mitigation is typically entrusted to state level coastal divisions with limited technical, human-resource and financial capacities. Planning and design is assigned to National and State technical institutes. There is however in all areas very limited capacity and experience and exposure of modern and sustainable coastal protection and management practices. Coordination of coastal protection and management between the central, state and district are largely vertical with limited horizontal interactions between departments. Funding for protection, have declined, and have generally been inadequate to address even urgent coastal protection works. Furthermore, due to the shortage of funds as well as institutional constraints maintenance work is very rarely carried out.

The coastal zone does and will continue to offer many opportunities for economic development and for the improvement of the livelihood gaps of disadvantaged groups; it also requires initiatives to preserve the environment and address issues of shoreline degradation.

Whilst it is unlikely that the institutional system can be quickly changed there is a requirement to develop effective implementation arrangements that can work within the system. Although there is good scope to increase capacities within the Government there will however remain a significant requirement for private sector and community participation to fill the gaps in the Government capacities and resources. The long term sustainability of the erosion works in many cases requires local and stakeholder support for management and maintenance; beach stabilizing work involving the planting and management of the dunes is low capital cost protection measure but requires long term management inputs.

The project will effect significant changes in philosophy and approach to coastal protection and management; it will build up national capacities and ensure a well planned and programmed transition process from hard environmentally harmful protection works to a new approach of participative planning and integrated development of environmentally appropriate and sustainable solutions. In addition the project will ensure the planning and designs for the proposed investment program meet the highest standard of environmentally and socially appropriate solutions; the program will include major initiatives to ensure the maximum transfer of knowledge.

The project would support the development of a number of economic initiatives in the coastal zone; where appropriate private sector participation would be incorporated into the project strategies. All investment projects would be implemented based on participative planning, professional design using modern approaches.

Impact and Outcome The impact of the investment program is improved economic growth in the three States through well protected and managed shorelines for the benefit of all coastal communities. The project outcome is protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of stakeholders and the environment.

Project Investment Plan The investment cost of the project is estimated at $417.1 million including taxes and duties of $34.7 million.


3

Financing Plan

Source Total % Asian Development Bank 300.0 71.9 Government a 87.4 20.9 Private Sector/Beneficiaries 29.7 7.1 Total 417.1 100.0

Source: PPTA Estimate - see Appendix 4 and Supplementary Appendix I for details. Notes: a) Funding from State governments b) In addition, TA funding for $1.8 million is proposed to finance

Institutional Development and Change activities.

A loan of $ 58.37 million has been requested under the first PFR from ADB’s ordinary capital resources to cover part of the cost of Project 1. The ADB loan will have a term of 25 years, including a grace period of 8 years, with interest rate to be determined according to ADB’s LIBOR-based lending facility, a commitment charge of 0.15% per annum, and such other terms and conditions as agreed in the FFA, and the loan and project agreements.

Allocation and Relending Terms

The Government of India will provide the loan proceeds in local currency to the States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka under the same terms and conditions as received from ADB. The state Governments will bear the foreign exchange risks on the loan.

Period of Utilization Until 31 July 2018

Estimated Project Completion Date

31 March 2018

Implementation Arrangements

The responsibility to implement the project rests with the State Executing Agencies (SEA). Within each of the SEA a multidisciplinary project management unit (PMU) will be established to manage the overall investment program. Most of the programs will be outsourced to private sector consultants as well as private sector contractors. Management and maintenance will be implemented and managed through private sector or community service contracts. Funding for maintenance will require initiatives to source funding from beneficiaries including private sector enterprises. A separate parallel program to support the development of policy, coordination and training will be organized through the Central Water Commission in Delhi; a separate CWC PMU will be established. This activity would be funded by a TA grant.

Executing Agency The State Executing Agencies (SEA) will be the Maharashtra Maritime Board, Goa Water Resources Department and the Karnataka Public Works Departments. The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) through the Central Water Commission (CWC) will be the National Coordinating Agency (NCA) and will have the responsibility for the project to the National Government.


4

Procurement Goods and works for ADB-financed financed contracts will be procured in accordance with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (April 2007, as amended from time to time). Depending on the value, contracts for equipment and materials will be awarded through a combination of international competitive bidding, limited international bidding, national competitive bidding, direct contracting, and community participation. Foreign contractors may bid on contracts using national competitive bidding (NCB) procedures. A procurement plan covering goods, works and services, including the contract value, procurement method and the prequalification of bidders, was agreed with the Government at loan fact-finding.

Consulting Services The project loan will contract two consultancies; (i) Project Management and Design Consultants consisting of a total of 376 person-months (p-m) of which 115 p-m will be international and 261 p-m national consultants; (ii) Planning and Design Support Consultancies with a total of 313 p-m (28 p-m international) will be provided from year 2 to undertake the planning and detailed designs including the subprojects in Tranche 3. A third consultancy will be funded under the TA grant funding. This consultancy Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (73p-m national and 7p-m international) will support the development of policy, coordination, central training and institutional development.

Project Benefits and Beneficiaries

The principal benefits of the investment program will accrue from the protection of land, buildings, and public and private infrastructure against future loss and damage caused by erosion and storms. In a limited number of cases, where an eroded beach is restored, the program may restore incomes and livelihoods to households and businesses. The EIRRs for the four sub projects included in Project 1 range from 14.5% to 33.4%, reflecting a wide range of investment costs. The investment program will enhance the protection and management of the coastal zone and will introduce technologies and skills that are largely new to India and that will provide more environmentally and socially beneficial solutions to erosion issues than those that have hitherto been used. The direct beneficiaries of the investment program will primarily be households living along the coast in rural, urban and periurban areas, including fishing households, the owners, operators and employees of fishing boats, the owners and employees of fishing factories, port operators and all the services associated with ports, the owners and operators or hotels and other tourism related businesses and their employees. The project will have a direct impact on poverty reduction through coastal protection investments to be carried out in rural areas with significant segments of disadvantaged groups such as poor fishing communities, unemployed individuals and marginal groups. The main direct beneficiaries will more often be the owners of boats, factories, hotels and other businesses and government as the owner of important coastal infrastructure. In the four subprojects included in Project 1, direct and indirect beneficiaries exceed 330,000, but many of these will be impacted only slightly. In addition, many tourist businesses will benefit in the longer term from the implementation of the subprojects in Goa.

Risks and Assumptions The project involves some risks including implementation delays, pressure to develop inappropriate solutions, effective organizations to implement maintenance as well as sustainable sources of funding. There is also a need for some institutional changes to ensure the long term sustainability of some the project initiatives. Measures have been included in the project planning to minimize these risks.

Technical Assistance The project is directed at the long term sustainability of the coastline and protection of the coastal environment. Grant funding is presently being sourced from the Global Environment Fund or other appropriate funding source.


5

II. THE PROPOSAL

1. Report and recommendation on (i) a proposed loan to the Government of India, States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka for the Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project.

III. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

A. Performance Indicators and Analysis

2. National Context of the Economy. India has seen rapid economic growth since the end of the 1990s, and between 2003 and 2007 gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 7.5% or more in each year. In 2007 per capita income reached $950. However, many people remain poor and in 2005 27.5% of the population was still living below the poverty line. The growth of the economy has been associated with a declining relative role for the primary sector, which now only accounts for 18.3% of economic activity but still provides over half of all employment, and an increasing role for the tertiary sector, which now accounts for just over 60% of GDP. Between 2001 and 2008, growth in agriculture and related activities averaged only 2.9% per year, while in the tertiary sector average annual growth over the same period was 9.0%. There are wide regional variations in growth and productivity and the growth strategy of the 11th Five Year Plan therefore endorses a multi-pronged approach that focuses on infrastructure investment and social, agricultural and rural development in order to make the growth process more inclusive. The need to generate employment opportunities, improve public service delivery and maintain a balance between growth and the environment is also emphasized in the Plan. Measures to protect coastal areas that are important for tourism, fisheries and other activities are included within the overall objectives for infrastructure development.

3. The economies of the three states of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka have followed a similar growth pattern to that of the national economy, exhibiting rapid growth in recent years. All three states have seen a significant decline in the relative importance of the primary sector in recent years, with the most dramatic change occurring in Karnataka where this sector has declined from 29% to just under 20% of the state GDP between 2000 and 2007. In the other two states, the primary sector makes up only 14% of the respective economies. The tertiary sectors are by far the largest, making up 50% or more of the local economies. However, Goa has a much larger secondary sector than the other two states, at 38.6% of the economy in 2005/06, due to the relative importance of the mining sector. GDPs per capita in these states are above the national average and in 2005/06 were Rs 70,112 for Goa, Rs 37,081 for Maharashtra and Rs 27,101 for Karnataka. Goa has the second highest per capita income in the Union, after Chandigarh. Although GDP per capita is above the national average in Maharashtra, the proportion of its population below the poverty line, at 30.7%, is above the national average. The poverty rates for Goa and Karnataka are 4.4% and 25.0%, respectively.

4. Economic activities linked to the coast are significant for all three states. Marine fisheries are an important activity in all three states, at least for employment and incomes in coastal areas. In 2006/07, marine fish landings exceeded 460,000 tons in Maharashtra, 100,000 tons in Goa and in Karnataka were almost 170,000 tons. In Goa, the important tourism industry is strongly linked to its beaches and generates directly more than 10% of state GDP. In both Maharashtra and Karnataka, tourism is more strongly linked to historical, religious and other sites and does not currently have a strong connection to the coast.

B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities

5. Nature of Coastal Erosion. India has a coastline of some 7,500 km1. All the coastal states and Union Territories of India are to some extent affected by coastal erosion. About 1,500 km or 26% of the mainland coastline faces serious erosion problems and much of the coastline is actively retreating. Many of the coastal protection strategies employed have been ineffective in that coastal properties and investments remain threatened by erosion, particularly during the monsoon seasons. Furthermore, the extensive use of rock protection structures has contributed to the degradation the beach and the social environment of the coastal zone. Sea level rise in the Indian subcontinent is projected to be between 15 cm and 38 cm by the middle of the century. The rise in sea levels and the likely increased frequency and intensities of storms will all further exacerbate the erosion problem. The

1 This includes 5,425 km along the nine national coastal states of the mainland and 2,100 km of the four union

territories.


6

annual economic losses due to coastal erosion have been estimated to be of the order of 450 ha per year with a value of around $127 million; potentially the impact could extend to thousands of square kilometers and thousands of people every year. Costs of protection works and mitigation measures are therefore extremely high.

6. Effects of Human Activities. While coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon, the result of coastal processes and their interaction with land can be initiated and/or exacerbated by human activities. Along both the west and east coast of India, there are numerous examples where human activities have contributed to or caused coastal erosion. Typical causes of beach erosion include change in sediment supply through dredging, river damming and sand mining or the construction of littoral barriers such as groynes, jetties or ports. Beach scour can be caused by seawall construction and erosion rates are also affected by the loss of vegetation on the shoreline. Sediment traps such as dredged navigational channels and alteration to wave processes caused by jetties and ports also play a role. Urbanization of the coast has also exacerbated natural erosion into problems of growing intensity.

7. Financial Issues. Until 1991, the Government of India (GOI) had provided loan assistance to the coastal states to finance coastal protection works. This was discontinued after 1991-92 during the process of decentralization. Many states were confronted with other problems requiring funding which led to persistent large revenue deficits. As a result, many states could not allocate adequate funds for coastal protection works.

8. Constrained by limited funds, state government investment in coastal protection measures has declined, and funds have often been inadequate to address even urgent coastal protection works. Protection measures are typically taken up on an emergency basis, or in a bid to prevent impending disasters. When the problem is addressed at such an advanced stage, the range of possible mitigation options is limited to a few structural measures (such as sea walls and groynes). Most often, such measures are directed to fixing the immediate symptom rather than addressing the cause of the problem. Since they are treated as emergency measures, coastal protection works are not held up to strict standards of technical and economic viability or environmental and social impact. Due to the shortage of funds, maintenance work is very rarely carried out and consequently many protection works collapse within 3–10 years of construction.

9. National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP). The NCPP was an initiative by the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) in 1994 to formulate a national project on sustainable coastal protection by consolidation of state level proposals. The NCPP proposed plans for each state include 470 km of rock sea walls and about 10km of groynes (some with sand nourishment). No specific provision was made for soft protection measures, including bioshield as they were considered expensive or of limited application. The project however mentions in general terms some use of soft technologies including beach nourishment, submerged breakwaters, sand bypassing and vegetation; no specific sites were identified for these interventions. The estimated cost of the NCPP was about $430 million (2004 prices) with implementation scheduled over five years. Due to lack of funding most of the proposals in the NCPP have not been implemented.

10. Institutional Issues. The mandate for coastal erosion mitigation is typically entrusted to a coastal division, a part of a larger state department with a much broader and largely technical mandate. The technical and human-resource capacity of the coastal divisions is limited with minimal experience with modern and sustainable coastal protection and management measures. Coordination of various coastal protection initiatives, both at the central level as well as between central and state agencies is lacking; institutional processes are largely vertical with limited horizontal interactions between departments. Integrated coastal planning and management are largely unworkable within the present public service system. Whilst it is unlikely that the system can be quickly changed there is a requirement and enormous scope to develop effective implementation arrangements that can work within the current system. Integrated management and the use of soft solutions for coastal protection require effective local level community participation. The processes for these are presently very limited and new methodologies will have to be developed to meet these requirements. Maintenance is a key issue, a high level of local support for maintenance is required in some areas – e.g. beach stabilizing work incorporates a long term commitment to planting and management of the dunes. Development of protection works potentially open up a number of opportunities and it is proposed to identify where the communities and other stakeholders themselves could, with some initial support, help realize potential financial benefits. Support is required to identify and take up opportunities that can generate economic benefits for the communities as well as potential sources of revenue to support management and maintenance.


7

11. Change in Philosophy and Approach. The change to sustainable and soft engineering measures for protection needs to be supported by an effective institutional framework including the Government at different levels, communities and also the private sector. To achieve the necessary levels of support requires a shift in Government policy with a clear mandate for the concerned organizations.

12. A key technical issue is the diagnosis and identification of appropriate solutions for coastal protection works. The proposals in the National Coastal Protection Project plan and projects presently being implemented in the states are based almost entirely on the continued expansion and rehabilitation of rock protection works. This type of development is and will continue to have very serious environmental and social implications. There is a need to completely reshape the approach and philosophy to planning, design and implementation of coastal erosion works. Soft solutions for erosion control are now well developed and are already beginning to be implemented in India. The implementing agencies in the three states have shown a strong level of interest and commitment to change to soft technologies. There is need to help and guide a well planned and programmed transition process as well as ensure the planning and designs for the proposed investment program meet the highest standard of environmentally and socially appropriate solutions. There is also a need to identify and address the causes of erosion, frequently these are manmade and the most appropriate solution is to address the cause rather than the effect. This requires an integrated and coordinated approach to the planning and development of all coastal infrastructure and shoreline uses.

13. Integrated Coastal Protection and Management. Sophisticated technical methods to diagnose coastal issues, stakeholder participation and the use of soft technologies for erosion protection and environmental enhancement all provide significant opportunities for the effective management and development of the coastline. Coastal protection is integrally linked to coastal zone planning and development and a move from stand alone coastal protection to coastal protection and management is required. Coastal management, or more specifically, shoreline management should include; (i) protection of land and beaches from erosion; (ii) addressing the causes of erosion; (iii) natural protection using dunes or mangrove; (iv) other issues including water quality, navigation inlets, dredging reclamation, river and drain mouth training; (v) other investments to increase the economic or amenity value of the shoreline. Coastal management should include physical and non-physical activities.

14. Stakeholders. The number and diversity of stakeholders in the shoreline zone is very large and complex. Liaison and coordination of needs and activities is a major problem. The lack of coordinated and integrated stakeholder participation is a major area of concern. The list of stakeholders and an analysis of their interests is described in Supplementary Appendix C.

15. Situation in the Three States. The coastlines of the three states have significant erosion problems. The NCPP in 2001 identified that of the 1,100 km of coastline, about 530 km are prone to erosion and 330 km require protection. The NCPP proposal has been reviewed and updated and the current estimated costs of protection solutions for the three states are estimated to be about $250 million2.

16. Maharashtra. Maharashtra has a coastline of 720 km, of which about 320 km (about 44%) is subject to erosion. Coastal urban areas such as Mumbai have been severely affected by erosion, partly due to clearance of mangroves and associated vegetation along the shoreline and also due to construction of offshore and coastal infrastructure. Rural coastal districts such as Raigat and Palgrave have also been adversely affected by erosion. This has increased the vulnerability of resident coastal communities to natural disasters (such as cyclones) since their dwellings are along the fringes of the shoreline. The government of Maharashtra recognizes the need to address coastal protection in a more systematic manner. The state is interested in identifying alternative coastal protection methods that are compatible with the coastal activities and the environments that are to be protected, particularly innovative coastal protection interventions that can be structured into financially viable projects, especially through public–private partnerships. Water quality is also a major issue around the Mumbai urban area.

2 Based on updated data 2008 from Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra, the requirements are summarized in

Appendix 10.


8

17. Goa. The coast of Goa is 105 km long and is typically characterized by wide pristine beaches, sand dunes, and cliffs. The coastal region of Goa has been subject to high development pressure, especially for tourism. Poor land-use planning and ineffective enforcement of regulations have resulted in encroachment into ecologically sensitive areas such as sand dunes and wetlands. Partly as a consequence of this, Goa is now facing beach erosion in localized areas. At present the extent of erosion is around 40 km; however, the beach is of prime importance from a tourism perspective and pre-emptive actions to reduce potential for future erosion are proposed. A significant percentage of the state’s economy and labor force depends on tourism. Construction of sea walls would clearly negate the tourism potential of these beaches and a fundamental requirement is to develop environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable measures for the protection against erosion together with effective beach management.

18. Karnataka. The Karnataka coastline is 300 km long, and about 250 km (89%) is reportedly affected by erosion to some degree. The most severely affected areas are Ullal, Honnavar, Bhatkal, Kundapur, Bengre, Mulki, Bhavikeri, and Tannirbavi. Coastal protection received some prominence in the state after the Asian tsunami of December 2004. The government of Karnataka has a master plan for coastal erosion management upon which it based its proposal for inclusion in the NCPP. The Karnataka coastline includes several stretches of wide beaches which could be developed into tourism or residential areas. The state wishes to address coastal protection in such areas in a more systematic manner and adopt long-term measures with an emphasis on soft structures or non-structural interventions wherever possible.

19. 11th Five Year National Plan describes a range of interventions relating to coastal protection and management. The key theme in the plan is the integration of environmental concerns into policy, planning and development activities. The plan also addresses the need to address the impacts of sea level rise particularly for coastal agriculture as well as management of sea water ingress into coastal areas. A national action plan for climate change is being developed as well as independent statutory body for sustainable development and coastal zone management as proposed in the Swaminathan report. The plan stresses the importance of the participation of fishing communities in coastal zone planning and management. Coastal shipping is identified as a lifeline for the coastal communities and is presently hampered by inadequate ports. A major expansion of ports is proposed, with financing based largely on partnerships with the private sector (PPP). Tourism forms a key part of the national economy with coastal tourism identified as a key industry including in Goa and northern Karnataka.

20. ADB’s draft Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) program for India identifies environmental sustainability as a key theme. The strategy envisages the development of infrastructure to help to lead to opportunities for poverty alleviation, it also identifies support areas to address infrastructure funding shortages to support growth and ensure that growth is environmentally sustainable; the strategy also identifies the need to mainstream environmental and gender issues. Given the challenges facing India and the world at large from climate change and degradation of the environment, the environmental focus of the assistance program has been enhanced significantly to cover both climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects; proposed operations cover a number of areas including coastal protection and management. The CPS supports the use of innovative business and financing modalities (e.g., PPP, and greater co-financing). The 11th Five-Year plan aims to mobilize 30% financing from the private sector. ADB will therefore, continue to support the Government’s efforts towards promoting public-private partnership in infrastructure development. It has been providing TA support3 for building capacity for designing and appraising PPP projects in state governments and central line Ministries. Going forward, such assistance would be enhanced since it helps to leverage ADB’s resources. In order to make a tangible and measurable impact in a vast and diverse country such as India, ADB will also actively seek to supplement its own resources through official and commercial co-financing (i.e. non-sovereign operations). ADB would also focus on strengthening governance and financial sector development. Assessments of previous programs demonstrate the advantages of the Multitranche Financing Facility and the impacts on project preparedness and the benefits of a long term partnership.

21. Multitranche Financing Facility. ADB’s MFF allows programmed assistance by aligning the provision of finance with project readiness and the long term needs of the three states. The MFF facilitates long term partnerships and opportunities for constructive dialogue on physical investments as well as non physical (thematic and sector investments). The MFF can be used to finance sectors, service, industries and thematic areas. The MFF can finance multiple projects under an investment

3 ADB India TA4890 Mainstreaming Public Private Partnerships at State Level


9

program in a sector or in several sectors. The MFF can also finance slices of long term contract packages. The loan is split into tranches, which may overlap; the financing terms and conditions can differ between tranches. For the first tranche all the sub-projects should be generally identified, appraised and ready for implementation when the MFF is submitted to the board of directors. The sub-projects for tranche 2 and 3 would be identified and designed during the previous tranche.

22. External Assistance. There has been very limited external assistance for coastal protection and management in India. Nearly all investment funding has been from state, central government and some private sector work. Extensive training and support from UNDP was given to the CWPRS in the 1990’s, the training was however quite specialized and focused on traditional engineering solutions. The lack of external assistance has resulted in a lack of exposure to new ideas and practices.

23. A World Bank project to assist the Ministry of Environment and Forest to implement the new notification is currently under preparation. The project will be involved in various initiatives including the implementation of the recommendations of the Swaminathan4 report and also to institute proactive management in the coastal zone. These include: (i) vulnerability and ecological mapping, (ii) national institutional building and capacity strengthening, and (iii) development and implementation of state level approaches to Integrated Coastal zone Management. These state projects will be implemented in Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal. The proposed ADB project focuses on the protection and management of the shoreline, which forms one part of coastal zone; the outputs of the shoreline plans and interventions will form a key input to the wider integrated coastal zone management. Close liaison between the two projects administrations is vital, both at the State as well as the National levels to ensure maximum cooperation and commonality of direction.

24. Lessons Learned. In India coastal protection has focused primarily on rock protection to address the effects of erosion and not the causes. Large stretches of beach have been lost as a direct result of the protection works. Sand beaches are a fundamental resource and their loss has enormous economic, social and environmental costs. The beaches are required by fishermen and the communities. They have enormous potential for tourism and represent some the most valuable natural resources of India. Much of the erosion has resulted from poorly planned and designed coastal infrastructure. Harbors and other shoreline infrastructure can block the natural coastal dynamics causing problems of siltation and erosion. The resulting misbalance of the natural systems from the infrastructure frequently requires further investments to protect the effects of erosion and also high cost dredging operations. Reduced sediment from the rivers due to dams and sand mining is also a cause of coastal instabilities.

25. Worldwide there is now an understanding that the traditional methods of shoreline protection using hard engineering structures such as groins, seawalls and breakwaters cannot be supported as long term strategies. In Europe and elsewhere there many examples of replacement or modification of hard rock protection with softer options such as beach nourishments, dune management or submerged structures below MSL. In Italy, the beaches protected with seawalls, detached breakwaters and groins are modifying the coastal landscape, creating downdrift erosion, preventing a full recreational use of the beach and having high maintenance costs. However, during the last decades more soft shore protections were adopted in Italy: submerged breakwaters, submerged groins, permeable groins, artificial shoals, geotextile bags and tubes, beach draining, and beach nourishments. This transition to softer solutions in India is also developing, the transition is not easy and requires a heavy investment in planning and design to understand the processes and develop the correct solutions. The use of geotextiles opens many new opportunities, however the design and specifications must be to the highest quality and standard. In West Bengal poor design and inadequately specified geotextiles failed and had to be removed; this experience has damaged the reputation of geotextiles within shoreline management schemes. Coastlines in Europe USA and elsewhere are now facing immense challenges to rectify the damage caused by inappropriate protection solutions and poorly designed shoreline infrastructure; it is important that India should not follow this path. For the three states the beaches, despite some erosion problems, are still largely unspoiled and have not yet suffered very significant damage from rock protection works, introduction

4 In 2004 Professor M.S Swaminathan carried out a comprehensive review of the coastal regulation zone. The

proposed new Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Notification expected to come into force based on the recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee Report, provides an expanded definition of the ‘coastal zone’ and proposes to take into account the vulnerability of the coast to natural hazards and establish set back lines for the coastal areas.


10

of soft solutions under the project for protection will allow these beaches to be environmentally and sustainably managed.

26. A radical change to the design philosophy is required. Planning and design studies must include comprehensive studies to identify the causes and extent of the erosion. Appropriate designs are required to address the root causes of erosion and to accommodate coastal processes in the solution rather than simply trying to mitigate the effect. There is an urgent need for coastal erosion management to move away from the present piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive and pro-active one based on planning, good practice and accountability of achievements, with long-term cost-minimization goals and economic benefits. Planning is presently centralized with limited or no stakeholder or community interactions projects therefore do not fully address local issues or incorporate the requirements of the communities.

27. There is a general awareness of the impacts of hard structures. Rock wall comes easily and soft solutions are largely untried and the technologies are not well understood. The continued use of hard technologies for coastal protection is being questioned by decision makers and there is now a widespread interest and realization of a need to change to softer solutions. The move to softer solutions although an easy and acceptable solution in principle, in practice requires significant behavioral changes by all those involved. The present institutional structure is unable to provide for these and proper support mechanisms have to be established.

28. Institutional development is a key requirement; capacities within departments are low and there are very limited interactions between one sector and another. Institutional development under previous ADB and other multilateral and bilateral funded projects have had mixed success. Institutional development must be supported within the government institutions and it is considered that there is a requirement to establish specific dedicated units within the National and State Governments to oversee and drive the change process.

IV. THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. Impact and Outcome

29. The impact of the investment program is improved economic growth in the three States through well protected and managed shorelines for the benefit of all coastal communities. The project outcome is protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of stakeholders and the environment

B. Outputs

30. The project is designed to have a relatively simple structure, with one impact statement, one outcome statement, and three outputs which to the extent possible correspond with the needs identified by the Implementing Agencies and stakeholders. The proposed structure is shown in Figure 1 below.


11

Figure 1: Proposed Project Impact, Outcome and Outputs

1. Overview

31. Sustainable and Appropriate Planning and Design is directed at the preparation of long term sustainable development plans and management of the shoreline. These would include preparation of strategies, participatory shoreline planning, project selection, detailed feasibility studies and designs for subprojects.

32. Investments for Coastal Protection and Management includes physical as well as non physical investments to meet the specific needs of coastal protection and management. Whilst most of the investments will be directed at physical infrastructure, some funding will be made available for investments to support community and economic development initiatives.

33. Effective Institutions The effective planning and sustainability of the proposed investments requires effective management institutions. Requirements include professional capacity for planning, design and management. There is a need to strengthen the government as well as private sector organizations. A formalized and agreed policy document for shoreline protection and management will be implemented under this component supported by the proposed Technical Assistance.

2. Component 1: Planning and Design

34. This component will be in three parts:

(i) Coastal Management Information Systems (MIS) will be developed and established within each of the State Executing Agencies and also within the CWC. The databases will source information from National and State level institutions and other specialized agencies including MoEF. It will establish effective mechanisms for sharing information with the various state and district level coastal agencies and stakeholders. The maintenance of the MIS will be a key responsibility of the new Coastal Infrastructure Management Units (CIMU) to be established within each of the State Executing Agencies. Through the CWC the MIS would be harmonized with the World Bank/MoEF coastal zone management project which includes institution building and MIS components.

(ii) Shoreline Management Plans will be prepared to meet the long term needs for shoreline management. It is proposed to produce participatory and integrated

Impact – Improved economic growth in the three States through well protected and managed shorelines for the benefit of all coastal communities.

Outcome -- Protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of stakeholders and the environment

Component 1: Sustainable and appropriate plans and designs.

Component 2:Project Investments for Coastal Protection and Management

Three Outputs

Component 3: Effective Institutions and Project Management


12

shoreline management plans for the whole coastline of the three states. The total length of coastline for the three states is about 1,100 km, including the estuaries the total length might be increased by about 20%. Shoreline plans will be prepared for each district and will address key issues of the coastal processes, shoreline land use and present proposals for the long term sustainable management and protection of the shoreline. The plans would also identify potential economic development opportunities in the coastal areas. The plans will be non statutory and prepared in close liaison with the District authorities (Zilla Parishads / Zilla Panchayaths, Municipal Councils and the District Planning Councils). The shoreline management plans will be prepared by a multi-disciplinary team of coastal management specialists as part of the project management and design consultancy. The shoreline planning will be implemented over three years; the areas of coast where erosion or other problems have been identified will be taken up for priority planning. A key output of the process for shoreline management planning is to develop the planning capacities at the district level as well as the capacities of National Consultants to undertake this work.

(iii) Planning and Design of Projects for implementation will be selected based on the outputs of the shoreline management planning process. Selected projects will be formulated and submitted for preliminary selection and assessment. Feasibility studies including numerical modeling as required will be carried out for all projects to assess their technical and economic viability as well as their social and environmental impacts. Detailed designs will be prepared for projects selected for implementation. Appropriate and viable projects will be presented for funding under Tranches 2 and 3.

35. Selection Criteria. All subprojects to be included under the Investment Program will have to meet the selection criteria namely (i) erosion status; (ii) technical, social, institutional, and economic feasibility; (iii) insignificant social and environmental impacts; (iv) compliance with safeguards requirements; (v) endorsement by stakeholders and including agreements to support the project; (vi) state priority; and (vii) proposal clearance by the Government as applicable.

3. Component 2: Investments for Coastal Protection and Management

36. Component 2 is divided into two sub components: (i) Component 2.1 Physical Investments in Infrastructure and (ii) Component 2.2 Community and Economic Support Initiatives.

37. Sub-Component 2.1 - Physical Investment in Infrastructure: This sub-component will include a range of investments to meet specific needs. The scope of the investment will focus on coastal protection but will also support the physical investments to support the wider area of coastal management. Five areas of potential investment have been identified.

(i) Investments for coastal protection to address the immediate coastal erosion needs through the implementation of economically viable protection works using environmentally and socially appropriate solutions.

(ii) Investments to address the causes of coastal erosion or coastal instability. Investments will be directed mainly at other coastal infrastructure that is presently causing, or potentially cause damage to the natural coastal processes. Key areas of intervention include navigation inlets and training of river and drain mouths.

(iii) Investments to provide natural protection through development and planting of dunes, planting of mangrove or other trees for protection or shelter.

(iv) Other investments to support coastal management including water quality, dredging, reclamation etc.

(v) Physical Investments to increase the economic value or amenity value of the coast and shoreline.

38. Sub-Component 2.2 - Community and Economic Support Initiatives: This sub-component will develop a mix of non structural and low cost structural activities and initiatives to support the development and management of the shoreline together with programs to add value to the shoreline through Government, private sector, and community participation. Funding for this activity has been provided in Tranche 1 within the budgets for each of the sub projects. The coastal zone offers many opportunities for economic development and for improvement of the livelihood base of disadvantaged groups such as poor fishing households and communities in the coastal zone; it also requires initiatives to preserve the environment, address issues of degradation and to provide for long term


13

maintenance. The sustainability and economic viability of coastal protection and management investments are closely linked with the development of the economic value of the shoreline; the value or perceived value of the shoreline is integral with the level of interest and the capacity of the stakeholders to support its management. The Government has a key role to play; however under the present institutional, administrative and financing structure it is clear the Government alone lacks the capacity and flexibility to provide the very wide spectrum of support requirements. The participation of the communities, including those in disadvantaged rural areas, stakeholders and the private sector therefore becomes a key element in shoreline management. This sub-component is envisaged to develop sustainable initiatives to engage the community and the private sector in the development and management of the shoreline. Support initiatives under sub-component 2.2 will include:

(i) Initiatives to Support Community Development. The use of soft technologies provides land protection as well as improved and expanded beaches. Both of these have the potential to improve the livelihoods of the shoreline communities. The protection will allow scope for investment of the landside and the expanded shore opens up a number of opportunities including tourism, fishing boat landing, shore fishing, fish processing, etc. There has been interest shown at the sub-project sites in developing community tourism, fish processing, local trading, etc. This component is designed to support communities to promote income generation and improved livelihoods, particularly for poor rural communities; possible areas include finance for small and micro enterprises, minor infrastructure to help improve the value of the shoreline (access, roads, lights etc), and development of a CEPA (communication, education, participation and awareness) programs. Although t there will not be any displacement of people or persons negatively affected by the sub projects; there are however a number of marginal groups including womenc residing or working in the vicinity of the sub project sites. Appropriate and viable community development initiatives will be targeted towards these groups to enable them to enjoy the benefits from the coastal protection and management investments. Employment opportunities will also be created as part of the project maintenance activities, and with proper training individuals from poor communities can entry into formal employment through these activities. Where appropriate some part of the income generation proceeds could be used for funding support for shoreline maintenance

(ii) Initiatives to Support the Economic Development in the Coastal Zone. The potential of the shorelines for tourism or other economic development is considered to be significant, and in many parts still largely unrealized. Meetings with stakeholders indicate that there are high expectations for the economic development of the shorelines. There are however many constraints but the potential economic returns from promotion of the shorelines on a state or regional scale is considered to be significant.5 There is a large interest by real estate and other investors in the shoreline and beach areas. This needs to be encouraged but it should be well managed and incorporate the needs of the environment and social issues. This component is intended to bridge the gap between the coastal development requirements and opportunities and the identification of effective areas for partnership and where appropriate promote the involvement of the private sector. It is anticipated that the role of the private sector will come in gradually; the type and level of the private sector role will be quite varied and may range from large capital investments for protection works to smaller periodic financial or contributions in kind for maintenance or maintenance service agreements. The outputs of this component might include promotion and creation of awareness of private sector opportunities, creation of clearly defined procedures for private investors, preparation of contracts and legal agreements to protect both parties, financial support for set up costs including support for feasibility studies, market studies, modeling studies, environmental assessments, planning and design, landscape designs etc. This component would operate in close liaison with PPP nodal cells in each of the states and the ongoing ADB PPP support program.

5 One major logistical constraint is transportation to the beach sites. Transport to Goa is well served by air links

but all other sites rely on land transport. The most convenient and low cost transportation option is the Konkan Railway route constructed in 1995. The capacity of the route is however severely constrained and the availability of seats is limited, particularly over the holiday periods. Increasing the capacity of the trains in the Konkan Railway route could be of major benefit for expansion of the tourism sector. There is also potential to develop coastal transport and tourism utilizing the private ports in all the three States.


14

4. Component 3: Effective Institutions and Project Management

39. This component will develop the institutional arrangements required to support the immediate project needs as well as the long-term institutional requirements for integrated shoreline planning and management. The proposed initiatives for planning, design and sustainability will not work without effective management institutions. The outputs of this component will include:

(i) Development of effective capacity at the district and state level to prepare and implement participatory shoreline management plans together with mechanisms to prioritize the investments and to effectively implement the plans.

(ii) Development of capacity through private sector and Government Institutes for detailed planning and design of projects including specialist skills in numerical modeling, and design of soft engineering protection measures.

(iii) Establishment of effective and professional control capacities at state level to evaluate coastal infrastructure projects including engineering planning and design, environmental and social assessments.

(iv) Establishment of capacities and mechanisms to develop an effective and sustainable coastal management information systems including free sourcing and sharing of data with MoWR and MoEF as well as the various state and district level agencies.

(v) Establishment of an effective organizational mechanisms to finance, manage and maintain the completed coastal protection investments including the sub-projects.

(vi) Increasing the mandates of the Central Water Commission and the State Executing Agencies as the lead agency for coordination of all coastal infrastructure programs. Establishment of a coastal infrastructure unit (CIMU) within the SEA to support the coordination of all coastal infrastructure programs.

(vii) Establishment of programs for capacity building on institutional functioning, participatory planning, sustainable environmental management, social assessment, public-private partnerships for service delivery involving coastal and shoreline assets.

(viii) Preparation of an agreed policy for Shoreline Protection and Management. The policy document would draw together the wide range of technical and institutional proposals developed under the project into a comprehensive policy document that would form the basis of long term shoreline protection and management.

40. Component 3 will be implemented as two parallel but integrated parts:

(i) At the State level through the State Executing Agencies; the focus will be the strengthening and training for the State, District, Panchayats and communities. This part will be supported by the Project Management and Design Consultancy (PMDC).

(ii) At the National level through the Central Water Commission (CWC) and will focus on senior level management training on strategies and policy and other major issues. The component will also involve representatives from the other maritime states and the Union Territories. The component will be supported by the Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (IDMC). At the national level the activities would be funded by the TA grant.

C. Special Features

41. Opportunities. The project will develop effective delivery of effective protection and management the shoreline through a balance of appropriate soft technologies supported by development of strategies, professional technical planning and wide spectrum stakeholder participation. A move from centrally planned technical solutions is proposed together with the creation of opportunities for the wider stakeholders including the private sector. The project will incorporate:

(i) Long-term planning of shoreline protection and management with effective participation of key stakeholders and based on systematic shoreline planning, monitoring and performance evaluation.

(ii) Introduction of new socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable technologies and procedures for structural and non-structural interventions.

(iii) Increased participation of the private sector including accessing financial support where appropriate for capital as well as operation and maintenance expenditures.

(iv) Sustainable management, operation and maintenance by efficient institutions, and public-private and public-community partnerships


15

(v) Preparation of an overall strategy for integrated coastal protection and management, including the development of the relevant policy and institutional frameworks;

42. The timing of the project is appropriate; the beaches despite some damage from infrastructure and rock protection works remain largely unspoiled. This opens the way for soft technologies that can provide protection and maintain the environmental integrity. Releasing the threat of erosion and potential environmental damage from hard protection measures allows an opportunity to open of the way forward to effectively realize the significant economic potential of the coastal areas.

43. Linkages with National Coastal Management Project and CZM Notification. The project is designed to be fully complementary with the MoEF and World Bank supported National Coastal Management project; the two programs are working in different areas of a common theme. The outputs of the Coastal Protection and Management Project with focus on shoreline planning and management is designed to smoothly link in as a sub component of the broader aspects of coastal zone management and planning. The approval of the new Coastal Zone Management Notification is still pending. The proposed project is fully compliant with both the existing as well as the proposed notification.

D. Project Investment Plan

44. The project investment cost is estimated at $417.3 million (Table 1) including taxes and duties of $ 34.7 million.

Table 1: Project Investment Plan

($ million)

Item Total

A. Base Costa 1. Planning and Design 7.28 2. Coastal Protection and Management Investments 319.63 3 Effective Institutions and Management 16.73 Subtotal (A) 343.64 B. Contingenciesb 42.94 C. Interest During Implementationc 29.34 D. Commitment charge 1.35 Total (A+B+C+D) 417.27

Notes: a) Base costs in mid 2008 prices b) Includes price contingencies and physical contingencies at 10% of base costs on civil

works, materials, supplies and equipment. c) Interest during implementation at the LIBOR 5 year US$ swap rate for 09 March 2009

plus a margin of 0.2%.

E. Financing Plan

45. To finance the project the Government has requested financing up to $300 million through ADB’s ordinary capital resources through the MFF in accordance with ADB’s Mainstreaming the Multitranche Financing Facility6. The MFF may extend three (or more if needed) loans to implement the Investment Program, subject to the submission of the related periodic funding request (PFR) by the Government and the signing of the related loan agreements. The Government has confirmed its intention to enter into a framework financing agreement (FFA) with ADB in the form attached, which satisfies the requirements set forth in the said policy All of the provisions of the ordinary loan regulations applicable to the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR)-based lending facility made from ADB’s ordinary capital resources, dated 1 July 2001, would apply to each loan, subject to any 6 ADB 2008 Mainstreaming the Multitranche Financing Facility Manila


16

modifications that may be included under individual loan agreements.. The specific terms of each loan will be based on the related PFR, with interest to be determined according to ADB’s LIBOR-based lending facility. The Government may choose a currency (from among several eligible currencies) and interest rate regime for each loan.

46. The financing plan is in Table 2. Detailed cost estimates and a financing plan are shown in Appendix 4.

Table 2: Financing Plan ($ million)

Source Total % Asian Development Bank 300.0 71.9 Government a 87.4 20.9 Private Sector/Beneficiaries 29.7 7.1 Total 417.1 100.0

Source: PPTA Estimate - see Appendix 4 and Supplementary Appendix I for details. Notes: a) Funding from State governments b) In addition, TA funding for $1.8 million is proposed for financing Institutional Development and Change activities. 47. Project 1. The amount for the first Periodic Financing Request is estimated to cost the equivalent of $76.60 million (Table 3). This includes taxes and duties of $4.41 million equivalent. It will cover the infrastructure costs of four medium coastal protection and management schemes appraised prior to the submission of the PFR. The project will also cover non structural measures for coastal protection, training and support for the introduction of new technologies, support for local communities and consulting services. A loan of $ 58.37 million has been requested under the first PFR from ADB’s ordinary capital resources to cover part of the cost of Project 1. The ADB loan will have a term of 25 years, including a grace period of 8 years, with interest rate to be determined according to ADB’s LIBOR-based lending facility, a commitment charge of 0.15% per annum, and such other terms and conditions as agreed in the FFA, and the loan and project agreements. No private sector investment is proposed for Tranche 1, O&M costs will however be sourced from the beneficiary stakeholders. Detailed cost estimates and a financing plan for Project 1 are also shown in Appendix 4.

Table 3: Cost Estimates and Financing Plan for Project 1

($ million)

Project Components b ADB Govt. a Benefic-iaries Total

Planning and Design 2.88 0.17 - 3.04 Coastal Protection and Management Investments 51.90 3.81 0.16 55.88 Effective Institutions and Project Management 3.59 3.80 - 7.40 Financing charges c 10.28 - 10.28 Total 58.37 18.07 0.16 76.60

Notes: a) Contributions of State governments – see Appendix 4 for details b) Costs including contingencies c) Interest during implementation of $10.3 million and commitment charges of $0.03 million. F. Implementation Arrangements

1. Project Management

48. The State Executing Agencies (SEA) will form the Executing Agencies (EA’s) responsible for the overall implementation of the Project; these are the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB); Goa


17

Department of Water Resources and Karnataka Ports and Inland Waterways7. For each state a State Working Group will be established based on present working group established for the PPTA8. The working group will advise on policy, and interdepartmental coordination. The working group would be used to help institutionalize effective mechanisms to plan, improve and manage coastal management initiatives, the working group would meet twice annually.

49. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established in each of the SEA as well as a PMU within the CWC, the PMU will be managed by a full-time program director. The PMU will have a multidisciplinary structure comprising staff from the EA and associated line departments and some directly recruited individual consultants. The PMU will be assisted by the Project Management and Design Consultants (PMDC) for institutional strengthening and project management. The organization structure is described in Appendix 6.

50. The PMU will support the implementation of the various project activities and will be required to (i) prepare an overall implementation plan and annual project budget; (ii) coordinate with other departments; (iii) guide the shoreline management planning, sub project selection, feasibility studies and design, endorse subproject appraisal reports including the necessary safeguards; (iv) monitor project progress and evaluate project benefits and social and environmental impacts; (v) arrange necessary training programs for staff and other providers; (viii) manage procurement, consulting and NGO services, and loan disbursement; (vi) maintain financial accounts; and (vii) prepare periodic implementation progress reports.

51. Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) will be established at each project site. The SMO will consist of locally based community stakeholders and beneficiaries who help support the coordination and monitoring of the project during the implementation and would take on the responsibility for the management and maintenance of the projects after the completion of the capital works. The SMO will be established early in the project prior to award of any contracts; the SMO will require project support and resources to ensure they effectively represent the shoreline stakeholders and have capacities to take on their full management responsibilities.

2. Implementation Period

52. The Project will be implemented over an eight year period from January 2010 to June 2017, with funds utilized up to December 2017. The implementation is proposed to be funded under three or more tranches. Project 1 funded under Tranche 1 will run for five years and will comprise of 4 medium sized protection and management schemes designed during the PPTA, procurement of equipment and financing of consultants. Tranches 2 and 3 will implement schemes identified and designed under Project 1. The support for institutional development will continue over the entire period. The Implementation schedule is presented in Appendix 10.

3. Procurement

53. Procurement to be financed from the ADB loans under the MFF will be carried out in accordance with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2007, as amended from time to time). International competitive bidding (ICB) or Limited International Bidding (LIB) will be followed for civil work contracts costing $10 million or more. Civil works contracts costing less than $10 million will be procured through national competitive bidding (NCB) procedures acceptable to ADB. Some contract packages such as the construction of offshore reefs will be procured through ICB/LIB even though their cost is less than $10 million since there is limited experience or capability within India for this type of construction. ADB standard bidding documents with post-qualification under the two-envelope system will be adopted. In addition, small service contracts or community works costing less than $10,000 each may be directly contracted since the works are non competitive in nature, i.e. dune grassing, tree plantation etc. In procuring goods and related services, ICB/LIB procedures will be used if the estimated cost is at least $1 million and NCB procedures if the cost is between $0.1 million and $1 million, and shopping if the estimated contract amount is less than $0.1 million. The detailed procurement plan for Project 1 is shown in Appendix 11. 7 The Karnataka Ports and Inland Waterways Department will shortly form a board which will give them more

autonomy (the draft act has been approved). 8 The proposed composition of the State Working Groups would include: State Executing Agencies, Planning

and Finance, State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMA), Environment and Forests, Fisheries, Ports and Harbours, State Pollution Control Board, Tourism, Urban Development, Panchayat and/or rural development, NGO, representatives from the private sector.


18

54. The PMU will monitor and report on the implementation of the Procurement Plan and will organize the procurement activities. Measures to strengthen the capacity of the PMU and SEA staff in undertaking procurement activities will be implemented including training on procurement and other aspects of project implementation. PMU staff will also be nominated to attend ADB-sponsored course and seminars on procurement and project implementation prior to Loan effectiveness.

55. Advance Contracting and Retroactive Financing. This is allowable subject to approval by the ADB board provided that the total eligible expenditure under such financing will not exceed an amount equivalent to 20% of the individual loans, and must have been incurred not more than 12 months before the signing of the relevant legal agreements. The Government has been informed that the approval of advance action and retroactive financing does not commit ADB to finance the relevant projects under the Investment Program.

4. Consulting Services

56. The project will finance two consulting packages Package A and Package B with a total of 1,039 person-months (p-m) of consultancy; further information is given in Appendix 14

57. Package A: Project Management and Design Consultants (PMDC). A total of 726 p-m (115 p-m international and 611 p-m national). The first contract will run for three years with a second contract for five years. The PMDC will be responsible for the direct planning and design of sub projects during Years 1-3 after which time the focus will move to supervision of planning and design from years 4 onwards. The Package A consultants’ budget will include the state level training budget as a provisional sum. This consultancy will support the activities of components 1, 2 and 3.

58. Package B: Planning and Design Support Consultants (PDSC). A total of 313 p-m (284 p-m national and 29 p-m international support consultants). This package will be implemented through national consultancy companies or organizations working with international support staff. The final composition of the consulting team and packaging will be defined based on the type of sub projects selected. This consultancy will primarily support component 1 (planning and design) but would also provide some inputs to component 2 (supervision of projects).

59. Budget has been provided for each of the State Project Management Units to contract support consultancies or services from state and national institutes. These will include project environmental monitoring and assessments, support for surveys and design etc. Procurement of these packages will follow the Government of India requirements. The State Level PMU will be responsible for the recruitment of the PMDC and PDSC consultants.. A number of small training contracts will be awarded to individual trainers or organizations for these it is proposed to use CQS/LQS depending on the thresholds of the training. All the consultants, NGO’s and other institutions and resource persons will be hired following the ADB’s Guidelines for the Use of Consultants (2007, as amended from time to time).

60. Consultancy Supported by the Technical Assistance: An additional consultancy package will be supported through the Technical Assistance. This consultancy will work with the Central Water Commission to support institutional development and also to coordinate policy, coordination and centralized training for the loan states. Some training and institutional development will be provided for the other maritime states and union territories. The consultancy Package C: Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (IDCMC) will include a total of 80 p-m (73 p-m national and 7 p-m international support consultants). Package C budget will include the central level training activities as a provisional sum. The IDCMC consultants will be recruited by PMU at the Central Water Commission.

5. Anticorruption Policy

61. ADB’s Anticorruption Policy was explained to and discussed with the Government and the Implementing Agencies. Consistent with its commitment to good governance, accountability, and transparency, ADB reserves the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices relating to the Project. To support these efforts, relevant provisions of ADB’s Anticorruption Policy are included in the loan regulations and the bidding documents for the Project. In particular, all contracts financed by ADB and any grant funding in connection with the Project will include provisions specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of the IAs and all contractors, suppliers, consultants and other service providers as they relate to the Project. The Project design and implementation arrangements provide for


19

mitigating corruption risks. Risks associated with project management, including procurement and disbursement, will be mitigated by (i) engaging an international consultant and a national consultant to advise and assist in the procurement of goods and services, and the engagement of other consultants; (ii) introducing a dual signing system in which the civil works contractor awarded the contract will also sign an anticorruption contract with the employer; and (iii) periodical inspection by the PMU of the contractor’s activities related to fund withdrawals and settlements.

6. Disbursement Arrangements

62. The proceeds of the loan will be disbursed in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook, as amended from time to time.9 Because many of the payments will be made for large contracts, direct payment, reimbursement, and commitment procedures will be used to withdraw funds from the loan account. To expedite the flow of funds and simplify document processing, the Statement of Expenditure procedure may be used to reimburse eligible expenditures for any individual payment not exceeding $100,000. The payments exceeding Statement of Expenditure ceiling will be reimbursed based on full documentation process. Before disbursement, the Government shall have certified to ADB that the on lending agreement, which shall include the terms and conditions required under the loan agreement, shall have been duly effective and binding upon the parties thereto in accordance with its terms. The proposed grant funds will be channeled through ADB. To expedite the disbursement of the loan and the possible grant funding proceeds, the Government will set up two imprest accounts, one for the loan proceeds and the other for the proposed grant, in a commercial bank acceptable to ADB. Disbursements from the imprest accounts will be supported by an appropriate withdrawal application and related documentation. The initial amounts to be deposited in each imprest account shall not exceed the estimated expenditures for the next six months or 10%, respectively, of the loan amount and the proposed grant, whichever is the lower. Each sub-borrower will open a second generation imprest account. It will be a condition of disbursement of the loan proceeds and any grant funding that (i) the on-lending agreement for the relevant activity has been entered into between the Government and the sub-borrowers, and (ii) such on-lending agreements contain the same financial terms and conditions as required in the loan agreement.

63. The PMU requires additional capacity and experience to efficiently deal with the operation and withdrawal procedures necessary for the operation of the imprest accounts. Accordingly, assistance and training will be provided so that PMU staff and the IA staff can expedite loan and the possible grant disbursements. An assessment of the financial management capability of the implementing agencies and specific arrangements for managing the project funds are provided in Supplementary Appendix K..

7. Accounting, Auditing and Reporting

64. All agencies involved in project implementation will maintain records and accounts that identify goods and services from loan proceeds and the grant funding, financing resources received, expenditures incurred and use of local funds. These accounts will be established and maintained in accordance with sound accounting principles and internationally accepted accounting standards. The PMU will review and consolidate these accounts and have them audited annually in accordance with sound accounting practices by the sovereign audit agency of the Government or other auditors acceptable to ADB. The audit report will include a statement verifying whether or not the funds disbursed by ADB were used for the purposes for which they were provided, as well as the auditor’s opinion on the use of the imprest account and statement of expenditures procedures. Copies of the audited accounts and auditor’s report will be submitted to ADB within six months after the end of each financial year. The PMU will prepare consolidated quarterly reports indicating progress made, problems encountered during the period, steps taken or proposed to remedy the problems, proposed program of activities, and progress expected for the next quarter. Both the loan and grant funding will be covered in these reports. Within six months of physical completion of the Project, PMU will submit to ADB a completion report that describes the achievements in relation to the Project’s expected impact, outcome and outputs. The Project is supporting the development and implementation of a Project Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (BME) system. Implementation of the BME will be contracted to the third party by the PMU and will provide a statistical baseline, in Project Year one, an assessment of achievements in terms of inputs and output by mid Project Year 4 and the overall outputs and outcomes of the Project in Project Year 8. It is proposed that funds flow directly to the State Project Management Units as shown in Figure 2. It is proposed that the Central PMU within the

9 ADB. 2007. Loan Disbursement Handbook. Manila.


20

CWC is tasked with the consolidation of the accounts from each of the State Project Management Units.

Figure 2: Proposed Flow of Funds

8. Project Monitoring and Evaluation

65. To monitor the progress of the Project in achieving the planned outcome and outputs, the PMU in each state will establish and maintain a project performance management system (PPMS), which will be designed to permit adequate flexibility to adopt remedial action regarding Project design, schedules, activities and development impacts. The PPMS will adopt the following agreed indicators (i) overall project progress, (ii) progress in the preparation of shoreline plans, information systems and sub project designs ,(iii) progress the investment programs including the both the physical programs as well as community and economic initiatives, (iii) progress with the institutional development including policy, establishment and mandating of the CIMU, (iv) results of training and capacity development, (v) progress of community and private sector participation, including establishment of the shoreline management organizations, (vi) beneficiary impacts, (vii) progress with the environmental monitoring plan and (viii) related improvements to the sustainable environment of the beaches.

66. At Project inception, the PMU, in consultation with each of the sub-borrowers and with the assistance of the consultants, will develop comprehensive PPMS procedures to systematically generate data on inputs and outputs of the project activities; and the socioeconomic, health, and environmental indicators to measure project impacts. This will include individual and consolidated work plans that once approved will form the basis for assessing progress and achievements.

67. The PMU will refine the PPMS framework, confirm achievable targets, firm up monitoring and recording arrangements, and establish systems and procedures no later than 6 months after Project Effectiveness. Baseline and progress data will be reported at the requisite time intervals by the IAs to the PMU, including resettlement monitoring results and reporting on any environmental management. The PMU will be responsible for analyzing and consolidating the reported data through its management information system, and for reporting the outcome to ADB through the quarterly progress reports.

9. Project Review

68. In addition to regular monitoring, project performance will be reviewed at least twice per year for the first two years and once a year thereafter, jointly by ADB and the Government. The review will assess implementation performance and achievement of progress towards project outcomes and


21

outputs, financial progress, identify issues and constraints affecting implementation, and work out a time-bound action plan for their resolution. ADB and the Government will undertake a midterm review prior to the end of Project Year 4 to assess implementation status and take appropriate measures including modification of scope and implementation arrangement, and reallocation of loan and grant proceeds, as appropriate, to achieve the Project’s objectives.

V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

69. A Technical Assistance program is proposed to support the development of the sustainable framework, strategies, policies as well institutional development, for coastal protection and management. The Technical Assistance will be based at the national level through the MoWR, the Central Water Commission (CWC) and CWPRS.10

70. The rationale for the Technical Assistance program is to support the Central Water Commission (CWC) and the CWPRS as the key agencies for national level technical support, training and institutional development. The TA program, through the CWC will also identify, coordinate and address issues of long term shoreline management strategies and policy for all the mainland coastal areas and Union Territories. The TA would support senior level raining and institutional development for three loan states as well as the other maritime states and union territories. The inclusion of all the maritime states would provide the forum for the dialogue and development of national level strategies and policy.

71. The investment project in the three states will develop a wide range of initiatives at the state level to support the long term sustainable management of the coast. The role of the TA program thorough the CWC will be to inform and liaise with all the maritime states to gradually expand the knowledge base of the initiatives. The CWC working in close liaison the investment project and the other maritime states will support the process of formal endorsement of the strategies and institutional changes into Government policy. Close cooperation and information sharing with the MoEF and World Bank coastal management project will be a key requirement.

72. The Technical Assistance will include funding for senior level training, institutional development, and a support consultancy.

73. The TA program will be supported by the Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (IDMC). The IDMC will be funded through the TA with recruitment organized by the CWC. The IDMC will support all the activities of the TA including addressing issues of policy and long term shoreline management strategies as well as the Central Training Program.

74. The outcome of the technical assistance will be the development of institutional capacities strategies and policies to meet the long term sustainable needs of coastal protection and management in all the maritime states and the union territories. The TA program will address issues relating to institutional responsibilities, capacities and legal aspects. It will also develop logical strategies for long term integrated coastal planning for sustainability and adaptation of coastal communities to climate change, maintaining the integrity of the beaches, biodiversity and coastal ecosystems.

75. Availability of Technical Assistance funds is not confirmed; possible funding may be available from the Global Environment Fund. The TA cost is $1.8 million; to be funded by the Global Environment Fund or other grant fund. .

VI. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

A. Financial and Economic Analysis

1. Benefits and Impacts

76. The main direct financial and economic impacts of the project will be the protection of land, buildings and infrastructure from future damage caused by coastal erosion and monsoon storms. The benefits of the protected land will indirectly benefit the incomes and livelihoods of urban and rural households and businesses located on the coastline. Tourism, rural farm and fishing households, ports and factories and their owners, operators and workers will benefit from the subprojects.

10 The TA would be titled ‘Support for Sustainable Strategies and Institutional Development’ (SSSID).


22

Subprojects may have both direct and indirect benefits for the environment. Removal of erosion risk will help encourage future investment in the coastal zone.

77. In addition to land protection, the project will support the long term sustainability of the beaches. Previous protection programs have neglected the beaches and in many cases have caused increased degradation. Use of the new technologies and soft protection measures proposed under the project will sustain and enhance the beach areas. The beaches are key contributors to the economies in the tourist areas and essential for artisanal fishermen. The tourism potential of much of the coastal area is very high and the long term economic and environmental benefits of sustaining the beaches through the project interventions will be very significant.

78. The four sub projects proposed for implementation under Project 1 directly protect land and buildings (including houses, public buildings, hotels and factories) and infrastructure from loss or damage caused by erosion of the coast and beaches. Indirectly, incomes and livelihoods of urban and rural households will be protected. These interventions will also restore or protect tourism assets or by restoring beaches will provide opportunities for the development of tourist activities. The subprojects in Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka will lead to the avoidance of resettlement costs for the state governments that would very likely be incurred if no action is taken to prevent the ongoing erosion processes at those locations.

2. Financial Analysis

79. Project interventions will maintain the status quo or restore situations to the pre-erosion situation. Financial impacts for beneficiaries are therefore limited and occur only in some contexts. Where an eroded beach will be restored, as at Coco Beach in Goa or Ullal in Karnataka, there will be a restoration of income for tourism businesses that lost business because of the erosion of the beach and new businesses may also be established. At other locations where future erosion is prevented, there will be no financial effect for businesses or other beneficiaries. Some interventions will reduce future government expenditures; these interventions will have a potential impact on government expenditures by reducing future requirements for infrastructure replacement and the resettlement of affected populations.

3. Economic Analysis

80. The results of the economic analysis show that the four subprojects have EIRRs of 14.5% for the Ullal Coastal Erosion and Inlet Project, 16.8% for both the Mirya Bay Coastal Erosion and Restoration Project and the Coco Beach Restoration Project and 33.4% for the Colva Beach Management Project. Switching values show the subprojects at Mirya Bay, Coco Beach and Colva Beach to be robust to variations in total investment costs and total benefits, but the subproject at Ullal is more susceptible to variations in costs and benefits. This is partly a reflection of the high project cost in this case. Sensitivity analysis of benefit categories and other key variables show that individual variables by themselves generally have little impact on the economic indicators.

4. Economic Risks

81. Economic risks to project feasibility are few. Large cost overruns would place all subprojects at risk. Benefits reduced significantly below the estimates would also place the subprojects at risk, but this can only occur if the probabilities of damage over the life of the project or the future number of tourists have been significantly over-estimated. However, variations in the probability of damage or in the rate of growth of tourist numbers both have relatively small impacts on total benefits.

B. Benefits of New Technologies and Skills for India

82. Through the use of soft protection solutions the project will bring in new technologies and skills. The use of geotextiles and soft solutions to coastal protection in India is in its infancy. Experience in the use of the soft technologies in other countries is more advanced; there were many initial mistakes and one aim of the project will be to ensure these mistakes are not replicated in India.

C. Benefits and Impacts from Planned Development

83. The coastline is under immense development pressures, the requirements of which are often conflicting. A major weakness is the single sector approach to development; a prime cause of erosion is the interaction of poorly designed coastal infrastructure on the natural coastal processes. The


23

project will implement a program of shoreline management planning and will support a number of sub projects aimed at correcting the causes or potential causes of erosion; these include harbor breakwaters and other shore crossing infrastructure. The planning process will be participatory and aimed at optimizing the needs of the various stakeholders in the planning processes. The move from sector development to integrated development and management will likely generate significant economic benefits as well as cost savings. The requirements for integrated development can be seen at the Mirya bay sub project where the conflicting needs of artisanal fishermen, tourism, a fishing boat and commercial harbor require to be assimilated into an integrated into a development plan.

D. Environmental Impacts

84. Initial environmental examinations (IEEs) were prepared for each of the four subproject proposed for funding under Tranche 1. Environmental assessments of the subprojects were discussed with the MoEF who concurred that being soft solutions the environmental impacts would be minimal and not likely to involve environmental issues. Overall the subproject will have positive impacts on the environment including the reversal of damage to the beaches and coastal processes caused by previous interventions. There may be some temporary impacts during construction but these would be quite minimal and of short duration. It was therefore agreed to classify the Tranche 1 subprojects as Category B.

85. The project will support the use of soft environmentally appropriate technologies for erosion protection. These interventions will in many cases improve the natural environment of the shoreline. In addition the project will address areas where coastal infrastructure is presently or may potentially damage the natural coastal processes. These initiatives will support positive impacts to the coastal environment. The project philosophy is to promote the use of natural protection measures including dune restoration and management, planting of mangrove and shelter belts.

86. The present national environmental capacity to analyze impacts of development projects on the coastal dynamics is quite limited and one of the project objectives is to upgrade the capacities of Government and private sector consultants to support the preparation of professional environmental impact reports.

E. Social and Gender Issues

87. The sub projects will not cause any specific social or gender issues. A part of the sub project objectives will in fact be to create and support opportunities for income generation on the restored and protected beaches and land. To help realize these activities it is proposed to provide some small funds to support community initiatives at each sub project site. The funds will also be available to provide support for poor or marginal groups. At some of the projects where dune management is proposed there will be a requirement to employ unskilled labor to plant and manage the dunes and also maintain open channels for the small drains (nallas) where they cross the beach.

F. Land Acquisition and Resettlement

88. All the proposed works for the subproject will be carried out offshore or on the shoreline. There are no settlements in this area and as a result none of the sub projects will require any land acquisition. There is also no requirement for the resettlement of people. The purpose of erosion control is to reclaim back from the sea the beach area lost and the sub projects would create additional beach area. The dune restoration and planting will be undertaken on the backshore and would not have any resettlement requirement.

G. Indigenous Peoples and Minority Groups

89. The study areas have only a few families belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) and other backward communities (OBC). There is no evidence of tribal people living in the three sub-project sites. The SC and OBC have social and cultural features that do not make them distinct from the main stream. The minority people linguistically are not different from the mainstream. The minorities cannot be distinguished from the main stream in terms of their dress, appearance, food, living area, etc. Their children go to the same schools as the main stream children are. They share the same jobs such as vending, taxi driving, offering services to tourists, undertaking civil contracts, factory workers, etc. Such jobs are similar to the jobs held by the main stream. They live within settlements inhabited by families of the main stream. Their religion is also the same as those of the main stream. Women of SC and OBC are also doing jobs similar to the members of the main stream. Their inter-marriage with


24

the main stream members has made them almost fully absorbed into the wider society. Many have family members inter-married with the main stream and live outside of the project area.

SC and OBC people in Colva are not residents along the beach. This suggests that they may only have indirect impacts from the proposed project interventions which in any case are similar on the main stream people due to their high level of integration. The above evidence amply illustrates that the minority groups in the sub-project areas are fully integrated with the mainstream. This leads to the conclusion that project impacts on minority people would be similar to the main stream. H. Risks

90. Implementation Delays. Lengthy procedures to establish the project, procurement delays and financing delays can all pose serious risk to the project schedule. The project will be implemented on or near the shoreline. Implementation of surveys and works can largely only be implemented during the 6 month non monsoon period (approximately October to April). Avoiding lengthy delays from extreme weather events requires very careful scheduling of activities.

91. Inappropriate solutions may be proposed for development. There are a number of pressures to continue the program of rock wall construction and change to soft environmentally appropriate options may not always be perceived as acceptable. To ensure that all physical investments are environmentally and socially appropriate it is proposed that all sub-projects for funding be supported by full environmental and social assessments11.

92. Sustainability will require resources, capacities and organizations for management and maintenance of the completed works. The level of input varies considerably depending on the type of works. For the offshore reefs requirements are minimal, however the proposed beach management solutions require fairly continuous inputs to protect and maintain the dunes with supplementary resources after storms and for pre monsoon digging of streams (nallas). Local level capacities, funding and organizations will be established to support this work. A management and maintenance plan including identification of funding sources will be identified at the feasibility stage.

93. The Project’s overall sustainability will be achieved through the series of initiatives described in the proposed institutional arrangements a part of Component 3. The underlying premise of the project is to develop a self sustaining and well resourced Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO). The form of the SMO will be site specific and will range from Community Based Organizations to private sector service contracts or a hybrid of the two. Funding sources for these Management Organizations to manage and maintain the beaches will be identified as part of the feasibility studies for each sub project. To help support the long term sustainability of the coastal protection measures some additional funding for each subproject will be provided for initiatives to support for community development.

94. The project direction will be to move towards soft environmentally appropriate methods of protection. Experiences of these methods in other countries have been proven to provide sustainable solutions for erosion protection if applied correctly. To meet the expected 25 year design life requires high specifications for the geotextile bags to withstand the marine environment; at present Indian geotextiles do not comply with these requirements. Offshore reefs in particular require a thick non woven geotextile; however once in place the geotextile reefs require virtually no maintenance. Use of geotextiles on shore can be of a lower specification, they however are vulnerable to vandalism or damage. It is very important that these materials are maintained buried as part of the dune system. A requirement that requires a proactive maintenance organization. Some failures of shore located geotextiles in India have been reported due to inappropriate materials, designs and lack of maintenance.

95. Reform Frameworks The sustainability of the project requires a number of institutional reforms to be initiated. Without such reforms it is likely project initiatives will not be carried forward after the completion of the project. The project does not require major institutional changes and most of the activities can be implemented largely within the existing institutional structures. To support the project targets a Shoreline Protection and Management Policy Document will be prepared which will 11 Under the present environmental legislation environmental clearance for coastal protection is not a statutory

necessity however for the project it is proposed that all sub projects must be submitted for state and national environmental clearance as well as to ADB.


25

form one of the outputs of Component 3. The document will be based on consultations with CWC and the State Executing Agencies as well as the other maritime states.

VII. RECOMMENDED ASSURANCES AND CONDITIONS

96. In addition to the standard assurances, it is proposed that the Government and the three State Executing Agencies (Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka) give the following assurances. These should be incorporated into the FFA and incorporated into the individual loan agreement as applicable, subject to any amendments to be mutually agreed by the Government of India, the three State EA and ADB.

97. Each state will establish a State Level Working group to support the project activities. The state level working group will include representatives from the following organizations State Executing Agencies, Planning and Finance, State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMA), Environment and Forests, Fisheries, Ports and Harbors, State Pollution Control Board, Tourism, Urban Development, Panchayat and/or rural development, NGO, representatives from the private sector. The working group will meet not less than twice annually.

98. A National Steering Committee will be established at the Central Level. The steering committee would comprise of representatives of the following agencies : Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Agriculture (Fisheries), Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Ministry of Defense (Hydrography office) and the Ministry of Home Affairs.

99. Each state EA will ensure that all the sub projects are adequately planned and designed including, if necessary, numerical modeling. Sub projects must be supported by environmental, social and economic analyses to ADB and Government of India requirements. Sub projects must be adequate participation of the local community and stakeholders in the planning and must be endorsed by stakeholders and the District Planning Committees.

100. Each State EA will ensure that the investment program is implemented in compliance with the existing environmental laws and regulations of the State and also MoEF as well as ADB’s Environmental Policy 2002 and the project’s Environmental Assessment and Review Framework (EARF: Supplementary Appendix M).

101. The project is proposing the significant use of sand filled geotextile tubes for erosion protection, either in offshore reefs or as a protective core inside the sand dunes. These geotextiles, especially for the reefs have to withstand severe conditions in the marine environment. Assurance is required that geotextiles use for protection works fully meet the needs of structures in the marine environment with a design life of 25 years and fully meet the specifications of the design consultants.

102. The project includes a significant program of institutional development and training. The present lack of skills and capacities in many of the departments responsible for the coastal management is partially due to the policy of rotating of staff to other departments. Training benefits will be significantly reduced if trained staff are transferred out of the coastal sector. Assurances are required to ensure that core staff trained under the project are retained within the coastal sector for not less than five years after the completion of training.


26

Appendix 1

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK-MFF

Design Summary Performance Targets/ Indicators

Data Sources/ Reporting Mechanisms

Assumptions and Risks

Impact Improved economic growth in the 3 States through well protected and managed shorelines for the benefit of all coastal communities.

Contribution from tourism to State GDP increased by 20% by 2018 10% increase in coastal shipping and fish landings at intervention districts Poverty incidence in coastal communities reduced by 10% by 2018 at intervention districts Total of 150 km of coastline in the 3 States stabilized and without erosion by 2018 No. of businesses at intervention beaches increased by 15% within 5 years after completion of sub projects.

Statistics on tourists and tourism-related economic activities Fish and harbor cargo landings statistics Human Development Index (HDI) and Below Poverty Lists (BPL) for intervention districts District and panchayat reports Beach topographic surveys Satellite imagery PPP Cells in each state BME reports

Assumptions Stable socio political environment Climate change effects are within predicted levels

Outcome Protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of stakeholders and the environment

150 km of coastline in the 3 States protected using soft technologies by 2018 Annual rate of coastal erosion is reduced by 60% from present levels at identified erosion prone beaches Annual loss of beach area over the three states reduced by 50% by 2018 Increased community and private sector participation in coastal protection (7% of subproject investments to come from the private sector by 2018)

Space Application Centre satellite imageries. Statistics from District Industry Centers, Trade Association of small and medium enterprises Panchayat and rural development department statistics. Project progress reports

Assumption All future coastal protection and management projects are implemented using highest technical standards and specifications of materials and workmanship within planned time frame. Effective organizations to implement maintenance Sustainable sources of funding Risks Implementation delays Pressure to develop inappropriate solutions

Outputs

1. Sustainable and appropriate plans and designs

a. Participatory Shoreline Management Plans for the whole 3-state coastline prepared and endorsed

All plans are completed and endorsed by district and state level stakeholders and District Planning Committees (DPCs) by 2013

Approved Shoreline Management and Plans

Assumptions Government and political support Mechanisms and finance to update the plans are maintained


27




b. Functional coastal information system to support planning and management established

Information is available and up to date Staff are available and trained to manage and maintain the system

Data from State and Central government agencies Data from Coastal Infrastructure Management Units (CIMU)

Assumption Information is provided freely from relevant institutions Risk Information systems are not updated after completion of the project

c. Sub-projects for future tranches planned and designed

Designs are approved by qualified professional technical review panel and endorsed by communities and stakeholders

Approved design documents and supporting reports

Assumption State Governments and GOI to officially constitute review panels

2. Coastal Protection and Management Investments

2.1 Physical Projects

Coastal protection and management sub-projects implemented with community and private sector involvement

Sub-projects to the value of $319 million completed by 2018 Community/local government agreements entered into for maintenance of completed projects Private sector investments in coastal protection and management up to 7% of total cost

BME reports Assumptions Stable socio political environment.

2.2 Community and Economic Support Initiatives

a. Initiatives for economic and community development for coastal communities implemented

50 communities at all intervention districts supported No. of businesses in the intervention districts increase by 15% by 2018

BME reports on community projects and other enterprises that have received support. Business licenses application records

3. Effective Institutions

a. Developed capacity within districts and states to identify, plan, select, design, and implement shoreline protection and management projects

District Planning Committees established to support the project by 2013 Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit (CIMU) operational by 2012 Shoreline plans are updated at five yearly intervals

Plans endorsed by the stakeholders Inclusion of shoreline protection and management project included in district plan.

Assumption Government reduces the rotation of staff and allow a core of trained coastal staff to remain in the coastal divisions.

b. National private consultants and

10 private sector consultants and

Baseline and post project surveys of

Assumption Government opens the


28




Government Institutes able to provide specialist support for planning, modeling, design, checking and review for coastal protection and management

specialist organizations strengthened. 100 staff at CWC, CWPRS and other central agencies trained Design review committees established

technical capacities of government institutions and private sector consultants

way to allow recruitment of private sector consultants.

c. Communities and stakeholders manage and maintain the beaches

Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) established and active at each subproject site

Monitoring of SMO activities, minutes of meetings and audited finances

d. CWC and the State Implementing Agencies formally mandated to coordinate all coastal infrastructure programs

Approved formal mandate as part of proposed shoreline planning and management policy

Approved Shoreline Planning and Management Policy Appropriate notification by MoWR and SIA

Assumption State and Central Governments support the proposed mandate. Risk Procedural Delays

Activities with Milestones Inputs

[TRANCHE 1] (Q1 2010 to Q4 2013)

1. Preparatory Activities State Government (SIA) 1.1 Establishment of PMU (Q2 2009) 1.2 Tendering and selection for Tranche 1 sub projects and PMDC consultants (Q1 2010)

ADB support consultants

2. Planning and Design 2.1 Preparation of shoreline management plans and information systems for whole 3 state coast coastline- Preliminary plans (Q4 2010), approved plans (Q2 2012). 2.2 Updating of the long list of potential projects (Q1 2011). 2.3 .Tranche 2 Sub Project selection (Q1 2011) 2.4. Planning of Tranche 2 Sub Projects( Q2 2011) 2.5. Design of Tranche 2 Sub Projects (Q4 2011)

PMDC consultants

SIA, Districts panchayat with PMDC consultants.

Training, institutional development Mobilization of counterpart funds

3. Sub Project Implementation (State Governments)3.1 Award of Tranche 1project construction contracts (Q1 2010) 3.2 Implementation of Tranche 1 subprojects (Q1 2010-Q4 2O12)

PMU supported by Project Management and Design Consultant ADB and Government fundingPMU staff resources

4. Institutional Development and Training (State Government, Central Water Commission) 5.1 Preparation of Training Needs Assessment and Training Plan. (Q3 2010) 5.2 Tendering and award of contract for Institutional and Change Management consultants (Q4 2010)

5.3 Implementation of Training Plan(Q3 2010 to Q4 2015)

International Project Management and Design Consultant Institutional Development and Change Management Consultant

6. Coastal Protection and Management Policy ( CWC, State Executing Agencies State Working Groups and National Steering Committee) 6..1 Tendering and recruitment of Development and Change Management Consultants (Q2 2012) 6.2 Policy Review (Q4 2010)

CWC supported by TA program

State Working Groups, National Steering Committee, District Planning Bodies, SIA, PMDC,


29

6.3 Draft guidelines and policy document(Q4 2011) 6.4 Agreed guidelines and approved policy (Q4 2013)

7. Loan Approvals and support(by ADB)7.1 Project approval (Q1 2010) 7.2 Inception mission (Q2 2009 ) midterm review (Q4 2011), review missions (intermittent)

Tranche 1 costs ADB: $58.37 million Government $18.06million, Beneficiaries $0.16 million.

Total Project Costs ADB Multitranche financing facility Tranche 1:$58.37 million Tranche 2:$122.37 Tranche 3:$ 119.28 Total: $300.00 million

[Tranche 2] (Q1 2012 to Q4 2015) Tranche 2 financing request approved (Q1 2012) Tendering and selection of Project Management and Design Consultants for tranche 2 (Q2 2013). Tendering and award of tranche 2 subprojects( Q1 2012) Implementation of tranche 2 sub projects( Q2 2012 to Q4 2015) Project selection for tranche 3 subprojects (Q1 2012) Design of Tranche 3 sub projects (Q1 2012 to Q1 2013)

[Tranche 3] (Q1 2014 to Q4 2017) Tendering and award of Tranche 3 subprojects (Q1 2013) Implementation of Tranche 3 subprojects (Q1 2013 to Q1 2017)

.


30

Appendix 2

SECTOR ASSESSMENT, ROAD MAP AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY

A. Introduction

1. The coastal zone forms a key part of the Indian economy; about 20-25% of India’s population lives within 50 km of the coast with around 70% of these residing are in rural areas. It is these rural poor coastal communities who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of erosion and poor coastal management. Many of India’s rapidly growing urban areas are also vulnerable to coastal erosion; Mumbai, for example, incurs a cost of approximately $2.5 million per km on capital works alone to protect some of its prime waterfront property. The impact of climate change is likely to aggravate coastal erosion and management issues even further. Sea level rise in the Indian subcontinent is projected to be between 25 and 50 centimeters (cm) by the end of the 21st century. A 1 meter (m) rise in sea level in India would inundate about 5,700 square kilometers (km2) of land, affecting around 7 million people.

B. Sector Assessment

2. Coastal erosion is the natural result of coastal processes and their interaction with land; erosion can in many cases be initiated and/or exacerbated by human activities; along all the coast of India there are numerous examples where human activities have contributed to or caused coastal erosion. Typical causes of beach erosion include change in sediment supply through river damming and sand mining or the construction of littoral barriers such as groynes, jetties or ports. Beach scour and erosion can be caused by seawall construction and the loss of vegetation on the shoreline. Sediment traps such as dredged navigational channels and alteration to wave processes caused by jetties and ports also play a role. In addition, urbanization of the coast has exacerbated natural erosion phenomena into problems of growing intensity. The natural causes of shoreline erosion include severe storms, an imbalance in the long-shore sediment and Aeolian transport12.

3. The coastal protection strategy in India is synonymous with a prime objective to protect the land; the concept of protecting the beach and the environment are relatively new concepts; coastal protection is not perceived within the wider context of the economic development of the coastline. The most frequently applied methods for coastal protection have been through the use of hard structures such as seawalls or groynes. Despite many failures and environmental damage seawalls and groynes have continued to be constructed which in many cases has simply shifted the problem to neighboring coastal areas or left the real problem to be solved by future generations. As the pressure on the coastal zone due to human-induced activities as well as relative sea level rise keeps expanding, there is an urgent need to find sustainable solutions for coastal protection.

4. There is a general awareness of the impacts of hard structures. Rock wall comes easily and soft solutions are largely untried and the technologies are not well understood. The continued use of hard technologies for coastal protection are being questioned by decision makers and there is now a widespread interest and realization of a need to change to softer and appropriate solutions The move to softer solutions although an easy and acceptable solution in principle but in practice requires significant behavioral changes by all those involved. The transition from hard to soft structures will require an integrated program of awareness, training, capacity building and other support initiatives.

5. Coastal Protection and Management involves a wide number of stakeholders covering a number of sectors. It is multidiscipline, dynamic, and participatory and cross-sectoral. Its successful application requires cooperation and coordination. Coastal management is multi-disciplined in its outlook, dealing with technical, environmental, social and economic issues and their consequences within the coastal zone. Coastal protection is one aspect of coastal management and largely deals with either rectifying or preventing the physical outcomes of coastal and especially littoral processes, including erosion, silting and similar problems; these can be natural, events or induced by interventions such as ports and sand mining.

6. The number and diversity of stakeholders in the shoreline zone is very large and complex. Liaison and coordination of needs and activities is a major problem; the lack of coordinated and 12 Pertaining to the wind, especially used with deposits such as dune sand, and sedimentary structures like wind-

formed ripple marks.


31

integrated stakeholder participation is a major area of concern. A summary of the key stakeholders and an analysis of their interests are summarized in Supplementary Appendix C.

7. Presently measures to manage coastal erosion have generally been designed as a local emergency measure rather than sustainable and economically beneficial perspective. The most frequently applied protection methods are hard structures such as seawalls or groynes. Such interventions provide only land protection, and do not address the root cause of the problem; in many cases the protection structures actually accelerate erosion resulting in major losses of the beach. Limited examples of ‘soft’ options such as beach nourishment and sand filled geotubes filled with sand exist; however with mixed success.

8. The National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) was initiated by the Ministry of Water Resources, in 1994 and designed to move towards achieving a more effective and sustainable means of coastal protection. The Central Water Commission (CWC), the technical arm of the MoWR, coordinated the state level proposals and prepared a consolidated proposal based on the proposals submitted by the nine coastal states. The NCCP proposed plans for each state are almost entirely hard solutions including seawall, revetment, offshore breakwater and groynes. No specific provision was made for soft protection measures, including biosheild as they were considered expensive or limited application. The project however mentions in general terms some use of soft technologies including beach nourishment, submerged breakwaters, sand bypassing and vegetation; no specific sites were identified for these interventions. Soft protection measures were considered expensive (e.g. high initial cost for beach nourishment and re-nourishment requirement) or of limited application (e.g. biosheilds).

C. Institutional Arrangements

9. Central Government. MoWR and MoEF are the two key Central Government Ministries which, through their various agencies and institutions have direct governance jurisdiction over the coastal zone in the country. In addition to MoWR and MoEF there are a number of Ministries which through their agencies and research establishments play an important role in policy planning, advising, administration and program implementation of shoreline protection and coastal zone management. However, in spite of the presence of a number of specialized agencies, there is very little coordination, knowledge sharing and interactions for capacity enhancement among the institutions and the Implementing Agencies in particular, who follow a vertical route for works implementation. In addition to MoWR and MoEF, four Ministries of the Government of India viz. (i) Ministry of Defense (MoD), (ii) Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), (iii) Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and (iv) Ministry of Shipping (MoS) have governance jurisdiction over shoreline / coastal protection and management activities through their framework laws and policies. In addition, two other Ministries viz. the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) play an important role through their programs and research support for coastal protection works.

10. Central Water Commission (CWC), the technical arm of MoWR is the apex agency for shoreline protection / coastal erosion works in the country. CWC implements coastal protection works through two Directorates viz. the Coastal Erosion Directorate (CED) and the Beach Erosion Directorate (BED). The activities of the two directorates are not well coordinated and lateral communication between the two peer bodies is virtually non-existent. The apparent lack of an integrated approach to coastal erosion problems stems from this structural imbalance. CPDAC is an advisory body of 25 Members representing different Government Departments / State Agencies / Research Institutions and three Non-Official members and has wide mandate on coastal protection activities. CPDAC depends upon its secretariat CED for translating its mandate into implementation programs. Due to the imbalances inherent in CED and inadequacies in its strength and capacity many of the programs could not be completed. Since its formation in 1995 CPDAC has to date held only 10 meetings.

11. CWPRS under MoWR is the major national level institution for providing technical support to the State Governments for planning and undertaking research studies including design development for anti-sea erosion works. Two other national key research institutions which play an important role in providing research assistance and expert services in the field of coastal environment and engineering are (i) Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) in (Kerala) and IIT Madras (IITM), Department of Ocean Engineering in Tamil Nadu.

12. MoEF is the central authority for regulating and controlling the activities in the coastal zone of the country. It operates through various national level bodies like the National Coastal Zone


32

Management Authority (NCZMA), State / Union Territory Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMA), Central and State Pollution Control Boards and other State level agencies. MoEF enforces compliance through the umbrella Act viz. Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986 and a number of policies, legislations and Notifications. MoEF operates at the State level through various agencies and programs and maintains an information data base for use by various sectors.

13. State Government. The protection of the coasts from erosion is the responsibility by the line agencies in the respective States responsible for administration of the coasts and implementation of coastal protection /anti-erosion works. In Maharashtra, the responsibility vests with the Maharashtra Maritime Board under the, Home – (Transport & Port) Department and the Public Works Department which executes the jobs through the Coastal Engineer (Coastal Engineering Circle) under it. In Goa the key Department for planning and implementation of anti-sea erosion work is the Water Resources Department while in Karnataka the responsibility vests with the Public Works Department (PWD) which implements the works through the Directorate of Ports & Inland Water Transport.

14. These agencies in all the three States assess the vulnerability of the coastal stretches based on the severity of the erosion and its likely impact on the landward installations, assets and the threat posed to the immediately adjacent human settlements; the focus is primarily on the protection of the land.

15. In the process, the activities involved in coastal protection starting from planning, designing and implementation remains vertical along the administrative hierarchy of the respective Departments. Inter-Departmental / Agency coordination is weak and the District Institutions (Panchayati Raj) have minimum role in the entire process. Considering the vulnerability of the coastal communities to natural hazards, the various options for coastal protection and shoreline management are not deliberated upon by the Implementing Agencies with the different stakeholders viz. the fishing communities, local residents, tourism service providers, industrial units, agriculturists, etc.

16. The problems of coastal erosion and protection are mainly referred by the states to the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) for technical consultancy. Referral to CWPRS is not normally made until a situation of severe erosion occurs. In such cases, normally CWPRS is required to prepare an emergency solution to protect the eroding coast and land with the key requirement to provide adequate protection. In such an emergent situation where there is threat to human life and property due to erosion is imminent, the state and CWPRS had little option but to go for hard solution like seawall, rockfill bund etc. Depending upon the local situation, availability of materials (stones) etc. CWPRS, in consultation with the State authority take to design the protective structure. Based on CWPRS report, the state authority proceeds for implementation adhering to the suggested measures.

17. Viewed from the angle of sustainability, the present implementation approach should move forward towards an inclusive paradigm of integrated planning and management that conforms to central theme of India’s Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012) - ‘Towards Faster and more Inclusive Growth’.

18. District Administrations. The process of vulnerability assessment is essentially non-participatory and does not involve consultation with the communities or the District and Village Level Administrations (Gram Sabhas or Gram / Village Panchayats) The Gram / Village Panchayats are the basic unit of planning and implementation for economic development and social justice. Constitutional status for the Gram Sabhas was accorded in the 73rd Constitution Amendment in 1993.

19. As present practice, coastal protection plans are not integrated into the district plan in a ‘bottom-up’ approach and are formulated separately by the line agencies. As per Article 243 ZD of the Constitution every State is to constitute a District Planning Committee (DPC) in each district to consolidate the plans prepared by the Gram Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole. The planning subjects include matters of common interest between Panchayats and Municipalities including spatial planning, sharing of water and other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation. The DPCs can consult specified institutions and organizations while developing their plans. Shoreline management is given little attention in urban planning; Mumbai despite the long and complex there was not any consideration to shoreline planning or management in the city master plan.

20. There are many NGOs and CBOs as well as stakeholder groups like industry / trade associations in the coastal districts in the three States which play a significant role on issues of coastal


33

zone management including coastal protection. There is a clear lack of coordination and consultations with them is absent during the planning stages.

21. Legal Framework. MoEF is responsible for framing legislations and conservation of the environment of the country including the marine environment up to EEZ. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 is umbrella legislation enacted for the purpose of protecting and conserving the environment. The mandate of the Ministry of Environment and Forests includes "Environment and Ecology, including Environment in Coastal Waters, in mangroves and coral reefs but excluding marine environment on the high seas".

22. At present, as coastal erosion measures do not fall under the category of ‘prohibited’ activities under the CRZ 1991 Notification anti-erosion works including construction of protective walls and breakwaters are not subjected to environmental impact assessment. Any engineering interventions in the natural environment impacts not only affect the physical and biological environment but also the human use values and quality of life values of the stakeholder communities.

23. Due to the absence of any environmental and social impact assessment in the implementation plans, the adverse impacts cannot be addressed or mitigated for restoration of the eco-system and conservation of bio-diversity. On present reckoning there is limited understanding of the wider aspects of shoreline management for which environment and social issues are not factored into the implementation proposals of the SEAs.

24. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures, as implemented under the terms of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, have been insufficient in addressing the cumulative impacts or impacts due to development on the wider coastal environment. The new CMZ notification will require environmental assessments to be prepared for all coastal protection projects.

25. Key Institutional Issues There is a myriad of agencies and institutions involved in coastal protection which falls within the scope of coastal zone management. There are several layers of agencies involved in the planning and implementation process of coastal protection with many of them represented at all levels. Nearly all the stakeholders report a need for coordination and integration and the agencies involved suffer from capacity constraints in the technical, financial and human resource aspects. The basic issues that emerge from the review of the major institutions and processes are:

(i) There is a lack of oversight and coordination among the departments and agencies with the emphasis of work being immediacy rather than long term goals. Planning has largely been based on the outputs of the NCPP which is directed at the effects and not the causes. The coastal management policy is not well defined and the delays in implementing the new coastal zone management notification are causing serious difficulties for decision makers. Coastal protection and management is almost entirely managed by the Government agencies with almost no community, local government or private sector involvement.

(ii) The institutional mandates are not clearly defined with no system of integrating development policies with the social and ecological requirements. There is no overall coordination of coastal infrastructure works, and in many areas there are overlapping jurisdiction, duplication of efforts, and sometimes conflicting objectives. The institutions are very hierarchical and there is poor development of reporting or monitoring systems.

(iii) There is no allocation of funds for regular maintenance and protection works often suffer serious damage in storms due to the lack of maintenance. There is no capacity or provision of funds at the lower levels for maintenance. Environmental damage is rarely addressed.

(iv) There is a lack of technical information available, designers have limited access to data and are under resourced. There is very limited data sharing between the agencies and institutions. Research findings are in many parts irrelevant to the issues or are not disseminated to the responsible agencies. There are only very limited numbers of experienced coastal engineering staff; government policy is to regularly rotate staff and as such there is only limited scope to build and develop capacity. There is an absence of guidelines on design and construction of environmentally appropriate coastal protection works. All planning and design is through under resourced government institutions, there is no private sector involvement outside the construction programs.


34

(v) Planning and development is top down with negligible participation of the local stakeholders. The districts encourage very limited participation in planning issues. Communities are almost never considered at the planning stages of projects. The management of the shoreline should involve the administrators, managers and stakeholders on both landward and the seaward sides. Typically, the landward side of the shoreline falls under jurisdiction of the LSGIs (Local Self Government Institutions) i.e. panchayat (village) or municipal authority. The seaward side, including the shoreline, is the responsibility of the State and National Government.

(vi) The strategic approach needs to change the underlying practices at present towards a more participative, bottom-up approach as soft engineering solutions require closer monitoring and systematic maintenance which can best be provided by the local community. Once the strategies are formulated and agreed upon, the requirements of the institutional framework becomes identifiable. However there has to be incentives for change. An important move is in the form of decentralization and the changing relationship between the District and Village councils and the line agencies. At the same time while decentralization is mandated in the Constitution, the structures and the processes through which decentralization will be delivered lack capacity and resources. For addressing this issue, enhancement of capacities, augmentation of enabling fund to meet the new challenges will from part of the planning parameters in which the DPCs will have a role to build in the same in the State Plan.

D. Government Strategy

26. A key theme of the 11th Five Year National Plan is the integration of environmental concerns into policy, planning and development activities. The plan also addresses the need to address the impacts of sea level rise particularly for coastal agriculture as well as management of sea water ingress into coastal areas. The plan stresses the importance of the participation of fishing communities in coastal zone planning and management. Coastal shipping is identified as a lifeline for the coastal communities and is presently hampered by inadequate ports. A major expansion of ports is proposed. The plan promotes financing of capital projects based largely on partnerships with the private sector (PPP). Tourism forms a key part of the national economy with coastal tourism identified as a key industry.

E. ADB’s Strategy

27. Environmental sustainability and identification of opportunities for poverty alleviation are key themes in the ADB’s country program strategy. The ADB strategy includes support for funding shortages for infrastructure to support environmentally sustainable growth and poverty alleviation. Climate change and degradation of the environment are environmental focus areas to cover both climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects; proposed operations cover a number of areas including coastal protection and management. The CPS supports the use of innovative business and financing modalities (e.g., PPP, and greater co-financing) and will therefore continue to support the Government’s efforts towards promoting public-private partnership in infrastructure development. It has been providing TA support13 for building capacity for designing and appraising PPP projects in state governments and central line Ministries. ADB will also actively seek to supplement its own resources through official and commercial co-financing (i.e. non-sovereign operations). ADB would also focus on strengthening governance and financial sector development.

F. Strategic Framework

28. The objective of the strategic is to identify key areas of issue and present proposals to meet the wide long term needs of sustainable shoreline planning and management. The broad strategy is to develop a workable integrated approach to meet the needs of the communities and other stakeholders, whilst maintaining the environmental integrity of the shoreline. Shoreline planning must be integrated and participative; there are very many aspects to be considered. The strategic framework focuses on the key issues including balancing of the needs for erosion protection, economic development, and social and environmental integrity. The strategic framework has been based on extensive consultations with stakeholders as well as referencing the output and the findings of the Swaminathan Committee Report (SCR). The strategic framework interprets the findings and has applied them in the context of developing a realizable and effective plan for sustainable management

13 ADB India TA4890 Mainstreaming Public Private Partnerships at State Level


35

of the shoreline. The strategic framework also reflects the key proposals in the Government and ADB’s strategy including (i) investments in infrastructure for poverty alleviation and economic growth, (ii) integration of environmental concerns into policy, (iii) support for private sector participation.

29. The Technical Framework. Coastal erosion management must move away from the present piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive and pro-active one based on planning, good practice and accountability of achievements, with long-term cost-minimization goals and economic benefits.

30. New technologies including the use of sand-filled containers can be successfully used in engineering designs for coastal erosion control. Improvements in the geosynthetic materials, fabrication methods, and designs of these systems have increased the applications and longevity of these structures. Sand filled geotextiles can be used to support dune restoration as well as for offshore breakwaters including multi-purpose reefs for environmental and surfing enhancement. Sand-filled containers if used correctly are "softer" and more "user-friendly" than structures constructed of rock, concrete and steel, making them more desirable and benign in areas of natural sandy beaches.

31. The effective adoption of these new technologies together with the development of capacities for effective planning and design for coastal protection is a key area requiring professional support and coordinated program research, training and dissemination of information. Creating and increasing the national capacities to take on these challenges is a major part of the strategic framework.

32. Much of the erosion problems stem from poorly planned infrastructure projects; harbor or other structures crossing the beach disturb the natural processes, poorly planned dredging results in environmental damage and loss of key sand resources. A priority area for coastal sustainability is to address the causes of erosion as well as the effects.

33. Institutional Framework. To meet the long term goals of sustainability requires a change of direction from stand alone coastal protection to coastal protection and management. The present institutional processes within Government are largely vertical with limited horizontal interactions between departments. Coastal protection and management have fundamental requirements for community and stakeholder interactions as well as lateral coordination between departments. Within the present public service system these processes will be largely unworkable, and although it is unlikely that the system can be quickly changed there is a requirement to develop effective implementation arrangements that can work within the system. The target of the institutional framework include: (i) integrated and effective institutional arrangements; (ii) effective linkages between institutions; (iii) effective measures to ensure sustainability; (iv) effective stakeholder participation at state and district levels and (v) increased participation of the private sector.

34. Policy. The proposed institutional changes have to be endorsed by the Government and to ensure the long term sustainability of the changes the changes will require to be incorporated as policy. Various institutional changes will be implemented under the loan in stages; these will require to be formalized into a policy for Coastal Protection and Management. It is estimated that it will take four years to achieve an overall policy agreement.

35. The strategic framework is designed to be fully compliant with the existing CRZ Notification and also the proposed notification. The policy is in a state of transition, moving from the present CRZ 1991 Notification to a new CMZ Notification; the time period of its implementation is uncertain. The Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP), as proposed under the new notification, are to be developed for the whole of India. The CZMP will be statutory plans assessing vulnerability and establishing set back lines for regulating development. The CZMP would also include mapping of coastal ecosystems and ecologically sensitive areas. The new CMZ notification includes three main criteria in relation to shoreline protection and management: (i) sandy beaches and dunes are classified as ecologically sensitive areas, with no development permitted; (ii) coastal protection is permitted, but with proper scientific study; and (iii) coastal protection is a permitted activity with EIA clearance and Environmental Management Plan.

36. The strategy for coastal and shoreline management are presented in the SCR and are supported in this strategic framework. These management initiatives depend on an integrated approach involving extensive lateral interactions between Government and non Government agencies and stakeholders. This is unlikely to evolve naturally and will require a strategic change in policy towards participative and integrated planning.


36

37. The CZMP proposals as proposed in the SCR do not fully address the specific needs of the shoreline; the need for stakeholder participation are only loosely defined. There is a requirement to undertake very specific shoreline management planning as a component of the Coastal Zone Planning process. It is proposed that site specific shoreline planning would be implemented through a participative planning process at the district level. Shoreline planning would address the management of the shoreline including appropriate measures for erosion protection and management strategies and controls to ensure the sustainability of the shoreline. The proposed shoreline planning would effectively supersede the National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) proposals.

38. The State Executing Agencies (SEA) are the frontline agencies for coastal protection and management. For the future the SEA must play a key and increased role in the coordination of coastal infrastructure development including ports, harbors, dredging, sand mining, shipyards, jetties, fisheries harbors, roads. Very many coastal problems are caused by the interference of coastal infrastructure on the natural coastal dynamics and erosion protection programs frequently involving the rectification of poorly planned infrastructure. Siltation is a frequent problem resulting in heavy costs for dredging.

39. A major weakness in the current sector orientated sector development is the difficulty of addressing the processes and impacts of one sector on another. A prime cause of erosion is the interaction of coastal infrastructure on the natural coastal processes. To help this horizontal coordination is proposed to establish the CWC and the SEA as the lead group at National and State levels to coordinate coastal infrastructure activities. At National level the leading organization should be the CWC. The CWC remit is presently restricted to erosion control but there is a key requirement for the coastal erosion directorate to take on a wider coordination role of all coastal infrastructure works including erosion control, ports and harbors, dredging etc. At the State Level it is proposed to establish a Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit (CIMU) within the State Executing Agencies. This unit would be given a mandate to coordinate all coastal infrastructure programs.

40. This lead role for the CWC and the State Executing Agencies will require to be officially endorsed. Once approved it will be necessary to develop memorandums of understanding to ensure the coordination functions are clearly defined and understood.

41. There is requirement for a policy document to support the process of shoreline management planning. The policy document for shoreline management planning should include:

(i) Charging the Coastal District Authorities to prepare Shoreline Management Plans (in coordination with the State Executing Agencies and agencies) over an agreed period. The shoreline plans would be advisory and non statutory. The plans would be participative involving the stakeholders and local level stakeholders in the primary planning, as well as lateral involvement of different government departments / sector agencies.

(ii) Increasing the mandates of the SEA and the CWC to take on a lead coordination role in the overall coastal management specifically to coordinate and guide the development and management of all coastal infrastructure.

(iii) Ensuring that all shoreline developments and interventions are properly studied and subject rigorous technical analysis including numerical modeling. Projects should be supported by environmental assessments.

G. Investment Strategy

42. There is a requirement for a significant change in the philosophy in the approach to the planning, management and investment of the shoreline. Investment priorities should remain coastal protection and management but should in parallel support areas economic and social development and environmental management. Key areas for investment would include:

(i) Coastal protection needs to address the immediate coastal erosion needs through the implementation of economically viable protection works using environmentally and socially appropriate solutions.

(ii) The causes of coastal erosion or coastal instability require to be considered. Coastal infrastructure that is presently or potentially would cause damage to the natural coastal processes requires to be identified and solutions identified to avoid or minimize the impacts.


37

(iii) Coastal protection should include the scope for natural protection measures through development and planting of dunes, planting of mangrove or other trees for protection or shelter.

(iv) Wider issues of coastal management have to be considered in parallel with coastal protection these include including water quality, navigational entrances, dredging, reclamation, and training of river and drain mouths.

(v) Coastal protection and management should also incorporate initiatives to increase economic value or amenity value of the coast and shoreline including water quality.

(vi) Increased participation of the private sector to support investments but also through planning, design and management of the coastal/shoreline zone.

43. There are major requirements to invest in training and institutional development. Long term sustainability of the coastline depends on skilled and experienced personnel.

44. The proposed investment plan is summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Investment Plan for Coastal Protection and Management

Item Mahar-ashtra

Goa Karnataka Total

Total length of coast(km) 720 105 300 1,105 Reported eroding by NCPP 2001(km) 263 11 250 523 Reported as requiring protection SEA (2008) 48 9 48 105 Total proposed for protection(km) under project 48 9 48 105 Causes of erosion-number of harbor breakwater sites of concern (nr)

5 0 4 9

Causes of erosion number of harbor breakwater sites proposed under project (nr)

2 0 1 3

Natural Protection: Total proposed for Dune Restoration and Management (km)

50 30

50 130

Estimated Total Physical

Investment Needs($ millions exc. Taxes)

Categories

Overall requirements as estimated by State Executing

Agencies

Proposed under Project

M’shtra Goa Kar’tka Total M’shtra Goa Kar’tka Total Category 1 Protection 53 15 118 186 47 15 85 147 Category 2 Causes of erosion 16 0 69 85 16 0 15 31 Category 3 Natural Protection 8 6 7 21 8 6 4 17 Category 4 Other support areas 11 1 5 17 11 1 2 14 Category 5 Coastal Facilities 21 1 260 282 21 1 4 18 Category 6 Procurement. of Equipment 17 0.4 7 24 14 0.4 6 20 Category 7 Community & Economic Initiatives

1 0.4 1 2 1 0.4 0.8 2

Total 126 24 468 618 111 24 115 250 H. The Road Map to Support the Strategic Framework

45. A road map to support the implementation of the strategic framework has been prepared. Although the focus of the project activities will be within the three states a parallel program supported by a TA grant has been developed to strengthen capacities at the centre, involving the Central Water Commission. This will allow representatives from the other maritime states and union territories to participate in the training activities, support the development of policy documents, and to indirectly benefit from the project outputs. The road map to achieve the strategic framework is given in Table 5.


38

Table 5: Coastal Protection and Management Road Map

Key Issues and Actions Actions by Time Frame Performance Indicators

1 Coastal Protection and Management Policy 1.1 Formal Establishment of State Level Working Groups and National

Steering Committee SEA March 2010 Documented minutes of meetings

1.2 Defining roles and empowerment of CWC, CWPRS CPDAC (Coastal Protection and Advisory Committee)

MoWR October 2010 Scope and terms of reference for the committee Agreement and formalization by MoWR

1.3 Establishment of the SEA as the lead agency to coordinate coastal infrastructure management Formal establishment of Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit(CIMU)

MoWR/ CWC January 2012 MoWR/ Ports/ Fisheries and Other Coastal Stakeholders/ CPDAC

1.4 Improved liaison and cooperation between the MoEF/ State Environment Departments coastal management programs and the MoWR and SEA Coastal Protection and Management Project.

MoWR/MoEF SEA and State Environment Deps.

1.5 Establishment of processes and procedures for approval of coastal infrastructure plans and designs

CWC July 2010 Nominations for technically qualified individuals and organizations.

1.6 Agreed policy for Coastal Protection and Management incorporating project initiatives. a. Defining role and empowerment of CWC,CPDAC and CWPRS b. Establishing SEA and CWC to be lead agency to coordinate coastal infrastructure. c. Formal establishment of Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit in each SEA. d. Incorporation as policy shoreline planning and establishment of coastal information systems. e. Establishment of processes and procedures for approvals of coastal infrastructure plans and designs. f. Formal coordination of MoWR and MoEF coastal programs. g. Opening the way for increased private sector participation in consulting as well as for PPP.

CWC/CPDAC, National Steering Committee

July 2013


39

2 Planning and Design 2.1 Upgrading the coastal planning processes through preparation of

shoreline management plans in the three states and eventually for maritime states. Training and capacity building to prepare shoreline plans.

State and Districts July 2012 State/ Districts have capacities to address issues and integrated planning of shoreline. Effective mechanisms in place for participation by stakeholders. State and District Agreements to support and finance planning process and to update plans every 5 years. Capacities of national level consultants developed to support planning process. Stakeholder agreements/endorsement on final plans. Preparation of shoreline plans becomes a part of the national policy.

2.2 Development of criteria and guidelines for planning, design for coastal projects including the use of soft technologies and requirements for environmental and social assessments. Agreed processes for selection of sub projects.

SEA and CWC-support thro’ CWPRS and PMC consultants

July 2010 Development of criteria and guidelines and criteria for coastal protection and management. Endorsement by CWC and all maritime states

2.3 Development of capacity through private sector and government institutions for detailed planning and design of projects including specialist skills in numerical modeling and design of soft engineering solutions. -Development of a database of experts and trainers. -Training of trainers and extensive training to 3 states as well as other maritime states

SEA, CWC CWPRS, State Institutes and private sector consultants

Training assessments Baseline assessments, review assessments at end of year 3,6 and 8

3 Coastal Protection and Management Investments

3.1 Promotion of private sector participation in the Coastal Area. To be incorporated into the project planning and development and would include a preliminary plan for PPP in the coastal areas, scoping of investor opportunities, contracts and agreements for specific projects.

Completed PPP projects

3.2 Beneficiary stakeholder participation in management and maintenance of completed schemes

Agreed management plans for all sub projects. Monitoring and assessment of management and maintenance of completed projects

3.3 Initiatives to support community development. Monitoring of the community support fund and achieved benefits.

3.4 Initiatives to support the economic development of the shoreline. Outside the area of physical investments there are requirements to develop non structural initiatives

Monitoring of the areas and sectors where support is identified.


40

Appendix 3

EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE

Table 6: External Assistance

State Funding Source

Project Title Implementing Agency

Grant ($

Million)

Loan ($

Million)

Year

Karnataka ADB Karnataka Urban Development & Coastal Environment Project

Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation

- 145.0 2007

Karnataka ADB MFF North Karnataka Urban Sector Investment Project

270.0 2008

Nationwide: 15 selected states including Karnataka, and Maharashtra

ADB Mainstreaming Public Private Partnerships at State Level.

Department for Economic Affairs

3.0

National with focus on three states;Gujarat, West Bengal and Orissa.

World Bank Coastal Zone Integrated Management

Ministry of Environment and Forests

90.0 2009


41

Appendix 4

COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING PLAN

Table 7: Component Cost by Financier (Total Investment Program) ($ millions)

Project 1 (2010 - 2013) Project

2 Project

3 TOTA

L Technical Assistance

Item ADB Government

Bene- ficiaries

Sub total

(2012-2015)

(2014-2017)

Project 1

Projects 2 & 3 TOTAL

Planning and Design 2.88 0.17 - 3.04 3.36 1.06 7.46 Coastal Protection and Management Investments 51.90 3.81 0.16 55.88 153.03 152.96 361.87 Effective Institutions and Project Management 3.59 3.80 - 7.40 5.91 3.79 17.10 0.95 0.83 1.78 Total Project Costs 58.37 7.78 0.16 66.32 162.30 157.81 386.43 0.95 0.83 1.78 Financing charges - 10.28 - 10.28 13.61 6.82 30.70 - - Total Cost including financing charges 58.37 18.06 0.16 76.60 175.91 164.63 417.13 0.95 0.83 1.78


42

Table 8: Project Cost Summary

(Rs Lakh) (US$ '000) Component Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Planning & Design 2,265.1 1,452.3 3,717.4 4,433.4 2,842.4 7,275.9Coastal Protection & Management Investments 140,071.3 23,237.5 163,308.8 274,153.2 45,481.4 319,634.6Effective Institutions & Project Management 7,491.2 1,002.0 8,493.2 14,662.1 1,961.2 16,623.3Total BASELINE COSTS 149,827.6 25,691.8 175,519.4 293,248.7 50,285.0 343,533.7 Physical Contingencies 13,825.0 2,329.9 16,154.9 27,058.9 4,560.1 31,619.0Price Contingencies 39,733.1 6,983.1 46,716.3 9,601.8 1,672.9 11,274.7Total PROJECT COSTS 203,385.8 35,004.8 238,390.6 329,909.4 56,518.0 386,427.4 Interest During Implementation - 17,178.0 17,178.0 - 29,343.1 29,343.1Commitment Charges - 880.9 880.9 - 1,358.3 1,358.3Total Costs to be Financed 203,385.8 53,063.7 256,449.5 329,909.4 87,219.4 417,128.8 Note: Technical Assistance not included


43

Table 9: Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ‘000)

Government ADB Private Sector Total

Cost Sharing (%, average for all Projects) Technical Assistance

Government ADB Private Sector

I. Investment Costs A. Civil Works 23,314.1 216,428.0 21,439.6 261,181.6 8.9 82.9 8.2 - B. Materials 17,205.8 46,400.3 5,405.7 69,011.8 24.9 67.2 8.3 - C. Equipment & Supplies Equipment, Software and Supplies 5,536.0 19,695.5 2,448.6 27,680.1 20.0 71.2 10.0 - Office Equipment and Supplies 99.2 396.6 - 495.8 20.0 80.0 - - Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 5,635.2 20,092.1 2,448.6 28,175.9 20.0 71.3 9.8 - D. Vehicles & Boats 26.6 79.9 - 106.5 25.0 75.0 - - E. Training 26.9 242.4 - 269.3 10.0 90.0 - 689.1 F. Community Initiatives 328.8 3,184.2 278.5 3,791.5 8.7 84.0 7.3 - G. Surveys and Studies Survey, Design and Studies 68.4 615.5 - 683.9 10.0 90.0 - - Monitoring and Evaluation 33.1 297.5 - 330.5 10.0 90.0 - - Subtotal Surveys and Studies 101.4 913.0 - 1,014.4 10.0 90.0 - - H. Implementation Consultants International Consultants - 4,335.8 - 4,335.8 - 100.0 - 340.3 National Consultants 598.3 4,187.9 - 4,786.2 12.5 87.5 - 487.7 Consultancy Support 322.5 3,977.0 - 4,299.5 7.5 92.5 - 261.6 Subtotal Implementation Consultants 920.7 12,500.8 - 13,421.5 6.9 93.1 - 1,089.5 I. Staff Costs 9,116.4 - - 9,116.4 100.0 - - - Total Investment Costs 56,676.0 299,840.6 29,572.3 386,089.0 14.7 77.7 7.8 1,778.7 II. Recurrent Costs Maintenance of Coastal Protection 1 - 177.8 - 177.8 - 100.0 - - Maintenance of Coastal Protection 2 - - 160.6 160.6 - - 100.0 - Total Recurrent Costs - 177.8 160.6 338.4 - 52.5 47.5 - Total PROJECT COSTS 56,676.0 300,018.4 29,733.0 386,427.4 14.7 77.6 7.7 1,778.7 Interest During Implementation 29,343.1 - - 29,343.1 100.0 - - - Commitment Charges 1,358.3 - - 1,358.3 100.0 - - - Total Disbursement 87,377.4 300,018.4 29,733.0 417,128.8 20.9 71.9 7.1 1,778.7


44

Table 10: Maharashtra – Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ’000)

Total Investment Program Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Government ADB Private Sector Total (2010-2013) (2012-2015) (2014-2017) I. Investment Costs A. Civil Works 9,995.6 84,404.1 9,718.1 104,117.8 6,936.5 48,789.0 48,392.4B. Materials 7,409.8 19,779.1 2,450.3 29,639.1 1,869.1 13,941.7 13,828.4C. Equipment & Supplies Equipment, Software and Supplies 2,508.9 8,925.7 1,109.9 12,544.5 58.3 6,268.6 6,217.6 Office Equipment and Supplies 36.9 147.6 - 184.5 184.5 - -Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 2,545.8 9,073.3 1,109.9 12,729.0 242.8 6,268.6 6,217.6D. Vehicles & Boats 7.6 22.8 - 30.4 30.4 - -E. Training 12.1 109.1 - 121.2 56.2 65.0 -F. Community Initiatives 139.3 1,257.3 126.2 1,522.8 260.5 633.7 628.6G. Surveys and Studies Survey, Design and Studies 30.8 277.0 - 307.8 183.4 124.3 - Monitoring and Evaluation 12.4 111.8 - 124.2 46.0 46.7 31.5Subtotal Surveys and Studies 43.2 388.8 - 432.0 229.4 171.0 31.5H. Implementation Consultants International Consultants - 1,951.1 - 1,951.1 1,136.5 616.0 198.6 National Consultants 243.1 1,702.0 - 1,945.1 622.0 878.5 444.6 Consultancy Support 122.1 1,506.4 - 1,628.5 573.7 701.8 353.0Subtotal Implementation Consultants 365.3 5,159.5 - 5,524.7 2,332.2 2,196.3 996.2I. Staff Costs 3,196.4 0.0 - 3,196.4 1,207.4 1,198.7 790.3Total Investment Costs 23,715.1 120,193.9 13,404.5 157,313.6 13,164.5 73,264.0 70,885.0II. Recurrent Costs Total Recurrent Costs Total PROJECT COSTS 23,715.1 120,193.8 13,404.5 157,313.4 13,164.5 73,264.0 70,885.0Interest During Implementation 10,681.3 - - 10,681.3 2,038.9 5,940.0 2,697.4Commitment Charges 600.7 - - 600.7 1.7 223.8 377.9Total Disbursement 34,997.1 120,193.8 13,404.5 168,595.4 15,205.1 79,432.8 73,960.2


45

Table 11: Goa – Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ‘000)

Total Investment Program Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Government ADB Private Sector Total (2010-2013) (2012-2015) (2014-2017) I. Investment Costs A. Civil Works 2,116.3 19,820.4 1,930.9 23,867.5 4,559.0 9,646.2 9,662.4B. Materials 1,877.0 5,144.1 486.8 7,507.9 1,990.4 2,756.4 2,761.1C. Equipment & Supplies Equipment, Software and Supplies 499.6 1,778.0 220.5 2,498.1 17.3 1,239.4 1,241.5 Office Equipment and Supplies 20.8 83.2 - 104.0 104.0 - -Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 520.4 1,861.2 220.5 2,602.1 121.3 1,239.4 1,241.5D. Vehicles & Boats 3.8 11.4 - 15.2 15.2 - -E. Training 5.4 24.2 - 26.9 12.5 14.4 -F. Community Initiatives 35.7 402.7 25.1 463.5 212.7 125.3 125.5G. Surveys and Studies Survey, Design and Studies 6.8 61.6 - 68.4 40.8 27.6 - Monitoring and Evaluation 8.3 74.5 - 82.8 30.6 31.1 21.0Subtotal Surveys and Studies 15.1 136.1 - 151.2 71.4 58.8 21.0H. Implementation Consultants International Consultants - 433.6 - 433.6 252.6 136.9 44.1 National Consultants 112.0 784.0 - 896.0 309.9 369.6 216.5 Consultancy Support 78.2 964.3 - 1,042.5 379.0 413.5 250.0Subtotal Implementation Consultants 190.2 2,181.9 - 2,372.0 941.4 920.0 510.6I. Staff Costs 1,656.8 0.0 - 1,656.8 627.1 624.2 405.6Total Investment Costs 6,418.0 29,582.0 2,663.3 38,663.3 8,551.0 15,384.7 14,727.6II. Recurrent Costs Maintenance of Coastal Protection 1 - 177.8 - 177.8 177.8 - -Maintenance of Coastal Protection 2 - - 160.6 160.6 160.6 - -Total Recurrent Costs - 177.8 160.6 338.4 338.4 - -Total PROJECT COSTS 6,418.0 29,759.8 2,823.9 39,001.7 8,889.4 15,384.7 14,727.6Interest During Implementation 2,913.6 - - 2,913.6 1,150.2 1,218.5 544.9Commitment Charges 134.6 - - 134.6 10.1 46.5 78.0Total Disbursement 9,466.2 29,759.8 2,823.9 42,049.9 10,049.7 16,649.7 15,350.5


46

Table 12: Karnataka – Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ‘000)

Total Investment Program Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Government ADB Private Sector Total (2010-2013) (2012-2015) (2014-2017) I. Investment Costs A. Civil Works 11,202.2 112,203.5 9,790.6 133,196.3 35,290.3 48,789.0 49,117.0B. Materials 7,919.1 21,447.2 2,468.6 31,864.8 3,887.7 13,941.7 14,035.4C. Equipment & Supplies Equipment, Software and Supplies 2,527.5 8,991.9 1,118.2 12,637.5 58.3 6,268.6 6,310.7 Office Equipment and Supplies 36.9 147.6 - 184.5 184.5 - -Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 2,564.4 9,139.5 1,118.2 12,822.0 242.8 6,268.6 6,310.7D. Vehicles & Boats 7.6 22.8 - 30.4 30.4 - -E. Training 24.2 109.1 - 121.2 56.2 65.0 -F. Community Initiatives 153.8 1,524.2 127.2 1,805.2 533.5 633.7 638.0G. Surveys and Studies Survey, Design and Studies 30.8 277.0 - 307.8 183.4 124.3 - Monitoring and Evaluation 12.3 111.1 - 123.5 46.0 46.0 31.5Subtotal Surveys and Studies 43.1 388.1 - 431.3 229.4 170.3 31.5H. Implementation Consultants International Consultants - 1,951.1 - 1,951.1 1,136.5 616.0 198.6 National Consultants 243.1 1,702.0 - 1,945.1 622.0 878.5 444.6 Consultancy Support 122.1 1,506.4 - 1,628.5 573.7 701.8 353.0Subtotal Implementation Consultants 365.3 5,159.5 - 5,524.7 2,332.2 2,196.3 996.2I. Staff Costs 3,177.5 - - 3,177.5 1,207.4 1,179.7 790.3Total Investment Costs 25,445.1 150,023.8 13,504.5 188,973.4 43,809.9 73,244.2 71,919.2II. Recurrent Costs Total Recurrent Costs Total PROJECT COSTS 25,445.1 150,023.8 13,504.5 188,973.4 43,809.9 73,244.2 71,919.2Interest During Implementation 15,739.7 - - 15,739.7 7,053.7 5,948.5 2,737.4Commitment Charges 623.1 - - 623.1 19.0 223.6 383.4Total Disbursement 41,807.9 150,023.8 13,504.5 205,336.1 50,882.7 79,416.3 75,040.1


47

Appendix 5

SUMMARY FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. Objective

1. The economic and financial analysis assessed the four sub projects which are to be included under the first tranche of the loan for the Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project. The analysis focused on the economic feasibility of the individual subprojects. The benefits of the subprojects are principally the prevented losses that would occur in the without project situation. The investment and on-going maintenance costs of the subprojects are weighed against these benefits. Although the four subprojects are typical in certain respects, and the results of analysis indicative, there are many individual factors and circumstances applying in each situation and the subprojects included in later phases of the Investment Program will need to be carefully assessed.

B. Approach and Major Assumptions

2. To assess the expected quantifiable benefits of the subprojects, with and without scenarios were compared. Most benefits accrue from the prevention of losses in the without project scenarios with regard to land, buildings and infrastructure. All subprojects are assumed to have an economic life of 25 years. Quantified benefits arising from the prevention of erosion and damage are based on the probability of occurrence and accrue from the start of the respective subproject. Other benefits, notably from tourism, begin to accrue from the second or third year after the commencement of construction. Investment costs are based on the designs for proposed interventions at each site. The analysis uses the domestic price numeraire and a standard conversion factor of 0.9 and a shadow wage rate factor of 0.85 was used. Economic indicators were estimated without overhead costs (for project management, technical assistance, training and institutional strengthening) since a high proportion of these costs relate to the implementation of the overall project, not just to the first tranche loan, and to the establishment of new technologies and skills in India. Overhead costs were assigned to the subprojects (pro-rated for each state) and the economic indicators re-estimated as part of the sensitivity and risk analysis.

C. Estimated Benefits

3. Quantified Benefits: Benefits accrue principally from the protection of land, buildings and infrastructure from erosion and damage and the avoidance of some other costs. For the interventions included under the first MFF loan, benefits arise from the protection of (i) rural land, (ii) houses and public buildings, (iii) factories and (iv) roads and other infrastructure as well as from the avoidance of resettlement costs and estimated savings on dredging costs. Land and assets have been valued in economic prices and all benefits arising from protection against damage are associated with a probability of occurrence in the without project scenario. The protection, restoration or enhancement of beaches that are important for tourism or with potential for development as tourist attractions will foster increases in visitor numbers and prevent the long term decline in the number of tourists that would be inevitable if these assets are allowed to deteriorate over time. These benefits are especially important in Goa, but also occur at other locations. The benefits have been assessed in relation to the without project situations; losses without the projects relate to loss of land, buildings and infrastructure as well as loss of income from reductions in tourist numbers. Refer to project feasibility reports (Supplementary Appendixes DEF and G for a description of the present situation and the expected developments without the projects.

4. Non-Quantified Benefits: The projects have been assessed based on the more simply quantified, benefits which are adequate to provide an adequate rate of return. The project implementation will also generate additional benefits that have not been quantified. Non-quantified benefits vary from location to location but include (i) increased production or security for artisanal fishing and rural fishing families, (ii) improved security for households, businesses, farms and infrastructure in at risk coastal areas providing better conditions for future investments, and (iii) indirect impacts on employment and economic activity generally, especially where tourism or coastal infrastructure is protected. Long term benefits that may accrue from institutional strengthening and knowledge and skill upgrading in the public and private sectors have also not been quantified.


48

D. Assessment of Financial Impacts

5. Project interventions will maintain the status quo or restore situations to the pre-erosion situation. Financial impacts for beneficiaries are therefore limited and occur only in some contexts. Generally, the incomes and livelihoods of households and business turnover and profits are protected and maintained. Where an eroded beach will be restored, as at Coco Beach in Goa or Ullal in Karnataka, there will be a restoration of income for tourism businesses that lost business because of the erosion of the beach and new businesses may also be established. At other locations where future erosion is prevented, there will be no financial effect for businesses or other beneficiaries. Some interventions will reduce future government expenditures, for example by reducing future port dredging requirements, as is expected at Mirya Bay in Maharashtra14. The interventions will also have a potential impact on government expenditures by reducing future requirements for infrastructure replacement and the resettlement of affected populations.

E. Assessment of Economic Impacts

6. The results of the economic analysis show that the four subprojects have EIRRs of 14.5% for the Ullal Coastal Erosion and Inlet Project, 16.8% for both the Mirya Bay Coastal Erosion and Restoration Project and the Coco Beach Restoration Project and 33.4% for the Colva Beach Management Project. The latter project has a low cost per km of beach protected with high potential impact on tourism if the long term erosion processes along this popular tourist destination are not allowed to continue. Switching values show the subprojects at Mirya Bay, Coco Beach and Colva Beach to be robust to variations in total investment costs and total benefits, but the subproject at Ullal is more susceptible to variations in costs and benefits. This is partly a reflection of the high project cost in this case. Sensitivity analysis of benefit categories and other key variables show that individual variables by themselves generally have little impact on the economic indicators. Economic risks to the viability of these subprojects are low, the major risk being large cost overruns.

7. Overhead costs for the first project were assigned to the subprojects and in the case of Mirya Bay this reduces the EIRR to only 10.4% and at Ullal to 12.0%, but a high proportion of these costs refer to the longer term implementation of the whole investment program and to the establishment of new technologies and skills in India and not to the implementation of these subprojects.

F. Impacts on Poverty

8. The poverty headcount ratios in Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka are 30.7%, 4.4% and 25%, respectively. The primary focus of the project is on solving issues of coastal erosion and coastal management, direct impacts on and benefits to the poor are limited to those areas where a significant number of poor are likely to be beneficiaries of the subprojects. Impacts on the poor, as with the non-poor, largely refer to protection from loss and damage to land, buildings, infrastructure and sources of income on which they are dependent. Where a significant portion of benefits accrue to government because public infrastructure is protected or enhanced, the proportion of government’s benefits accruing to the poor is assumed to be in proportion to their number in the population.

14 Since 2000, actual annual dredging costs at Mirkawada Port have varied between $53,000 and $285,000 per year.


49

Table 13: Summary of Economic & Financial Analysis

Item Mirya Bay Coco Beach Colva Beach Ullal Coast & Inlet

Investment cost (IND lakh) 4,848 1,330 2,475 21,605 Investment cost ($ ‘000) 9,066 2,472 4,290 39,655 Economic Internal Rate Of Return 16.8% 16.8% 33.4% 14.5% Economic Net Present Value (IND lakh) 892 338 8,031 1,797

Switching Values Cost overrun (%) +32% +39% +661% +13% Benefit shortfall (%) 1) -24% -28% -86% -11% EIRR with overhead costs 2) Note 5) 14.3% 31.2% 12.0% Beneficiaries Direct 5,000 > 30,000 at least

500,000 4) >40,000

Indirect 100,000 - Poverty Head Count Ratio 3) 30.7% 4.4% 4.4% 25.0% Poverty Impact Ratio 30.7% 3.7% 1.6% 23.3% Note: 1) All benefits together 2) All Project 1 overhead costs assigned to subprojects: Maharashtra & Karnataka – 45% each,

Goa – 10%, pro-rated according to capital cost. 3) State average ratios 4) Beneficiaries at Colva include at least half of the tourists staying in the taluka each year plus all

taluka residents employed or benefiting from tourism. The number of beneficiaries will increase each year.

5) The whole project overheads include state wide planning, capacity building and the costs for full planning and design for tranche 2 projects; most of these activities will generate additional benefits. Although the Coco, Colva and Ullal projects achieve returns of >12%, the Mirya project EIRR with the full overheads added is 8.7%


50

Appendix 6

ORGANISATIONAL PLAN

Figure 3: Proposed Organizational Structure

PMU DIRECTORMaharashtra

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT

BANK

PMU DIRECTORKarnataka

Institutional Development &

Change Management Consultants

PMU DIRECTORGoa

SEA KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF

PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

KARNATAKA PROJECT

MANAGEMENT UNIT

Project Management and Design Consultants

STATE EXECUTING AGENCY(SEA)

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD

SEA GOA DEPARTMENT OF

WATER RESOURCES

Deputy DirectorTechnical

Contracts and ProcurementConstruction QC/QADesign EngineerSite EngineersSocial/institutional specialistGIS/MIS officer

Deputy Director Admin and Finance

Finance ManagerAccountantAdmin managerPublic RelationsComputer assistantSecretaries, drivers etc

Deputy Director -Associated Agencies and District Level Administration

EnvironmentFisheriesPortsForestryTourismPanchayatDistrictCRZAdministrations

PMU same asMaharashtra

PMU same as Maharashtra

COMMUNITY SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS

GOA PROJECT MANAGEMENT

UNIT

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

( National Coordinating Agency)

CENTRAL WATER COMMISSIONCWPRS

CWC PMU

MAHARASHTRA PROJECT

MANAGEMENT UNIT PMU


51

Appendix 7

SUMMARY OF SUB PROJECTS

A. Mirya Bay Coastal Erosion and Protection Project

1. Location

1. Mirya Bay, in Ratnagiri District is the sub-project site in Maharashtra State. It is situated between two headlands.. The site is complex and is subject to diverse physical, biological, social and cultural interactions. The location and key areas of accretion/ sedimentation are shown in Figure 4

Figure 4: Overview of Mirya Bay – Showing Areas of Erosion and Accretion

2. Present Problem

2. Mirya Bay would not be eroding if anthropogenic pressure from development had not occurred. Bay beaches are traditionally stable due to protection supplied from headlands aiding the retention of sediment within the bay. Since little sand is lost from the system naturally it would take a large energy event or physical alteration to remove sand. The bay system is described as closed since no sediment is leaving or entering, this is important when trying to understand the system. In this case human interference is the sole cause of the severe erosion witnessed.

3. Mirya Bay is subject to numerous inter-linked pressures. The natural hydrodynamic circulation moves the sediment to the south of the bay, only to be trapped by the fishing harbor. Without the harbor, the natural littoral drift would return the sediment to the north of the bay. The seawall, built for land and property protection on the north part, is causing increased instability of the beach and preventing sediment accretion.

4. . The prime causes of erosion on the north beach is related to::


52

(i) Significant volumes of sand is being trapped in the wave shadow zone of the fishing port

(ii) Dredged sand from the port is being placed on land, rather than being put back to the bay.

(iii) The beach which originally provided coastal protection is now severely degraded due to the lack of sand supply and offers virtually no protection.

3. Ongoing Development Proposals

5. The problem of erosion cannot be considered in isolation with the other developments in the bay. Three development projects are presently being proposed for the Mirya bay.

(i) The Department of fisheries is proposing to dredge 60,000m3 from the fisheries harbor and dump the material out to sea. (work proposed for 2009)

(ii) Department of Fisheries has designed and requested government funding for a major expansion of the present fisheries harbor. The alignment of the new breakwaters is shown in Figure 4.

(iii) There are also some proposals to extend the commercial breakwater.

4. Probable Impacts of the Developments

6. The results of extensive numerical modeling of the bay indicate that:

(i) Dumping offshore of the dredged material will further reduce the sediment balance. The PPTA consultants recommend the dumping should be transferred to the shallow water in the north bay. This proposal has been endorsed by CWPRS.

(ii) The design of the new fishing port will significantly increase the volume of sand trapped adjacent to the north breakwater of the new port, which would causing further sand depletion and further erosion of the northern beaches.

(iii) If the breakwater of the commercial port were to be extended this would create a larger wave shadow zone which would lead to further trapping of sand which could actually swamp the entrance to the fishing port.

7. The key issues relating to Mirya are summarized in Figure 5.


53

Figure 5: Key Issues at Mirya Bay

Proposed extension of the main breakwater and the fishing port. The yellow shoreline shows the anticipated shape of the fillet of sand that will build up in the wave shadow zone after construction of the proposed fishing port. The red line shows the fillet with the commercial port breakwater extension and the likely extent of beach erosion without protective works. The waves during the monsoon come from 250°T as shown by the dotted arrows which define the line of wave shadowing associated with two proposed extensions. The orange and green lines show the current position of the sand fillet and the original shoreline respectively.

5. Overall Development Proposal

8. The proposal for Mirya Bay is for a integrated development package rather than a piecemeal development approach that will ultimately lead to wasted spending and repeated costs. The study has shown that there would be major cost and functional benefits if the development of the fishing and commercial harbors were to be combined. Extending the commercial breakwater creates a larger wave sheltered zone which would allow a significantly improved design for the fish harbor to be constructed. Benefits of this approach would include (i) improving the fishing port entrance for boats; (ii) reducing maintenance dredging costs and improving benefits to the beaches; (iii) reducing the wave energy levels in the fishing port;(iii) saving costs on the construction and maintenance of the fishing port breakwaters (which would be no longer subjected to large waves at the entrance and environs).

9. The proposed fish harbor is presently planned and designed exclusively for fishing boats. The commercial harbor is almost entirely for the cement plant. There are no existing or planned facilities for general cargo ships, tourist ships and boats. An integrated harbor plan would offer significant opportunities and benefits to the local economy.

Monsoon wave angle of 250oT


54

6. Project Stages

10. The proposed project would be implemented in two stages:

(i) Stage 1: Erosion Protection of the Northern Part of Mirya Bay (To be implemented under Project 1 of the Loan) (a) Constructing a small headland “Cup Reef” to trap sand at the northern end of

the Bay. (b) Sand nourishment to return to the beach all the available sand trapped within

and around the existing fishing port, particularly including the sand in the reclamation area.

(ii) Stage 2: Sustainable Development of the Fisheries and Commercial Harbors

(Proposed for Funding Under Project 2 of the Loan) A combined development of the commercial and fishing harbors; including (i) Construction of an extended commercial port breakwater and (ii) altering the proposed fishing port wall locations by expanding the reclamation area to the north, to ensure that sand from the northern and central parts of the beach are not trapped as a large fillet of sand adjacent to the new port lee wall.

7. Consultation with Stakeholders

11. The overall stage 1 and stage 2 proposals have evolved as a result of the modeling results completed in December 2008. The findings of the study and the proposed integrated project were discussed at State Level with MMB and the Department of Fisheries on the 19 January 2009, and the State Working Group at a meeting on 11 February 2009. A meeting was held at the district level on 23 January

12. The stage 1 project has been discussed extensively with the stakeholders; the preliminary design was presented and discussed at formal meeting with stakeholders the project was held on 6 November 2008. At the meeting full consent was given by the community stakeholders including the fishermen, the district collector and residents.

13. Further discussions were held with the district level officials in January 2009, some design modifications were presented at the meeting.

8. Stage 1 Plan Erosion Protection in Northern Part of the Mirya Bay

14. The stage 1 project is proposed for implementation to provide the very necessary protection to the North part of the bay-presently the most critical. The stage 1 project can be implemented as a standalone project and is independent of the final plan for the fishing harbor.

15. The studies have indentified the importance of wave sheltering to support the creation of sand trapping zones. Three interventions are proposed:

(i) Construction of an offshore reef to the northern headland to replicate the sand capture presently occurring in the fisheries port at the south end of the bay.

(ii) To provide 450,000 m³ of beach nourishment to the northern part of the bay. The sand for this beach nourishment will be sourced from the deposited sand around the harbor area.

(iii) Financial support for community initiatives to improve income generation through tourism, shore fisheries etc.

16. The goal is to protect the houses in the northern end of the Bay while providing sandy areas for the cottage industry fishing fleet and general use, such as deployment of fishing nets, tourism, more effective beach usage etc. The reef is anticipated to change the northern corner of the Bay into a sandy beach.

17. The reef specifications are given in Table 14. The reef has the following key elements:


55

(i) “Cup reef” shape to capture sand moving shoreward over the reef crest (ii) Rotating orientation to cause the waves crossing the reef to be deflected more to the

north and thereby rotate the waves more onto the northern corner of the Bay (iii) Divergent rounded shape that is designed to scatter the wave energy and thereby

increase the shadow effect (iv) Reef crest height to be set at the LAT (the Lowest Astronomic Tide) to break the

waves in all seasons (not just the monsoon). 18. The proposed plan for the Stage 1 ‘Erosion Protection for Mirya North Part’ is shown in Figure 6. The total volume of sand for nourishment is 450,000 m³ to be placed along 2 km of shoreline, providing 216m³/m. The sand would be sourced from sediment in the fish harbor as well as sand trapped against the lee wall of the fishing harbor.

Figure 6: Final Design Proposal for Mirya Bay Subproject

Final reef design proposal for Mirya Bay. Satellite image illustrates position (left) with the reef included in the model

bathymetry (right)

Table 14: Specifications for the Reef at Northern Mirya Bay

Statistic Reef Distance offshore (m, to MSL from inner-most section of reef) 260 Depth of water (m) 2.5-3 m Crest height (below LAT) (m) 0


56

Longshore length of reef (m) 360 Volume of reef (m3) 15,000 Shape Cup Predicted salient amplitude (m) 100

a. Detailed Design

19. Detailed design of the Mirya sub project will be based on the preliminary design but incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the geotextile reef and the beach nourishment. The final design will also include detailed drawings, specifications and bills of quantities. Based on these further studies the final design will define the final location and specifications of the components of the project.

b. Management and Maintenance Requirements

20. A re-nourishment of the beach will be required one year after the initial beach nourishment (and has been included in capital costs). After this no on-going maintenance costs are foreseen for these interventions. It is proposed to establish a small ‘Shoreline Management Organization’ consisting of stakeholders and direct beneficiaries to support the management of the completed scheme and help coordinate the community initiatives as well as environmental monitoring requirements. The organization would take on the responsibility for the management and protection of the reef.

c. Environmental, Social and Gender Issues

21. Comprehensive environmental, social and gender assessments have been carried out. The main conclusions are that:

(i) There will be some temporary environmental disruption during the project implementation but the natural ecology would quickly recover. There are no significant fish breeding grounds and once completed the construction of the reef would in fact enhance the fish stocks. The work would effectively return the previously eroded beach to its previous state. The net environmental impacts would be in the form of an improvement of the environmental conditions.

(ii) The project would provide benefits to local householders and fishermen. All the work would be implemented within the shoreline area; (i) the reef would be located in the sea (nearshore zone); (ii) sand for beach nourishment would be sourced from beach material deposited in or near the harbor area (iii) beach nourishment would occur on the foreshore or nearshore zone. Permanent settlement is not permitted in these areas and as such the project will not displace people but is actually expected to provide them with a reinstatement of the previously lost beach areas. There will therefore not be any requirement for land acquisition or resettlement.

(iii) There are some indications of possible contamination of the sand inside the harbor area; the naturally deposited sand outside the harbor however directly originates from the beach areas and would not be subject to any contamination. Sand would be tested prior to initiating the beach nourishment.

(iv) There are no indigenous or ethnic minority people at the sub-project area. Hence, the preparation of an Indigenous People’s Development Plan is not relevant. Support will be provided under the project to support women.

9. Costs

22. The 2008 base costs for the Mirya project are summarized in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Mirya 2008 Base Costs excluding taxes

Quantity $ '000 Rs Lakh Beach Nourishment 490,000m3 2,953 1,447


57

Second renourishment after 1 year 49000m3 510 250 Multipurpose sand filled geotextile reef 1nr 3,757 1,841 Initiatives to support community development Ls 250 123 Total 7,469 3,660

23. Including contingencies and inflation the interventions at Mirya Bay have a total cost of $9.1 million (Rs 48.5 crore). Apart from renourishment of the beach that will be required one year after the initial beach nourishment (which has been included in capital costs); no on-going maintenance costs are foreseen for these interventions. A summary of the costs including contingencies and escalation are shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Mirya Bay – Summary of Costs (Totals incl. Contingencies and escalation)

1. 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total IND lakh 1,848.0 2,612.4 384.9 - 4,848.3 $ ‘000 3,553.5 4,827.0 685.6 - 9,066.1

10. Benefits

24. The project will provide the following benefits:

(i) the prevention of erosion and storm damage to land and buildings (ii) the cost of replacement of the road behind the bay in the event that it were washed

out by a major storm (iii) prevented resettlement costs (iv) the benefits of future tourism and recreational development on the beach. (v) dredging in and around the fishing harbor for beach nourishment will result in future

savings in dredging costs at the fishing harbor. 25. For the base case, the EIRR of the proposed subproject is 16.8% and the NPV in economic prices is Rs 892 lakh ($1.9 million).

B. Coco Beach Restoration Project

1. Location

26. Coco beach in central Goa is one of the two sub-projects selected for the State of Goa. Coco Beach is a small embayment located on the north side of Aguada Bay, across the water from the Goa state capital city, Panaji. The beach is in a relatively sheltered Augada Bay at the mouth of the Mandovi Estuary. Coco existed as an important beach for the past decade. Several establishments including permanent and temporary has been came into existence to tap the increase in tourism inflow to this place. The area is beautiful with panoramic landscape and vegetation. The location is shown in Figure 7 below.


58

Figure 7: Overview of Coco Bay, Goa

2. Present Problem

27. The beach is a small bay and the river mouth is visible from the beach. It has experienced severe erosion over recent years and now the local village, local fishing industry and tourism development is under substantial threat. Sediment has been moved within the bay to an extent that it will not return naturally through littoral transport alone.

28. Rocks wall protection has been used to protect the last remaining strip of developed land before the fields. Erosion has been further exacerbated and the problem enhanced due to wave scour at the foot of the walls. A solution is needed that will address the erosion in a holistic manner, include the needs of fishermen and provide an aesthetically pleasing results for tourism development (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Coco Beach

Coco beach before erosion (left) and how the beach is found today (middle and right)

3. Development Proposal for Coco Beach

29. The investigations have revealed that the wave patterns have been substantially altered by changes to the bathymetry off Mama Point. The waves are not rotating around the Point sufficiently to


59

hold the sand in place on Coco Beach. As a result, slowly through time, Coco beach’s sand volume has dropped. The following solutions shown in Figure 9 are proposed:

(i) Renourishment of the Bay with 150,000 m3 of sand to replace the lost volume

(ii) Construction of underwater Geotextile Berms to hold the sand in place at Coco Beach (400 m and 180 m, 2.1 m height of Geotube, 3,600 m3 volume)

(iii) Construction of a semi submerged Breakwater Reef on Mama Point to block the passage of waves that come into Coco Bay (96 m length, crest 2.5 m above LAT)

Figure 9: Satellite Image of Coco beach with Geotextile Berms

Satellite image of Coco beach with Geotextile Berms to retain nourishment and protect coastline; offshore breakwater reef to re-align waves and provide coastal protection.

30. The sediment for nourishment will be sourced from Mandovi River mouth, a location that is regularly in need of dredging and will aid boat passage. The dredging will thereby assist the passage of vessels while the sand will be used for restoring the beach.

31. The beach will be wide and safe. The location is sheltered from the monsoon winds, and close to main tourist areas like Calangute.

32. A future possible addition to the project would be to construct a jetty possibly with a design that straddles the main geotube wall. The goal would be to protect the geotube from boats and pedestrians/fishermen who may choose to use the geotube as a walkway. While this can occur without damaging the geotube if high quality material is purchased with a protective coating, the jetty would also provide an ideal location for small craft as the jetty will be in a highly sheltered zone, suitable for small craft, including passenger ferries, water taxis and pleasure craft. The jetty would be a feature for domestic tourism and fishing access. The new jetty and other facilities could be a possible area of funding under a PPP arrangement.


60

a. Discussions with Stakeholders

33. A number of stakeholder meetings have been held. In general there is consensus for the project and the potential for economic benefit for the bay. Fishermen have raised some issues of the impacts on boat movements; within the bay the fishermen are only minimally involved in tourism and see tourism as a threat. Further dialogue is required to engage with fishermen and address how the projects benefits could best incorporate the fishermen.

b. Management and Maintenance Requirements

34. The management requirements at Coco Bay will be minimal after construction completion. Nourishment after one year will be required in order to encourage the beach to retain equilibrium, it is estimated that this renourishment will be a one-off event. A team will be required to routinely check the geotextile containers for human interference. In the event of damage through anchorage or deliberate mistreatment then the team will be competent to repair minor damage. The offshore breakwater is a permanent, rock structure which will require very minimal, maintenance and management. It is proposed to establish a small ‘Shoreline Management Organization’ consisting of stakeholders and direct beneficiaries to support the management of the completed scheme and help coordinate the community initiatives as well as environmental monitoring requirements

c. Environmental, Social and Gender Issues

35. Benefits will be felt by the local community through the enhancement of fisheries and tourism, alongside protection from Monsoon sea conditions in the Monsoon season. The proposed project will benefit tourism, both local and international visitors will be drawn to the site once the beach has been re-established and the facilities improved.


(i) There will be some temporary environmental disruption during the project implementation but the natural ecology would quickly recover. The beach nourishment would create some temporary turbidity; there are however no significant fish breeding grounds in the vicinity. The work would effectively return the previously eroded beach to its previous state. The net environmental impacts would be in the form of an improvement of the environmental conditions. High levels of turbidity are frequently experienced during the storm period of the monsoon.

(ii) All the work would be implemented within the shoreline area; (i) the breakwater and geotextile walls would be located in the sea (nearshore zone) and would be below the low water level; (ii) sand for beach nourishment would be sourced from from the Mandovi River mouth, a location that is regularly in need of dredging and will aid boat passage.

(iii) The beach nourishment would occur on the foreshore or nearshore zone. Permanent settlement is not permitted in these areas and as such the project will not displace people but is actually expected to provide them with a reinstatement of the previously lost beach areas. There will therefore not be any requirement for land acquisition or resettlement.

(iv) There are no indigenous or ethnic minority people at the sub-project area. Hence, the preparation of an Indigenous People’s Development Plan is not relevant. Support will be provided under the project to support women.

(v) The erosion of the beach has clearly caused a loss of income for women vendors, the beach reinstatement will open opportunities for women. There are some concerns by women hawkers who may face eviction from the beach, and there are proposals to help them set up established stalls and provide employment in beach management.


61

d. Detailed Design

37. Detailed design of the Coco sub project will be based on the preliminary design but incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the breakwater reef, the geotextile retention structures and beach nourishment. The final design will also include detailed drawings, specifications and bills of quantities. Based on these further studies the final design will define the final location and specifications of the components of the project.

4. Costs

38. The 2008 base costs for the Coco beach subproject are estimated in Table 17.

Table 17: Coco 2008 Base Costs excluding taxes

Quantity $ '000 Rs Lakh Beach Nourishment 180,000m3 900 441 Sand filled geotextile retention structure 1nr 583 285 Offshore low crested rock breakwater Ls 382 187 Initiatives to support community development 200 914 Total 2,065 1,828

39. Including escalation and contingencies the estimated cost for the subproject is $2.5 million (Rs 1,330 lakh) as summarized in Table 18 below.

Table 18: Coco Beach Sub Project Costs ($ ‘000)

2. 2010 2011 2012 Total IND lakh 249.9 1,039.4 40.4 1,329.7 $ ‘000 480.5 1,920.5 71.3 2,472.3

a. Benefits

40. The project will support the diversification and stabilization of the local economy at Coco Beach. Create jobs and business opportunity through attracting additional businesses and increased tourism. Foreign tourism will increase the economy substantially.

b. Environmental

41. Re-establish previous beach additional reef habitat. Geotextiles and nourishment schemes are environmentally less harmful than other alternative methods for sea defense i.e. rock walls. The breakwater reef will provide substantial protection to the west part of the bay during the monsoon season and storm events. Submerged structures will create new habitats, enhancing and diversifying the natural ecology of the bay. Also the project hopes to encourage public participation in maintaining a cleaner environment.

c. Social

42. – Brings outside revenue supporting community facilities and services. Provides operational space for beach landing of boats to support traditional livelihood and enhancing the income of traditional fishermen, additional reef fish will be attracted to the area. Tourism based amenities and recreation will increase economic value to the beach thereby creating opportunity for investors in beach based tourism. Local workers will benefit from the increased jobs available.

43. The proposed interventions are:

(i) Environmentally less harmful than other alternative methods for sea defense; (ii) Increased protection during Monsoon season and storm events; (iii) Do not tamper with the natural resilience of the system; (iv) Interventions can result in biologically richer and diverse habitat; and


62

(v) Potential for enhanced fishery and social benefits.

d. Economic Benefits:

44. At Coco Beach, the first source of benefits of the proposed interventions will be the restoration of the beach to its former status and consequently the restoration of economic benefits that previously accrued. In addition, the beach will in many ways be improved, compared with the past, upon completion of the restoration. It will provide a safe and calm swimming area in addition to the restored beach area, and its use as a base for water sports and boating activities is very likely to expand. Without any project intervention, it is likely that the land behind the beach will eventually erode and saline intrusion into the fields behind the beach will result in the cessation of agricultural production.

45. The proposed Coco Beach Restoration Project has an EIRR of 16.8% and a NPV in economic prices of Rs 338 lakh ($690,000).

C. Colva Beach Management Project

1. Location

46. The Colva Beach Sub Project (Figure 10) in southern Goa is a 6.5 km long section of the straight and uniform long Salcete Beach which stretches 25 km stretch from Velsao to Betul, in the Salcet Taluka. It attracts quite a large number of both domestic and international tourists. The Colva Beach Sub Project incorporates three main tourist beaches — Utorda, Majorda and Colva. The beach near Colva town is used for mass tourism and attracts a large number of day visitors. Utorda and Majorda have lower levels of (mainly international) visitors.

Figure 10: Overview of Colva Beach, near Margoa, Goa

2. The Problem

47. The entire 25 km Salcete beach (from Velsao to Betul) is slowly, but substantially, eroding over its full length. While quality white sand is plentiful along the coast, the erosion is caused by a slow degradation of the upper beach. For the Utorda and Majorda beach areas the problems are more serious with medium levels of beach and dune erosion occurring. A major factor is the uncontrolled flow of water across the beach during the Monsoon, which erodes a nalla across the beach that can migrate down the coast eroding the upland dunes and properties.


63

48. At Colva beach domestic and international tourism is very large and forms a very important part of Goa’s overall future development. There are already several 5-star resorts along the coast and more are planned. The beach is also suitable for smaller-scale tourism, given its long length. The major issue at Colva and surrounding beaches is that continued erosion and deterioration of the beaches affect tourism and related activities.

49. The land runoff during the monsoon feeds the rivers, and also creates temporary water flowing out across the beach in many areas, a feature known locally as a “nalla.” The water flow from a nalla creates a meandering channel across the beach, the interaction of the nalla with the coastal processes causes the path of the nalla to meander and migrate during the monsoonal flows. Wherever a nalla exists, erosion of the beach and upland dune can easily occur. Many efforts to control the nalla location and dune erosion using small rocks or sandbags were observed at various points along the beach. The observed erosion problem is often worsened using this method as increased scour at the base of these walls often induces further erosion, causing more damage and the wall to fail.

50. Anthropogenic activities such as constructions in sandy areas, beach resorts, coastal roads and sand mining are other major contributing factors which have led to the desecration and consequent elimination of sand dunes (Mascarenhas, 1998). The loss of beaches amounts to loss of opportunities including livelihood of the dependent communities.

3. Development Proposal

51. The Colva sub project incorporates a 6.5 km stretch of the Salcette beach; and includes the Utorda, Majorda and Colva beaches.

52. Three types of protection are proposed for the Colva sub project:

(i) Dune Management: Along the most of the beach there is low erosion, with more severe erosion is occurring at some localized points. The general prognosis is that erosion will increase over time if no action is taken. For these parts of mainly low erosion it is proposed implement dune management to provide protection at the erosion points as well as preemptive protection along the whole beach. Dune management is a simple and effective low cost solution and is very appropriate for the low erosion situations. By building up the dunes and planting with grasses, the dunes can form a natural protection and buffer against erosion. Activities under dune management include scraping of the sand from the lower part of the beach and placing on the dunes, shaping and planting of the dunes with natural grasses. Dune management requires an effective organization to maintain and repair the dunes as required. Damage to the dunes after storms should be quickly repaired by scraping of sand from the low tide level and replanting of lost or damaged grasses. Linked to dune management is periodic excavation of nalla channels after storms and prior to the monsoon. This activity can help alleviate the erosion damage caused by meandering nalla. Planting, fencing and laying of semi permanent pathways and slip roads are key aspects of dune management. Community-led dune restoration is the most affordable management option available (about 1% of seawall costs). The length of dune management would be about 5.3 km.

(ii) Dune Management plus geotubes: At the Utorda and Majorda beaches areas the erosion is more significant. There is risk of dune breaching and erosion damage to the shoreline. A major factor is the uncontrolled flow of water across the beach during the monsoon, which erodes a stream line (nalla) across the beach. The nallas to migrate up down the coast and cause turbulence when they meet the sea this causing increased erosion risk in the vicinities of the nallas. The solution for these points is to reinforce the dunes with sand-filled geotextile containers (geotubes) which would be placed inside the dune system. The dunes would provide a basic buffering function but would have the geotubes to provide a back up protection during severe storms. The geotubes would also act as guide (training walls) for the nalla to ensure they don’t migrate. To ensure the long term sustainability it is important that the geotubes are kept buried in the dune. After storms the tubes may come exposed and it is important that fast track maintenance is carried out to ensure the tubes are properly buried.


64

150m of geotextile are proposed each side of the Nalla giving a total length of 600m for the two sites of Utorda and Majorda.

(iii) Offshore Geotextile Reef: At Colva town a medium sized town in the central zone, domestic tourism is very large and erosion is being increased due to the human pressure on the beach A major issue at Colva is the potential of increased erosion that may affect tourism and related activities In the central city zone of Colva. Due to the heavy human pressure dune management is difficult to undertake and an offshore reef is proposed to hold that part of the coast in place. The structure will aid defense against big wave events during the monsoon season and arrest future erosion. The proposed reef at Colva is a multi-purpose artificial soft reef.

53. The reef design for Colva is a Cup shape, which is ideal for Indian conditions. Modeling shows that the reef will protect the coast and produce a large salient with amplitude of order 100 m. The reef will therefore adequately protect the coast at Colva, while also providing other improvements for tourism and the environment, including:

(i) Reduced flooding and overtopping by waves (ii) Enhanced ecology (iii) Improved fishing (iv) Snorkeling (v) Surfing activities from board surfing to kite surfing and wind surfing (vi) Surfing school potential (vii) Sheltered swimming (viii) Better access for boats and local fishermen

54. The reef will consist of a series of sand-filled geotextile containers. The reef statistics are as follows:

(i) Reef length longshore 180 m (ii) Reef length cross-shore 140 m (iii) Distance offshore 330 m (iv) Reef crest height 0.4-2.0 m (v) Water depth 2.5-5.0 m

.

55. The proposed arrangements for the geotubes and the reef are shown in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13 below.


65

Figure 11: Conceptual Dune Management Plan with Geotubes, Utorda

Figure 12: Conceptual Dune Management Plan with Geotubes, Utorda


66

Figure 13: Proposed Reef for Colva Beach

56. A summary of the proposed works for the Colva Beach Sub Project are shown in Table 19. The proposed section of the dunes with geotubes is shown in Figure 14.

Table 19: Summary of the Proposed Works for the Colva Beach Sub Project

Nr Type Length 1. Dune Restoration and Management 1.1 Full restoration without geotubes (6m³/linear meter length of beach) 1,800 m 1.2 Rehabilitation of existing dunes (3m³/linear meter length of beach) 1,700 m 1.3 Minor dune rehabilitation of existing dunes (2m³ /linear meter length of dunes) 2,600 2. Dune Restoration and Management with Geotubes 2.1 New dune construction (5 m³/ linear meter length of beach) with geotubes (3 nr

1000m dia, 3,100 circumference geotubes including 300 mm toe protection. 600

Total 6,700 m 3. Multi-purpose Offshore Reef 1 number

Length offshore 180 m Length cross shore 140 m Distance offshore 330 m Reef Crest 0.4 m - 2.0 m Water Depth 2.5 m - 5.0 m

Design volume=8,500m3


67

Figure 14: Typical Cross-Section Design using Geotextile Tubes for Dune Core

a. Environmental, Social, and Gender Issues


(i) There will be some temporary environmental disruption during the project implementation but the natural ecology would quickly recover. There are no significant fish breeding grounds and once completed the construction of the reef would in fact enhance the fish stocks. The net environmental impacts would be in the form of an improvement of the environmental conditions.

(ii) The direct impact of erosion on other stakeholders like local residents, fishermen, and the farmers is not yet significant as there are only a few residents living close to the beach. Erosion has not yet made any direct impact on the fishing community living in temporary settlement near the shoreline. Without any intervention to protect the beach, the dunes and the beach will gradually degrade and the beach will be affected by gradually more severe erosion.

(iii) The project would mainly provide longer term benefits benefits to local householders and fishermen and women. Over time the degradation of the beach will result in revenue losses from tourism and reduction opportunities for beach vendors including women.

(iv) All the work would be implemented within the shoreline area; (i) the reef would be located in the sea (nearshore zone); (ii) sand for dune restoration would be sourced from scraping of beach material located from just above the low tide line. Permanent settlement is not permitted in these areas and as such the project will not displace people but is actually expected to provide them with a reinstatement of the previously lost beach areas. There will therefore not be any requirement for land acquisition or resettlement.

(v) There are no indigenous or ethnic minority people at the sub-project area. Hence, the preparation of an Indigenous People’s Development Plan is not relevant. Support will be provided under the project to support women.

b. Stakeholder Consultations

A number of stakeholder consultations have been held, in general there is a positive response to the project. There are however some concerns amongst the stakeholders regarding the reef; it is a new technology which not yet developed in India. It is therefore proposed to implement the reef in year 3.


68

This would give the stakeholders an opportunity to see the performance of other reefs being developed under the project

c. Detailed Design

58. Detailed design of the Colva sub project will be based on the preliminary design but incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the reef, and the dune management proposals. The final design will also include detailed drawings, specifications and bills of quantities. Based on these further studies the final design will define the final location and specifications of the reef and requirements for the dune management.

4. Costs

59. The 2008 base costs for the Colva project are summarized in Table 20.

Table 20: Colva 2008 Base Costs excluding taxes

Quantity $ '000 Rs Lakh Multipurpose sand filled geotextile reef 1nr 2,594 1,271 Beach scraping and dune restoration 28,500m3 171 84 Geotextiles for dune protection and nalla training Ls 471 231 Planting and establishment of dunes 182 89 Total 3,418 1,675

60. The estimated cost for the sub project including contingencies and escalation is $4.3 million (IND2,474 lakh) as summarized in Table 21 below.

Table 21: Colva – Summary of Costs (totals incl. contingencies and escalation)

2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Rs lakh 332.4 162.9 12.1 1,967.2 2,474.5 $ ‘000 639.2 301.0 21.3 3,328.2 4,289.7

5. Benefits

61. General: Increased tourism will be generated through the addition of the Colva reef, attracting additional local and international tourism to the already popular beach. Employment for women is expected to be improved and enhanced within the scheme as more jobs are generated. The reef will adequately protect the highly used Colva beach, while also providing other improvements for fishing, tourism and the environment, including:

(i) Shoreline stabilization and protection during monsoon and storm conditions (ii) Future preparation for sea level rise effects and possible erosion (iii) Enhanced ecology thereby improved fisheries (iv) More sheltered access for boats and local fishermen (v) Sheltered swimming; potential surfing and diving tourism

62. Environment: Dune management, dune management with geotubes and the offshore reef are all ‘soft’ technologies which are able to provide naturally and ecologically sustainable solutions to the problems associated with coastal erosion. Hard structures such as visible breakwaters and walls would cause significant environmental damage to the beach and are not appropriate. The dunes and the reef provide the environment with a platform on which to flourish, colonization of the dunes and reef geotextile structures will provide a habitat for successful breeding and multiplication.

63. Social stability will be felt through the protection of the dunes and beaches. Worries regarding their disappearance will be quashed and positive attitudes will develop from the increased awareness generated from the dune management program.


69

64. Economic benefits Without any intervention to protect the beach, the dunes and the beach will gradually degrade and the beach will be affected by gradually more severe erosion. The land behind the beach will also be threatened, affecting agriculture and existing hotels. The beach would become significantly less attractive to visitors and the number of tourists visiting this beach would decline will be felt as the coastline is promoted as an environmentally sustainable and well maintained natural beach.

65. The EIRR for the Colva sub project is 33.4% and the NPV is IND8,031 Lakh ($16.4 million). This subproject has a relatively low investment cost and a high level of potential benefits, resulting in a high EIRR.

D. Ullal Coastal Erosion and Inlet Improvement Project

1. Location

66. The sub project site of the Mangalore channel and Ullal beach encompasses a stretch of coast on the southwest of Karnataka. Ullal entrance and beaches are 10 km south of Mangalore city. A barrier spit system exists at the mouth of the estuary of the Gurupur and Netravati River confluence. The 1.4 km Ullal spit is to the south. Another spit exists at the north of the estuary, the Bengare spit, which runs parallel to the Gurupur River. The Ullal entrance is the key shipping channel for old Mangalore Port, which is heavily used by local fishing boats.

2. Present Problem

67. Ullal is a natural inlet that has been modified by the construction of breakwaters in 1995 for safe navigation of the entrance. The training walls physically inhibit the natural migration of the sand spit and since training wall construction, erosion at the Ullal spit and accretion at the Bengare spit has been observed. With continued erosion at Ullal, it is highly likely that in time the spit could be breached creating a new or several new mouths to the Netravati River with substantial erosion and sedimentation problems.

68. The Ullal beach to the south of the inlet has been seriously eroding for over decades, and now the local people are under severe attack from waves. Many houses have been lost to the south of the entrance training walls. Now, the residents are threatened by waves over the full year and under severe threat in the monsoon. This site was at the top of the priority list of the Karnataka Ports & Inland Waterways Department and in desperate need of a solution to the ever worsening erosion problems.

3. Development Proposal

69. Over long time scales, Ullal beach can be stable under either of the following scenarios:

(i) Equilibrium alignment, i.e. when the amount of sand moved north by waves is equal to the amount moved south; or

(ii) Supply of sand from the north, i.e. when there is a supply of sand from the north to feed the littoral drift to the south.

70. If one of these two conditions is not present then erosion will occur. The recommended solution to solve the Ullal erosion takes a longer term perspective. A multi-faceted hybrid solution with the following three components is proposed:

(i) The shortening and repair of the southern breakwater by 110m to allow better by-passing of sand to the south (Figure 16);

(ii) 220 m extension to the south-west (across the channel) of the north breakwater wall. This extension wall will be smoothly curved and aligned approximately south-west to allow sand coming from the north to naturally by-pass.

(iii) Beach Nourishment Scheme; 1.2 million cubic meters at the northern end of Ullal beach.


70

(iv) The construction of three offshore multi-purpose artificial soft reefs (M-ASR’s) to hold the proposed nourishment in place (Figure 17); statistics of which are given in Table 19.

Figure 15: Shortening and Repair of the Southern Breakwater

Re-alignment of existing training walls or breakwaters with the additional extension of the north spit (left) and the shortening of the southern spit (right).

Figure 16: Offshore Multi-Purpose Artificial Soft Reefs (M-ASR’s)

Satellite image of the Ullal spit and beach with plan design of the three submerged offshore geotextile reefs proposed for Ullal (left). Modeled position of the three reefs along the coastline with anticipated salients (right).

Table 22: Specifications for the Three Reefs at Ullal Beach

Statistic Reef 1 Reef 2 Reef 3 Distance offshore (m, to MSL from inner-most section of reef) 900 800 700 Depth of water (m) 7.3 6.9 6.7 Longshore length of reef (m) 260 220 180 Volume of reef (m³) 25,000 19,000 15,000 Predicted salient amplitude (m) 200 170 140


71

a. Management and Maintenance Requirements

71. Once constructed the offshore reefs will not require any maintenance. The rock breakwaters will require periodically some replacement of rocks and tetrapods that have slipped. Both these forms of coastal defense are designed to withstand the monsoon conditions. General integrated shoreline management is recommended, as with all areas looking to increase tourism, for an environmentally sustainable and attractive beach site. It is proposed to establish a Shoreline Management Organization consisting of local stakeholders who will be responsible for the long term management of the investments as well as any minor maintenance.

b. Environmental, Social and Gender Issues

72. The engineering designs described for this project site will prevent further degradation at the coastline, whilst providing a situation whereby natural processes will enable the beach to regain stability. Reversing the environmental degradation will ensure that:

(i) Fisheries are protected, as well as the beach from which boats can be launched locally is also maintained;

(ii) The channel entrance remains sediment free yet the natural littoral drift is uninterrupted; and

(iii) Environmental enhancement can be obtained through the use of submerged reef structures in coastal defense and increased protected areas.

73. The benefits of the proposed interventions on the beach will accrue from the positive impact from the prevention of erosion by correcting the sediment cycle. The submerged reefs are likely to provide a localized impact enhancement to fisheries.

74. The technical mitigation measures for erosion control of the beach will not require any land acquisition. Neither any loss of income is envisaged due to project implementation. There will not be any loss of land or other form of property and hence resettlement of affected persons will not be required.

75. As there are no indigenous people at Ullal TMC, a plan to address loss due to project impact is not required. About 20% of women are employed in the fish processing factories,the prevention of the loss of these factories will provide significant job security.

76. Fishermen previously used to land their boats on the Ullal beach which has now completely been lost. Reinstatement of the beach will reopen this facility.

c. Detailed Design

77. Detailed design of the Ullal sub project will be based on the preliminary design but incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the reefs, and beach nourishment. The final design will also include the specifications and bills of quantities. Based on these further studies the final design will define the locations of the quantities for beach nourishment, sizes and final number of reefs.

4. Implementation

78. Detailed designs for the beach nourishment and the offshore reefs are being prepared by the TA consultants. This will allow the implementation of this part to proceed in year 1 of the project. The proposed changes to the rock breakwaters have been designed to a preliminary design level. Some further modeling of the inlet channel is proposed to reconfirm the preliminary design proposals as well as the detailed design for the rock breakwater. This work would be completed during year 1 of the project with implementation during year 2.There would be scope for the state to apply for advance contracting of these studies using retroactive ADB finance.


72

5. Costs

79. The 2008 base costs are summarized in Table 23 below.

Table 23: Ullal Base Costs 2008 excluding taxes

Quantity $ '000 Rs Lakh Beach nourishment 1,250,000m3 8,550 4,190 Beach renourishment once only after 1 year 125,000m3 1,438 704 Multipurpose sand filled geotextile reef 11,704 5,735 Shortening of southern breakwater 395 193 Extension to northern breakwater 5,272 2,583 Strengthening of existing breakwaters Ls 10,927 5,354 Initiatives to support community development Ls 500 245 Total 38,785 19,004

80. The estimated cost for the subproject including contingencies and escalation is $39.7 million (Rs 21,606 Lakh) as summarized in Table 24.


73

Table 24: Ullal – Summary of Costs (totals incl. contingencies)

2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

IND lakh 7,226.7 7,723.2 3,762.3 2,893.0 21,605.2 $ ‘000 13,869.0 14,270.3 6,650.5 4,894.7 39,654.5

6. Benefits

81. Benefits will be felt by the local community through the enhancement of fisheries and tourism, alongside protection from Monsoon sea conditions. The main economic benefits of the subproject come from

(i) Protection of the spit on the southern side of the inlet entrance from possible breaching. This would have very serious consequences on the access to the Mangalore old port.

(ii) Protection of land and buildings along the coast south of the existing breakwaters from damage and erosion

(iii) Avoidance of resettlement costs that may arise if land and buildings are eroded

(iv) Enhance tourism with implementation of the proposed interventions.

82. Re-design of the training walls will allow greater sand by-passing ensuring the beaches south will recover from erosion. Improving the navigation to the fishing harbor channel will provide safe passage for fishing vessels without the need to dredge.

83. The reefs and nourishment will adequately protect the coast at Ullal, while also providing other improvements for fishing, tourism and the environment, including:

(i) Shoreline stabilization and protection during monsoon and storm conditions

(ii) Future preparation for sea level rise effects and possible erosion

(iii) Enhanced ecology thereby improved fisheries

(iv) Better access for boats and local fishermen

(v) Sheltered swimming; potential for surfing and diving tourism 84. These Geotextile ‘soft’ technologies are a a natural and ecologically sustainable solution to the problems associated with coastal erosion than the previous engineering of hard structures such as visible breakwaters and walls.

85. The project at Ullal has an EIRR of 14.5% and a NPV in economic prices of Rs 1,797 lakh.


74

Appendix 8

LONG LIST OF PROVISIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

A. Introduction

1. The long list of provisional development projects provides an initial framework for the proposed Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 projects. The list is based primarily on information provided by the states based on identified projects or identified problems at specific locations and should not be considered as a strategic or integrated coastal plan.

B. Scope of the Project Investments

2. Discussions with the State and National Implementing agencies and key stakeholders have identified the requirement that the project scope has to address the wider issues of coastal protection and management. Although coastal protection is the key theme an integrated and holistic approach is proposed that will be designed to maximize the benefits from the project. The seven proposed categories of investment are shown in Table 25 below.

Table 25: Categories of Investments for Coastal Protection and Management

Category Code

Category Sub Categories Description

1 Erosion protection Land Protection Beach protection/regeneration

Addressing erosion problems through implementation of technically, socially and environmentally appropriate solutions

2 Causes of erosion and/or coastal stability

Beach crossings Breakwaters Harbors River or drain training Correction of inappropriate protection (rock wall / groynes, etc) Sand mining Other infrastructure

Addressing the causes of coastal erosion and coastal instability. Interventions would be designed to minimize impacts of development on the coastal environment.

3 Natural protection measures and environmental improvements 15

Dune management Shelter belts Mangrove planting / protection

Links with category 1 but requiring different implementation and management arrangements. Natural protection should be considered for protection as well as a pre-emptive measure to avoid future erosion problems.

4 Other support areas for coastal management

Water quality Navigation inlets Dredging Reclamation Khar land reclamation

Shoreline values are affected by water quality. Areas of intervention might include treatment, outfalls. Planned and managed navigation inlets to rivers, harbors are critical for shipping, fisheries. Dredging linked to navigation inlets appropriate dumping of dredge material to be used for the benefit of the shoreline.

5 Coastal facilities Fish harbors Shipping harbors, jetties, marinas Beach rehabilitation Coastal land infrastructure – access roads, drainage Bridges

Associated investments to increase economic productivity of shoreline. Investments to increase the amenity values. Improvements in the quality of the shoreline environment including opportunities for recreation.

15 These are referred to as bioshields in the Swaminathan Committee Report


75

Category Code

Category Sub Categories Description

Tourist recreation facilities 6 Procurement of

marine equipment Equipment for surveys, dredging, and support for the coastal zone

State Executing Agencies have requested dredging and survey equipment. Specialized hydrographic survey equipment will also be supplied as a part of the consultancy contract.

7 Non-physical interventions

Initiatives to support community development Initiatives to support the economic development of the coastal zone

A mix of non structural activities to support community and economic development of the coastline.

C. Information Sources

3. The long list has been developed from a number of information sources including:

(i) Field surveys by the PPTA consultants

(ii) Information from the National Coastal Protection Project

(iii) Updated information from the State Executing Agencies D. Prioritization of Proposals

4. The proposed baseline costs for Coastal Protection and Management Investments is $319.6 million including taxes but excluding physical and price contingencies. The total value of proposals for the long list as presented by the SEA amounts to $721 million including taxes (Maharashtra $145 million, Goa $32 million and Karnataka $544 million). The total long list including the sub projects is 2.25 times the available funding. The long list is only indicative and a list of projects in excess of the budget is considered an indication of the overall needs and provides a stock of spare projects.

5. An adjustment of the long list to fit the budget has been carried out. The adjustment has been made based on prioritization of projects and estimation of the needs of each state. The analysis and adjustment of the proposed projects to fit the budget is shown in Supplementary Appendix H.

E. Proposed Long List

6. The proposed long list of projects after prioritization is given in Table 26 below.


76

Table 26: Proposed Long List

Category Maharashtra Goa Karnataka Total %

$ million excluding tax PROJECT 1 CATEGORY 1 – COASTAL PROTECTION 43.1 14.7 Mirya Bay – beach

nourishment, offshore reef 6.7 Coco Beach – beach

nourishment, breakwater reef, geotextile berms

2.2 1.2 million m³ of beach nourishment, construction of three offshore reefs

20.3

Colva Beach offshore reef, geotubes in dunes

3.0 Ullal – shortening and repair of southern breakwater, extension of northern breakwater

10.9

CATEGORY 3 – NATURAL PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT 0.3 0.1 Colva – dune restoration

and management 0.3

SUB-TOTAL, PROJECT 1 6.7 5.5 31.2 43.4 14.8 PROJECTS 2 AND 3 Category 1 – Erosion protection 47 km new protection 47.5 8.5 km protection 14.8 48 km new protection, 24 km

of repair of protection 85.0 147.3 50.2

Category 2 – Causes/potential causes of erosion

Ratnagiri integrated fisheries and commercial harbor, plus other harbor(s) to be defined

16.1 No proposal - Support for breakwaters at Hejamdikodi, Gangolli, Kodibengre fish harbors, BW repairs Malpe.

14.5 30.7 10.5

Category 3 – Natural protection and enhancement measures

50 km dune restoration, 50 ha shelter belts, 75 ha mangrove

7.5 30 km dune restoration, 58 ha shelter belts, 50 ha mangrove

6.1 50 km dune restoration, 50 ha shelter belts, 75 ha mangrove

3.8 17.4 5.9

Category 4 – Other support areas 550 ha of Khar land (saline land) — 774 ha new, 4,181 ha restoration

11.3 Projects to be defined 1.0 Support for dredging including use of dredge material to support beach nourishment.

2.1 14.4 4.9

Category 4 – Coastal facilities Various fish harbors and jetties to be selected

13.5 Repair of town drains (nalla), shore regeneration

1.0 Support for the repairs to fish wharves and jetties, access roads

3.6 18.2 6.2

Category 5 – Procurement of equipment

Cutter suction dredger, tugs, survey boats

13.6 Miscellaneous not defined

0.4 Crane or back hoe dredger, barges tugs, survey boats.

5.6 19.6 6.7

Category 6 – Community / Economic Initiatives

Small mainly non physical interventions to support community and economic development.

1.0 Small mainly non physical interventions to support community and economic development.

0.4 Small mainly non physical interventions to support community and economic development.

0.8 2.2 0.7

SUB-TOTAL, PROJECTS 2 AND 3 110.7 23.7 115.4 249.8 85.2


77

Category Maharashtra Goa Karnataka Total %

$ million excluding tax TOTAL EXCLUDING TAXES 117.4 29.2 146.6 293.2 100.0 TOTAL INCLUDING TAXES (9%) 127.9 31.8 159.8 319.6 % share by State 40.0 10.0 50.0 100.0


78

F. Summary Sub Project Selection and Approval Process

7. Selection Criteria. The long list of possible investment projects for the Coastal Protection and Management project covers a wide range of possible interventions and investments. A logical framework and methodology for the assessment and selection of projects is required. Due to the complex nature of the coastal environment and the high requirements for studies (including numerical modeling) required to support feasibility studies a three stage selection process is proposed.

8. Stage 1: Identification Participative shoreline management plans will be prepared for the whole coastline (component 1 of the project). Subprojects proposed for implementation should be identified and supported based on the participative shoreline management processes; subprojects identified outside the shoreline management processes would not normally be considered. Project identification assessments will be required to present information (both quantitative and qualitative) on key assessment parameters including:

(i) Issue identification-identification of the issues, rationale and assessment of project needs.

(ii) Project description; description of the project proposed measures, possible opportunities and issues.

(iii) Type of intervention proposed-based on the 6 categories (coastal protection, causes/potential causes of erosion/instability, natural protection and enhancement, other support areas, coastal facilities, procurement of equipment, community/economic initiatives

(iv) Severity of issues-based on simple parameters including erosion rate( metres/year), population at risk, land area/value at risk

(v) Social and environmental assessments-identification on number and type of beneficiaries, identification of environmental enhancements and issues.

(vi) Assessments of maintenance requirements and identification of resources to implement maintenance.

(vii) Indicative project cost-based on typical unit costs for reefs, dune management etc

(viii) Indicative economic assessments; including cost/beneficiary, cost/m2 of land protected etc

(ix) Level of stakeholder support-projects should be supported by Communities, District Planning Committee and State Level Working Groups. Projects should be formally nominated by the District Planning Committees and endorsed by the State Working Groups.

9. Stage 2: Prefeasibility Due to high costs and resources for numerical modeling it is proposed that projects are initially screened through simple prefeasibility studies. These would include additional studies to better define the projects and address questions queries and issues identified in stage 1. Studies might include some supplementary assessments of coastal dynamics, identification of options, preliminary cost assessments and formal meetings with the communities and key stakeholders. More detailed assessments of likely economic benefits as well as CRZ and environmental issues. The resources and costs to undertake feasibility studies would also be assessed. Based on the outcome of the prefeasibility studies the district Planning Committees to recommend to the State Working Groups if the projects should proceed to feasibility studies. Small or simple projects not requiring numerical modeling i.e. Dune Management could go directly to feasibility studies.

10. Stage 3: Feasibility Studies Detailed feasibility studies including data collection, numerical modeling, economic, social and environmental assessment to meet Government and ADB requirements. Individual subproject feasibility studies would require to demonstrate:

11. Full technical feasibility, supported by full numerical modeling if required, assessment that any technical risks that might undermine the efficacy, economic returns, safety or sustainability are minimal;


79

12. Financial and economic viability with economic rate of returns of over 12% with robustness under sensitivity and risk analysis.

13. The project is socially and environmentally acceptable with insignificant environmental impacts. Identification of the numbers and types of beneficiaries.

14. Fulfilment of the safeguard requirements (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples and environment) of the Government and ADB.

15. Concurrence of the affected stakeholders of the basic designs including any contributions (in cash or in kind).


80

Appendix 9 PROCUREMENT PLAN

16. The procurement plan for the project is described in Tables 27 and 28 below.

Table 27: Procurement Plan (Project 1)

Project Information The Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Investment Project in the states of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka in India include four sub projects to be taken up for immediate implementation. The investment project also includes proposals and programs to support long term sustainable shoreline management including institutional development and a range of structural and non structural measures to support the erosion protection works

Country India Borrower India Project Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project Loan No To be decided

Effectiveness To be decided Amount $300 million Committed $ 58.37 million (Project 1) Executing Agencies Maharashtra Maritime Board for Maharashtra state

Water Resources Department for Goa state Ports and IWT for Karnataka state

Approval of Original Procurement Plan Procurement Plan for Project1 was approved on ………. Approval of most recent Procurement Plan

Procurement Plan for Project1 was approved on ………..

Publication for Local Advertisements Date to be arranged Period Covered by this Plan 60 Months

Procurement Methods: Works and Goods To be used above/below ($) ICB & LIB works $10,000,000 and above ICB & LIB goods/ supply & installation $10,000,000 and above and less than $1,000,000 NCB works2 All works contracts less than $10,000,000

Other than community works contracts

NCB goods/ supply & installation All goods greater that $100,000 and less than $1,000,000

Shopping goods Less than $100,000

Force account for works Less than $500,000 Utility shifting and deposit works of PWD, forest, KUWSDB, PHE, KEB, fisheries department etc

Exceptional methods

Simple civil works contracts costing less than $10,000 may be directly awarded to NGOs, community groups as a community works contract following relevant provisions of ADB guidelines regarding community

For ICB, LIB, NCB works, goods and supply contracts, post-qualification procedures will be followed 2 Full technical proposal required for services greater than $1,000,000


81

Consulting Services2 To be used above/below ($) Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS) $1,000,000 and above Quality Based Selection (QBS) $1,000,000 and above Consultants Qualification Selection (CQS) $100,000 to $1,000,000 Least Cost Selection Below $100,000 Single Source Selection Below $100,000

Table 28: Procurement Packages under the First Periodic Financing Request

Contract Package

No.

Contract Description

Value $million

Procurement

Method

Expected Date of

Advertisement

Prior Review

Y/N

Type

A. Works and Goods 1. Maharashtra CW-NCB-M1

Mirya Bay - dredging and beach nourishment (approx 490,000m3) using bulk sand stockpiled and deposited on the beach and from dredging of the fishing harbor

5.00 NCB January 2011

Y Works

CW-ICB-M1

Mirya Bay - construction of 1 multipurpose geotextile reef (13,450m3)

6.00 LIB June 2009

Y Works

Various lots

Mirya Bay - Community Initiatives to support shoreline development-in multiple lots

0.5 SSS or shopping

Y2009 – Y2011

Y-initial period

Works/ goods

2. Goa

CW-NCB-Coco1

Coco Beach - dredging and beach nourishment. (180,000m3 sand)

2.0 NCB January 2011

Y Works

CW-NCB-Coco3

Coco Beach - Semi submerged rock/block breakwater

1.0 NCB June 2009

Various lots

Coco Beach - Community Initiatives to support shoreline development

0.5 SSS or shopping

Y2009 – Y2011

Y-initial period

Works/ goods

CW-NCB-Coco/ Colva 1

Coco Beach/ Colva Beach (i) Coco Beach Geotextile sediment retention structure (ii) Colva Beach – geotubes for dunes and Nalla training

2.0 LIB June 2009

Y Works

CW-NCB-Colva 1

Colva Beach dune development, dune planting

0.5 SSS or Shopping

Y2010-2011

Y Works

CW-ICB-Colva 2

Colva Beach - construction of one multi-purpose geotextile reef (8,500m³)

3.8 LIB June 2012

Y Works

Various lots

Colva Beach - 3 year service contract for shoreline management operator-planting, maintenance

0.5 NCB / shopping

Y2009 – Y2011

Y-initial period

Works

3. Karnataka CW-NCB-U1

Ullal - Dredging and beach nourishment (1.25million m³ of sand fill)

11.00 NCB June 2009

Y Works

CW-ICB-U1

Ullal - construction of three multi-purpose geotextile reefs(Total 53,500m³)

15.00 LIB June 2009

Y Works

CW-NCB-U2

Ullal - shortening and rehab of southern breakwater, extension

15.00 NCB June 2010

N Works


82

Contract Package

No.

Contract Description

Value $million

Procurement

Method

Expected Date of

Advertisement

Prior Review

Y/N

Type

and rehab of northern breakwater. Various lots

Ullal community initiatives to support shoreline development

0.5 SSS or shopping

Y2009 – Y2011

Y-initial period

Works/ goods

4. Force Account (all 3 states)

Deposit works including utility shifting of PWD, forest, state water and power utilities, fisheries department etc.

0.5 FA Y2009 – Y2013

Y-initial period

Works/ goods

B. Consulting Services CS-1 A. International Project

Management and Design Consultants

5.00 QCBS May 2009 Y Consulting Services

CS-2 B. Planning and Design Support Consultants

1.00 QCBS Feb 2011 Y Consulting Services

CS-3 C. Institutional Development and Change Consultants(funded by TA)

1.7 QCBS Feb 2010 Y Consulting Services

NGO-various

NGO/CBOs to support community initiatives and activities (dune management & plantation, etc.) as required

0.50 LCS/SSS

Y2009 – Y2011

Y Consulting Services

Individual con sultants

Recruitment of international and national consultants to support the various training programs

0.50 LCS/SSS Y2010-Y2013

Y Consulting services

Various Direct appointment of government institutes listed below for support activities including environmental monitoring, technical support as required: Short list Institutes include: Centre for Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Central Water and Power Research Institute, National Institute of Oceanography, Maharashtra Engineering Research Institute, Karnataka Engineering Research Station, National Institute of Technology, Surathkal

1.0 Direct Y2009 – Y2013

Y Consulting Services

C. Computers, peripherals and software

Various Computers and peripherals, office equipment (multiple lots)

0.6 Shopping / direct purchase

Y2009 – Y2013

N Supply

Various Software ( various in multiple lots) 0.3 Shopping / direct purchase

Y2009 – Y2013

N Supply

ICB= international competitive bidding, LIB= limited international bidding, NCB= national competitive bidding, QCBS= quality cost based selection, QBS = quality based selection, SSS= single source selection, LCS= least cost selection. 17. Geotextile Reef Contracts. The geotextile reefs require to be built using very high strength specification geotextile materials; installation and filling of the geotextile bags is carried out underwater requiring the use of highly skilled personnel including divers, supervisors and engineers. The technologies are very new and there are only very few companies in the world with capacities to do this work; the use of skilled and experienced companies is considered essential. Limited International Bidding is proposed which will directly source bids from companies with appropriate capacities and experience to do the work.


83

18. Under LIB the SEA will obtain bids from a list of potential contractors broad enough to ensure competitive prices. Domestic preferences are not applicable under LIB. In all other respects other than the advertisement and preferences ICB procedures shall apply.


84

Appendix 10

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Activity1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Project phasing

Project 3

Loan Preparation

Tranche 1 Sub Projects

Mirya Bay Reef C

Mirya Bay Beach Nourishment C

Coco Beach Reef and Retention Strct.

Coco Beach Nourishment

Colva Beach Management

Colva Offshore Reef

Ullal Offshore Reefs

Ullal Beach Nourishment

Ullal Breakwater

Other Activities

Shoreline Management Plans

Project Selection for Tranches 2 & 3 T2 T3

Planning & Design of T2 Sub Projects

Implementation of Tranche 2 Sub Projects

Planning and Design of T3 Projects

Implementation of Tranche 3 Sub Projects

Proj. Mngment & Design Consultants

Planning & Design Support Consultants

Inst. Development Change Management Cons

Notes Tendering

Design

T2

T2 Implementation

T3

T3 Implementation

Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Project 1Project 2

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project Draft Final Report

85

Appendix 11

SUMMARY POVERTY REDUCTION AND SOCIAL STRATEGY

Country/Project Title: India: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Lending/Financing Modality: Multitranche Financing Facility

Department/Division: South Asia Department/ Agriculture, Natural Resources and Social Services Division

I. Poverty Analysis and Strategy A. Linkages to National Poverty Reduction Strategy and Country Partnership Strategy The 11th Five Year National Plan 2007-2012 prioritizes reducing rural-urban disparity and chronic rural poverty through inclusive and equitable growth. The plan describes a range of interventions relating to coastal protection and management. The plan also addresses the need to address the impacts of sea level rise particularly in relation to the impacts on the coastal communities. A national action plan for climate change is being developed as well as the establishment of an independent statutory body for sustainable development and coastal zone management. The plan stresses the importance of the participation of fishing communities in coastal zone planning and management. Economic development of the coastline is identified as a key area of support for the coastal communities including support for coastal shipping and ports and tourism. ADB’s Draft Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) program for India 2008–2012 identifies environmental sustainability as a key theme. The strategy envisages the development of infrastructure to help to lead to opportunities for poverty alleviation; it also identifies support areas to address infrastructure funding shortages to support growth and ensuring that growth is environmentally sustainable. The strategy also identifies the need to mainstream environmental and gender issues. Given the challenges facing India and the world at large from climate change and degradation of the environment, the environmental focus of the assistance program is directed at climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects, a key requirement to reduce climate change risks to the coastal communities; proposed operations cover a number of areas but include coastal protection and management. The 11th Government plan aims to mobilize 30% financing from the private sector. ADB will therefore, continue to support the Government’s efforts towards promoting public-private partnership in infrastructure development. Going forward, such assistance would be enhanced since it helps to leverage ADB’s resources in order to make a tangible and measurable impact in a vast and diverse country such as India, ADB would also focus on strengthening governance and financial sector development. The project will support the Government’s efforts of shoreline management which will ensure continuous tourist inflow into the Goa beaches and also open opportunities for tourism in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The regeneration of eroded beaches will help artisanal small boat fishermen who land their catches on the beach; it will also benefit shore based seine fishing. These interventions will help reduce rural poverty levels and promote sustainable social development. The project will plan and implement new innovations in erosion control and shore line management. The project will not only controls erosion on a sustainable basis but also apply the benefits of shoreline investments to promote community participation in the project and other parallel income generation opportunities, and thereby to reduce the poverty levels; these initiatives will support the enhanced livelihood of the affected people. Poverty reduction in sub-project areas is of paramount importance as about 30 percent of the affected people in the States of Maharashtra and Karnataka are below the government poverty line (BPL). In the State of Goa, the proportion of the people below poverty line is about five percent. Goa however is a high employer of migrant workers from other states. B. Poverty Analysis 1. Key Issues The goal of this project is to design innovative interventions for sustainable coastal protection and to address issues of shoreline management. This project focused on three West Coast states of India ; Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Goa. The project aim is not directly poverty alleviation however it will indirectly help reduce the levels of poverty through land protection and security as well as the regeneration of the beaches. The poverty picture of these three states is somewhat different. The urban poverty in Maharashtra (where Ratnagiri sub-project site is located) is 32. 3 per cent based on National Sample Survey 61st round (July 2004-June 2005). The corresponding figure in Karnataka (urban – where Ullal site is located) is 32.%6. On the other hand, the poverty ratio – percentage of people living below poverty line – is only 5.3 percent in Goa state (where the Coco and Colva sub project sites are located). The Human Development Indices for the major Indian states give Maharashtra a rank of 4 in 2001 (with HDI 0.523) and Karnataka of rank 7 (with an HDI of 0.478). Some other major socio-economic features of the three states are as follows: (1) Per-Capita income at current prices in 2005-06 in Rupees (Goa: 61676; Maharashtra: 36090; Karnataka: 27101); (2) Female Literacy rate (%) based on 2001 (Goa: 75; Maharashtra: 67; Karnataka: 56) (3) Infant mortality rate per 1000 (Goa: 15; Maharashtra: 35; Karnataka: 48)


86

The selected sub project sites consist of villages and towns within Municipal Council Areas in Karnataka and Maharashtra and villages in Goa. It was found that the poverty situation in these sub project areas largely conform to the state-level scenario. Verification was carried out through cross checking with the sales data of the public distribution shops in each of the villages; these shops offer low level subsidized products to the Below Poverty Level (BPL) households. In terms of general poverty based on assets (without consideration of food intake or income), most of the population in the communities have basic infrastructure and assets including acceptable levels of housing, toilets, access to safe drinking water, roads, primary education and health facilities. There are only a few households belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward communities in the project areas. None of the sites have any significant indigenous people or ethnic minority people. There is considerable disruption of people's livelihood and destruction of property due to sea erosion in the sub-project areas, which is likely to put poor as well as non-poor households at risk. Many of the affected people in the project areas in Maharashtra and Karnataka are forced to utilize their minimal savings to repair their houses. In Goa, people have lost some of their income from tourism due to the loss of beach areas. This problem has in some parts affected the livelihood of many women vendors resulting in uncertainty of income; in some cases forcing them into unauthorized trading and harassment by the police. Controlling sea erosion opens indirectly a number of possibilities to address existing and potential poverty. Protection of beaches will open up a number of economic opportunities which though the project funded community support initiatives can help to restore and improve livelihoods after the project is implemented. The project opens possibilities to benefit disadvantaged groups, including women if local communities are involved in all aspects of the project from an early stage. Effective community participation is a key challenge for this project, there is presently no or very little community involvement in coastal projects. 2. Design Features The project main objective is to provide innovative interventions to address actual or potential problems of sea erosion in the coastal villages. These solutions will focus on soft measures such as beach rejuvenation, dune restoration and management and geo-textile off -shore structures. The move away from the normal hard methods of protection (i.e. rock-based groynes or sea walls) is a major feature of the project. The latter methods are found to be not only inadequate but can in fact aggravate the erosion problem resulting in loss of the valuable beach, which in turn affects the income of many of the stakeholder groups. The use of innovative solutions can also facilitate the development of, or sustain tourism and also engage the community in a wide range of activities. The types of soft solutions proposed do not require any land acquisition and the proposed project works would not create any resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) problems. There may however be some temporary disruption during project implementation. The construction of offshore reefs is largely based on imported materials, mechanical equipment and skilled labor with limited opportunities for communities. Dune management is more labor intensive and requires significant inputs by unskilled labor during as well as after the construction period. Extensive consultation has been carried out during the TA and this should continue during the actual implementation work. It is proposed to establish Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) at each site to support the coordination and management of the project during and after implementation. At most sites there are existing community based organization (CBO) and the proposed ‘Shoreline Management Organizations’ will build on the existing CBO organizations. The project will provide support to establish, train and strengthen the groups. The Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) will be required to take on a wide number of tasks including;(i) controlling the access and fishing directly from the offshore reefs;(ii) supporting community-based dune restoration and management at the some of the sites including the Colva sub project. Dune management is an effective low cost measure to protect against minor or medium erosion risk but requires a high level of community participation to protect the dunes and planting from damage. As part of the dune management program the project will establish mechanisms to support the clearing and excavation of channels for small drains (nallas). This work would create employment opportunities for low income and women’s groups. The involvement of the community through shoreline management is an innovative method for beach management proposed by this project. For this purpose, the project proposes to establish and strengthen Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO). The SMO would support community initiatives for planning, management and environmental monitoring of erosion control and beach management work. Some allocation of funds for community support initiatives will also be provided. These funds will available to support community initiatives for income generation and economic development. The utilization of several methods for erosion control as compared with the use of only physical methods without community and other private sector involvement are some of the special design features of this project.


87

II. Social Analysis and Strategy A. Findings of Social Analysis The project is designed to help control sea erosion and to improve shoreline management in three Indian states; Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka. The social situations in each state and site are different. The Ullal sub-project site in Karnataka has about 1,275 directly affected and around 9,500 indirectly affected households due to sea erosion. Average household size of about 6.2. Sex ratio is favorable to women. Scheduled caste population is very small and scheduled tribes are almost non-existent here. The coastal wards are divided between Hindu and Muslims, with certain pockets having concentration of those belonging to one religion. Thus the community life is also predominantly around religious organizations like mosques and temples. Literacy rate is only around 60 percent. Work participation rate among men is higher than women. Most people work in fishery industry, services, trade, cigar making by women, etc. There is also migration to middle-east countries in search of work and remittances too constitute a major source of household income. The number of directly affected households in Coco (Goa) is only around 50 with about 1,250 indirectly affected households. Sex ratio is slightly unfavorable to females. The village panchayat has only few scheduled caste households and none belonging to scheduled tribes. Literacy rate is around 90 percent. Agriculture is quite important; whilst the number of agricultural workers is very small compared to the cultivators, farmers depend on migrant labor for most of the labor-intensive farm operations. Other occupations and sources of income include services (tourism, trade and government jobs), fishing, and migration (and remittances). The sea erosion in Colva and its potential impact on Colva (in Goa) can affect a larger set of population, i.e. around 70,000 households. Their main features are not very different from that of the affected people in Coco. However Colva attracts around one-third of the tourists coming to Goa. The erosion in Mirya in Maharashtra affects around 450 households and 2,000 population. Indirectly the problem of erosion can have some impact on a larger area of Ratnagiri with around 18,000 households and affects the important fishery harbor. Sex ratio is favorable to females only in the Mirya village. Scheduled caste and scheduled tribes constitute only a very small part of the affected population. Female literacy and work participation rate are low compared to their male counterparts here. Agriculture is almost non-existent in the Mirkarwada area while it has some importance in the Mirya bay. The popular mango variety called “Alfanso” comes from the surrounding of the Mirya village. Most people in the area are involved in fishing related or in other services and industries, either as main or marginal workers. The similarities of the sub-project areas are that a) none of them have significant indigenous people or ethnic minority people b) all areas have some active CBOs providing various forms of support to people c) relationship between the community and the State Executing Agencies is weak d) coordination of erosion control methods between all stakeholders (i.e. CBOs, private businesses and state and local government entities) is low e) the use of information and communication materials for people awareness and education on erosion control does not exist f) building of rock walls and other physical structures appear as the only solution being adopted for erosion control f) the efforts on shoreline management as compared with erosion control is not recognized and, g) the almost absence of the need for land acquisition and the resultant resettlement of people. The impacts of the affected people due to sea erosion include: (a) actual and potential damage to houses, private property or industrial units (especially in Ullal); (b) reduced access to sea for fishing due to inappropriate rock walls; (c) interference with the movement of fishing vessel including damage to gear (d) actual (in Coco) or potential (in Colva) reduction in beach with negative impact on tourism and employment; (e) social tension due to the fear of wave attack and the consequent need for protecting local community (f) resources being spent on compensation of affected people in addition to the colossal investments on building hard structures. None of the solutions proposed under the project require any land acquisition and/or resettlement of people elsewhere. However there may be some temporary local difficulties and inconveniences to local people during project implementation. This require technical precautions (like marking with buoys the position of offshore reefs), awareness of and well-coordination of project activities with the newly established Shoreline Management Organizations.. Liaison and consultation with the project and the shoreline management groups will reduce the impact during construction; for example to schedule the movement of trucks, dredgers, fishing vessels as well as development of the community management initiatives (i.e. to control the access to the area of reefs). B. Consultation and Participation 1. Provide a summary of the participation and consultation process during project preparation The key sub-groups of people likely to be affected by the project were identified and their locations and characteristics noted. Representatives of the different sub-groups in each of the five sub-project sites were consulted during project preparation. These include households and communities affected by sea erosion,


88

industrial and commercial firms as well as private businesses together with their business associations, representatives of local government entities such as village panchayat, Municipal panchayat, community leaders, associations of stakeholders, NGOs, state agencies responsible for erosion control, etc. Field visits covered a number of sites within each sub-project as well as sample households and businesses. Focus group discussions were also held with representatives of various sub-groups at different points of time. This has helped to bring to light the difficulties that they face due to sea erosion, and also their perceptions on the proposed technical solutions. In addition, field observations also provided with the study team a lot of insights into the problem and the proposed intervention measures. The major benefits of multiple-erosion control methods including beach rejuvenation are: (a) reducing the likely damage of houses located very close to sea; (b) facilitating access to shore launched fishing boats and shore based dragnet fishing; (c) reducing the threat to tourism from beach erosion (d) and development of beach based employment opportunities especially in the sub-project sites in Goa. Initial consultations were at household level involving groups of affected people in and close to the sites at risk of being damaged. Subsequent to this formal public consultations were organized by the State Executing Agencies (SEA) where representatives of main stakeholders were present. Representatives of the TA consultancy and the SEA presented the details of the technical proposals for each site. The presentations included information on the merits of the proposed design in comparison with the conventional approaches to protection. Feedback from the local communities was obtained and the concerns of the stakeholders regarding the project design were discussed and issues explained.

2. What level of Consultation and Participation (C&P) is envisaged during Project Implementation and Monitoring. Key areas include: - Information Sharing Consultation, Collaborative & Participatory Decision Making and empowerment - Joint implementation - Improved work coordination 3. Was a C&P Plan prepared? Yes Different levels of consultation and participation were implemented and should continue at the different project sites. In general, consultation with fishermen and other beach users was required to minimize their difficulties during the construction of the projects. At the Colva site dune restoration and management are a key component which requires a high level of stakeholder participation in the implementation as well as the maintenance and management after completion of the investment works. For this site in particular, mechanisms are required to actively engage the local communities together with the local businesses and governments to participate in dune management program. At Coco, there can be a mechanism by which the private hotelier/restaurant and private guest houses and, the fishery union participate in the project after implementation. For this the hotelier, shack owners and the fishery union would collaborate for the maintenance of the created assets as necessary. In places where beaches are rejuvenated, or offshore reefs are planned, the plans for community management, especially to avoid fishing very close to reef, etc. are planned. There are positive indications from CBOs and private firms in Ullal, Karnataka and the Fishery co-operatives in Karnataka and Maharashtra about their interest in being involved in the plan and its implementation. Continued consultation with the CBOs and private businesses are a key part of the project implementation. At the Ullal site in Karnataka consultations will continue to ensure the maximum participation of CBOs, private businesses, and business associations together with the local government entities. The consultation plan for Mirya bay, Maharashtra includes and will continue to include gram panchayat, Town Municipal Council, fishery co-operatives and the government implementing agencies. C. Gender and Development 1. Key Issues The sub-projects in themselves will not cause any specific gender issues. There are however a number of gender issues in the coastal communities; these mainly relate to the limited employment and economic opportunities for women. The development of coastal protection and management programmes will create a number of economic opportunities some of which would have direct and indirect benefits to women in the project areas. For example protection and restoration of the beaches at Coco and Colva in Goa will increase the number of tourists which in turn will open opportunities for vendors. At Mirya Bay beach erosion has reduced of the landings of fish catch by artisanal fishermen who land their boats on the beach. The regeneration of the beach will open up fishing and tourist opportunities which in turn will open up opportunities for women’s participation. Desilting of the fishing harbor will improve the access by fishing boats which will in turn increase the opportunities for fish processing. The livelihood of women among fishers' families at Ullal, Karnataka state, employed in fish oil processing


89

units or selling fish at local market is at stake due to beach erosion, while the housewives of families along Ullal's coastal wards are concerned about the safety of their homes. Erosion protection will ensure the factories remain operational and shoreside homes will no longer be at risk. At the Colva project a key component is the implementation of dune protection and management. Maintenance groups will be established to plant and manage the dunes which are very suitable activities for women’s groups. Fish sales and processing are key activities of women and the positive benefits of the sub projects on fishing will be of direct benefit to women’s livelihood, particularly those selling fish either locally or at wholesale markets, such as in Mirya Bay and Ullal. At Ullal some women are employed at the fish oil processing factories. The increased security from erosion protection will allow families to be assured of the safety of their homes which will, in turn, support improved quality of life. In Coco and Colva beaches of Goa the women vendors need to be supported by various methods to improve their level of income. There is also a requirement to improve the status of women who are in many cases work as unlicensed hawkers. Measures to support this have to be devised including erection of temporary stalls near the beaches or approach to the hotels. This is a matter to be considered by the local government, the NGOs and the community which will resolve the issue of livelihood of many poor and migrant families as well as portray an untarnished image of Goa's attractive beaches to the tourists.

2. Key Actions Presently there is no gender specific action carried out as part of the coastal protection works. It is proposed for the new project to establish gender as a component of the project. The initial work should focus on The empowerment or participation of women in decision-making process. The women will need to be motivated and trained for taking active role in dune protection, management and plantation which will also build the capacity of the local people as well as the CBOs and NGOs in the project area. Women’s participation in the Shoreline Management Organizations is a key requirement.

III. Social Safeguard Issues and Other Social Risks Issue Significant/

Limited/ No Impact Strategy to Address Issue

Involuntary Resettlement No Impact None of the technical solutions proposed for controlling sea erosion require any land acquisition or resettlement of people. The projects will be either be carried out offshore (offshore reefs) or on the shore itself (in the case of dune management). The purpose of erosion control is to protect the land but also reclaim lost beach area from the sea. At the Colva site the dune restoration and planting will on reclaimed area will be undertaken by CBOs and there will be no resettlement impact.

Indigenous People No impact None of the settlements in the subprojects have any indigenous people or ethnic minority groups. People who would benefit from controlling sea erosion have only a handful of scheduled caste/tribal households who have largely been fully integrated with the mainstream population.

Labor Limited Impact Medium Impact for dune restoration and management.

The construction of the offshore reefs has a low requirement for labor (any requirement will largely be for skilled labor). Dune restoration and management and planting does open scope for use of unskilled labor using the local community groups. This helps income generation in the communities; help improve their economic standard and reduce poverty to some extent. The implementation plan will be prepared in consultation with CBOs and will include provision as far as possible to employ local people through their organizations. Core labor standards (including safety) will be included in contract clauses. Dune restoration, tree planting, etc. will be undertaken by local people.

Affordability No impact There are no significant issues of affordability since no services are expected to be provided for which user charges can be levied.


90

Other Risks or Vulnerability

Limited Impact

IV. Monitoring and Evaluation Are social indicators included in the design and monitoring framework to facilitate monitoring of social development activities during project implementation? Yes


91

Appendix 12

SUMMARY INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATIONS (SIEE)

A. Introduction

19. In accordance with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) guidelines, initial environmental examinations (IEE) were carried out as part of the project preparatory technical assistance (PPTA) for the Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Investment Program. The IEEs assessed all aspects of the environmental implications of the specific loan interventions and identified.

20. Initial environmental examinations (IEEs) were prepared for each of the four subproject proposed for funding under Tranche 1. Environmental assessments of the subprojects were discussed with the MoEF who concurred that being soft solutions aimed at restoration of damaged beaches the environmental impacts would be minimal and likely to involve only minor temporary issues. Overall the subproject will have positive impacts on the environment including the reversal of damage to the beaches and coastal processes caused by previous interventions. There may be some temporary impacts during construction but these would be quite minimal and of short duration. It was therefore agreed to classify the Tranche 1 subprojects as Category B. Initial Environmental Examinations have been completed for the four subprojects proposed.

B. Environmental Conditions for the Investment Project Areas

21. All Indian maritime states and union territories are subject to varying degrees of coastal erosion. About 26% of the country’s mainland coastline, extending almost 1,450 km, is prone to erosion. Around 20-25% of India’s population lives within 50 km of the coast, and of this, 70% of the people live in rural areas. The traditional fishing communities are the dominant groups depending on the sea for their livelihood.

22. The rural poor coastal communities are the most exposed to the hazardous impacts of erosion. Dependency on the coastal resources, lack of alternative livelihood and destitution draw them to the coastline despite threats from the sea. Coastal erosion hits such communities hardest since it destroys their property and disrupts their livelihood. The impact of climate change and associated sea level rise is likely to aggravate coastal erosion even further (ADB, 2007). The coastlines of these three states on the west coast of India have significant erosion problems. The National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) proposals in 2001 identified that of the 1100 km of coastline, about 530 km are prone to erosion and 330 km require protection. The existing practice of coast protection involves rock walls (revetments) mainly formed by dumping rocks of mixed sizes (rip rap). The cost of solutions based on rock protection, mainly revetments, from the NCPP is estimated to be about US$250million. The real extent of the problem is difficult to assess.

C. Summary of Initial Environmental Examinations Prepared for Subprojects

23. Subproject Description – Key features of the subproject are summarized in Table 29.


92

Table 29: Summary of Scope of Principle Works for Subprojects

Item Mirya Bay Coco Beach Colva Beach Ullal Coast & Inlet

Location Maharashtra - Ratnagiri District North Goa South Goa Karnataka -

Mangalore

Subproject Type Coastal Erosion and Restoration Project

Beach Restoration Project

Beach management project

Coastal Erosion and Inlet Improvement Project

Command Area

8,000 m Bay and Beach area – 10 km2 inc. inland areas

1,500 m shoreline – 1,000 m offshore

6,500 m – Utorda, Majorda and Colva

6,000 m study area – 3,500 m Ullal Beach

Nature and scope of coastal protection/restoration and management

The construction of one Submerged Offshore Geotextile Reef; and

Beach Nourishment Scheme.

Restoration of the beach by sand retention between two submerged reef structures.

Beach nourishment with sand by way of deposition of suitable material from dredge spoils.

Ancillary enhancement of fishery productivity in the bay by creating a reef-based food web.

Dune Restoration and Management – over the whole length of the project 6,500 m

Dune Restoration with Geotubes – Utorda and Majorda Beaches (600m)

Offshore Reef – Colva Beach

Creek (Nalla) training

The shortening and repair of the southern breakwater by 110m - allowing sand by-passing to the south

220 m extension to the south-west of the north breakwater; smoothly curved and aligned south-west to allowing natural sand by-pass.

Beach Nourishment Scheme; 1.2 million cubic meters at the northern end of Ullal beach.

The construction of three offshore multi-purpose artificial soft reefs (M-ASR’s) to hold the proposed nourishment in place.

D. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

24. Based on the initial environmental assessment of each of the subproject areas, the following impacts and mitigation measures have been summarized for the Investment Program.


93

Table 30: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation Measure A. Construction Phase

Physical Environment Nourishment of the beaches – sediment balance and littoral transport interruptions

Degradation of water bodies should not occur, although temporary turbidity is to be expected during nourishment and pumping (filling of geotextile bags).

Visual observations at all stages of implementation; before, during and post nourishment. Substantial change initially in the texture, colour and behaviour to be expected yet should be monitored closely. In order to understand the sediment transport regular samples can be taken at intervals along the beach and grain size analysis carried out post nourishment.

Alterations in the littoral and offshore sediment transport system should be understood and monitored through the use of Total station beach surveys and where necessary, offshore hydrographic echo-sounding surveys.

Simple observations of sediment migration along the coastline can be made visually without need for expensive technology.

Quality of sediments have been tested and are acceptable.

Construction of Submerged Offshore Geotextile Reefs – Land construction site namely Airborne Dust, Air Pollution and Noise

Dust emissions from the construction site are to be visually monitored. halt work during excessive onshore winds. verbal social complaints should be delt with immediately and efficiently. Dust suppression can be achieved by regular sprinkling. The use of dust masks are to be encouraged.

Air pollution is not expected to be eccessive but an increase in exhaust fumes is to be expected. kept to a minimum, engines and generators should be turned off when not in use. All vehicals used in construction will be filled with silencers and servicing of all construction vehicals and machienery will be done regularly and during routine servicing operations. Any defective equipment should be replaced immediately

Regular monitoring of sound levels surrounding the project site; kept to a minimum, the contractor will ensure daily checks are made to improve excessive noise especially out of daylight hours. Complaints regarding noise should be delt with profesionally and with respect

Construction of Submerged Offshore Geotextile Reefs – Offshore construction site namely

Visual observations and regular checks should be made into visible abnormalities

Changes in current, wave and water level parameters are to be accessed using regular hydrodynamic surveying techniques in order to understand the oceanographic environment

Current patterns are important in driving sediment transport.

Understanding possible erosion and accretion regions before, during and post-construction is a crucial aspect of the project implementation and success.

Water Quality Neither fresh nor saline water bodies will be interrupted or obstructed where unnecessary, or allowed to deteriorate from original condition

Where any serious environmental contamination is suspected samples should be taken and analyzed accordingly (chemical or physical)

Discharges are unlikely to be made due to the nature of the proposal. If there are accidental spills contingency plans should be initiated immediately


94

Biological Environment Nourishment of the beaches – smothering Ecosystem monitoring is possible through benthic

analysis and visual monitoring of the surrounding environments. The contractor will work closely with the EMC in order to minimize the impact to local ecosystems

Social, Economic and Cultural Environment Local economy; Fish catches from traditional fishing, Value of catches, Fish landings and value from commercial fishing. The proposed submerged reefs some disturbance to the navigation of fishing boats may be expected

Fishery statistics Local investment Regular Panchayat meetings to discuss social and

environmental concerns as they arise

Tourist visitation: local/foreign Tourism statistics Regular Verbal Checks

B. Planning and Management Phases Physical Environment Change in effectiveness of retention structures/ Geotextile Reefs

Evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the Offshore Reefs through Hydrographic surveys (Echo sounding), Beach surveys (Total station surveys) and regular Visual Observation/ Checks

Success of Storm Buffer – namely increased beach formed

Hydrographic survey – Echo sounding, land based topographic surveys

Tide gauges – Current Profiler/ADCP Weather stats – local Met Office Wave buoy records – Available in some regions only Other impacts to be observed through Panchayat

and stakeholder meetings Visual Observations

Biological Environment Land/Onshore Habitats Any disturbance to local habitats should be rectified

before the contractor leaves the site. Planting and therefore stabilization of the environment, replacement of any native plant species should be attempted where possible. Trees that have been removed for land based works can be replanted or reforestation activities should be initiated

Coastal Habitats Coastal habitats to be closely monitored through daily visual checks conducted from the beach, dunes and shoreline. Records of the reaction of various habitats will be invaluable for future nourishment projects at the site and across India. It is expected that initial effects will be severe but recovery will be rapid.

Fishermen Fishermen may benefit from enhanced catches in the long-run, provided the system is managed in a responsible manner.

E. Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ)

25. CRZ maps have been prepared in order to highlight regions in which regulations may apply to individual sub-projects.

26. Areas of particular concern to this project are CRZ I, between LTL and HTL, and CRZ-III, area above the HTL to 200 m inshore. Since the proposed sub-project designs are either below the low tide line (LTL) or part of a greater shoreline protection and management scheme then activities are deemed permissible in reference to certain notifications. The environmental studies by CMFRI reveals that none of the subproject areas are an ecologically sensitive area, as per the definitions of CRZ-I (i) and the disturbances caused by the project implementation are short term, and not tampering with the ecological resilience of the area.

27. The projects will be submitted to the State CRZ authorities for clearance.


95

F. Public Consultation

28. Public consultation and disclosure was completed during the project preparatory TA in each of the subproject areas. Individual subproject stakeholder meetings held for the purpose of disseminating the proposed project designs at three critical stages of the project;(i) initial discussions and draft proposal,(ii) interim stage during the design stage and (iii) and the final draft stage. Break-out groups proved useful in discussing the particulars of the designs and enabling individuals to question and debate. Stakeholder’s views and concerns have been taken into account, assessed by the PPTA and incorporated into the proposed designs. The specifics of these meetings are given in the subproject feasibility reports and individual IEE reports that have been prepared. Public participation and inclusion will be an important aspect in the continuation of the subproject implementation and continued stakeholder meetings should be held during every stage of the Investment Program. Community based Shoreline Management Organizations to be established at an early stage.

G. Institutional Arrangements

29. The State Executing Agencies (SEA) will be the Maharashtra Maritime Board, Goa Water Resources Department and the Karnataka Public Works Departments. The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) will be the National Coordination Agency (NCA) and will have the responsibility for the project to the National Government.

30. Based on the IEE and stakeholder consultation, ADB and Government of India guidelines a Environmental Assessment and Review Framework (EARF) is proposed for the subprojects. The EARF is described in detail in supplementary appendix M.

31. The overall responsibility for environmental monitoring and management will be the PMU in each state. The staffing of the PMU includes representatives from the State Implementing Agencies as well as staff from the State Environment Agencies as well as the representatives from the State CRZ committee. PMU will include representatives from the Office of Panchayats, Local District Council and the Panchayat who will be responsible for the establishment of the shoreline management organizations (SMO)

32. The PMU will directly hold a support budget to engage specialist and survey staff from National Institutes or from the private sector to provide technical support, monitoring and field surveys as required. The support budget will be funded from GOI funds as well as from the project loan funds.

33. A senior environmentalist will be assigned to each PMU to coordinate all the environmental aspects of the subprojects. The environmentalist will be recruited or will be seconded from the State Environment Departments. The tasks of the environmentalist will include (i) to support the preparation of environmental assessments (IEE or EIA) for the tranche 2 and 3 subprojects,(iii) supporting the process of environmentalist clearances for all the subprojects (ii) supporting the implementation of the Environment Management Plans for all the subprojects.

34. Environmental monitoring will be organized through the Environmental Management Committee (EMC). The EMC shall be convened by the SEA the SEAs shall be key as an intermediary of matters between the EMC, stakeholders, local community and the contractor.

35. A total budget of $322,000 of the loan funding has been assigned for monitoring and evaluation including environmental monitoring and management. In addition funds have been made available for training of the Environmental Management Committees through the training program. Provision for the Tranche 2 and 3 environmental assessments have been included as part of the design consultancies. The required budgets for environmental monitoring for each subproject have been identified as part of the IEE

36. The foremost requirement of the EMC is to provide a platform for all stakeholders to meet regularly, discuss and resolve issues. The outputs of the meetings will be directed at the removal of obstructions that may impede progress of the project implementation. The Environment Management Committee will consist of members from the community and other stakeholders in the project.

37. A respected community leader will be the chairperson of this committee. The place of meeting will be a convenient location accessible with ease to all ‘resource use’ categories including the


96

grassroots level. This committee will meet at intervals of one month during the preparation and implementation of the project. A formal awareness program will establish a foundation for functioning of the EMC. It will include:

(i) Changing the way that coastal protection is perceived; (ii) Understanding the site, functions and impacts of the available coastal protection and

management options; (iii) Viewing coastal protection as investment in a valuable asset base; explore potential

for generating the maximum possible returns from the investments (e.g. community income generation activities);

(iv) Adopting a systematic approach based on long-term planning and action; (v) To create understaning that environmental impacts need to be well predicted and

taken seriously at the planning stages; (vi) Early interventions can be more cost effective; (vii) Interventions are maintained and sustained; and (viii) The IEE, the EMP and the monitoring aspects have to be well understood and

modified as necessary to acquire mutual cooperation.

38. The learning component will derive substantially from both the functioning of the EMC and from participatory monitoring. The monitoring will include a technical component which will provide scientific information to the EMC. All monitoring tasks will be assigned accordingly to an appropriate technical agencies. The PMU will be responsible for the engagement of an appropriate technical agency to carry out the technical activities; the organisation could be a state or national institute or private organisation. The PMU through direct government funds and loan funds finance the technical suport organisation. The PMU will provide funds for functioning of the EMC and monitoring activities based upon a budget request to be submitted by the EMC.

39. A community/stakholder based shoreline management organisation will be established at an early stage to take on the responsibility and management of the completed project..


97

Appendix 13

SUMMARY OF CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING PROGRAM

A. Introduction

1. Development of capacities of the institutions to meet the long term needs of sustainable coastal protection and management is one of the key project objectives. Significant requirements for institutional and capacity development have been identified at National, State, District and Panchayat levels. The requirements are described in more detail in Supplementary Appendix C.

2. The coastal zone presents many complex issues and it is apparent that there are extremely few Government personnel with training or significant experience of the coastal processes or related skills in coastal engineering, environment, social or community development. A key project objective is to instigate a significant change in philosophy and approach to coastal protection and management; this requires to be supported by a well planned and managed integrated training program.

3. The proposed training program is designed to be complementary with the many activities being implemented as part of the planning and investment program which will form the basis of a number of case studies for the training.

B. Detailed Institutional Review and Training Needs Assessments

The training program prepared under the PPTA is a preliminary plan and requires to be developed into a detailed plan based on a detailed review and training needs assessment to be implemented as part of the loan program. The preparation of a detailed review, training needs and development of the training material is an important part of the terms of the reference of the project consultants.

C. Training Levels

4. Two separate levels of training are proposed. (i) Central Level Training and (ii) State Level Training.

(i) Central level training will be organized through the CWC and CWPRS with funding through the Technical Assistance Program, the central level training would include some participation of staff from the maritime states outside the three loan states; a key requirement to ensure that there is nationwide forum when addressing issues of strategy and policy.

(ii) State level training would be complementary to the central level training; it would be restricted to the representatives from the three loan states with funding under the loan. Other states could potentially organize similar programs through alternative funding sources.

D. Central Training

5. National level training is directed at senior level staff from central government, the three loan states as well as other maritime states and union territories. The central training is directed at (i) development of strategies, policies as well supporting the processes of institutional change and effecting greater horizontal coordination and (ii) support the establishment of a cadre of ‘Coastal Trainers’ to provide training to state and district officials. The training of trainers course would be held at CWPRS-trainers would be identified and selected from the states or institutes from experienced professionals with extensive background, training and experience in coastal protection and management. The ‘Coastal Trainers’ would be utilized to support other training programs under the central and state training programs. Central training would be supported by the Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (IDCMC)

E. State Level Training

6. State level training will be restricted to the three loan states. There are advantages of combined training for the three states and it is proposed that state level training would in most cases be held regionally (i.e. at a centre within one of the three states or other agreed centre (e.g. CWPRS).


98

The state level training would be supported by the Project Management and Design Consultants (PMDC)

F. Trainers

7. There is a limited number of national personnel with experience is soft technologies for coastal protection and management. To fill this gap will initially require some recruitment of short term trainers/consultants from overseas. By year 3 it is planned that sufficient national coastal trainers would be identified and trained who could form an effective training resource for training in the three loan as well as the other states.

G. Long term Sustainability of the Training

8. For most courses trainees will be nominated from the relevant National, State and District agencies. Rotation of Government staff to other department potentially represents a major loss and inefficiency of the training programs. State and national level agencies should develop a strategy to ensure the long term effectiveness of training and how nominations of candidates for training could most effectively continue to support the coastal programs. It is also proposed that some training places would be allocated to selected candidates from the communities and private sector.

H. Summary Training Program

A summary of the training program is given in Table 31 below. The various training programs and the participation of the various groups is shown in Figure 17 below.

The outline schedule and linkages with the technical investment program and the consultancies is given in Figure 18.

Table 31: Summary of the Training Program Description Target Trainers Details

A Central Training

1 Coastal Management Policy and Planning. Training and development of a working group to formulate coastal policy and planning.

Senior staff from Central and all maritime states

International and national specialists

24 trainees, 4 number 5 day courses over years 1 to 5.

2 Training of Trainers for Sustainable Shoreline Planning and Design (TOT) at CWPRS Establishment of a cadre of ‘Coastal Trainers’ to support coastal management training at state and district levels.

Carefully selected personnel with coastal training and experience.

National and international specialists

40 trainees 10-15 day course to be repeated twice over yrs 1 to 4.

3 Sustainable Shoreline Planning and Design (at CWPRS) Intensive course focusing on participative shoreline planning and management, use of appropriate soft technologies.

State level officials from loan and other states.

‘Coastal Trainers’ from TOT above

10 day course to be repeated four times over yrs 1 to 5.

4 Exposure Visits to Other Countries-visits to examine experiences in coastal protection and management-exposure to soft solutions.

Selected officials primarily from 3 loan states and Central Government

Host countries would provide trainers and guides

10 day visit in year 1

5 Central Level Coordination and Training Workshops

Various workshops and training

Various As required


99

Description Target Trainers Details

B. STATE LEVEL TRAINING

1 Training and Development of Management Information Systems and GIS. Training of key Government staff at state level in the objectives, design and management of the MIS.

State and PMU staff responsible for MIS

Trainers and GIS/ database specialists

Two courses in year 1 and year 4

2 Project Management and Monitoring Project management training to meet project objectives.

PMU and other state officials

Trainers to be identified

Course repeated every two years

3 Management of the Shoreline community based management, social and economic opportunities, value of the shoreline, environmental management. Training and support to establish shoreline management organization

Training for Environmental Management Committees, Shoreline Management Organizations and other community groups.

Environmental, community management specialists and ‘coastal trainers’

Training at sub project locations, -short intermittent training.

4 Coastal Management Training at International and National Institutes Specialist training in key coastal topics in India and overseas, exposure visits overseas for technical staff.

Technical staff and officials from loan states

National and International Institutes

Times, duration to be defined

5 Integrated Shoreline Planning and Management for State, District and Panchayat Training to support the preparation of shoreline management plans, Approaches to participative and integrated planning

District Officials, SEA and other from state working groups.

PMU staff, ‘Coastal Trainers’ from TOT above

Various as required

6 ADB Project Management and Procurement Procedures

PMU staff ADB specialist staff Various topics are per requirements


100

Figure 17: Training Participants

State Level Training (funded by loan)

Title DetailsCommunity

Pan chayat and District

Loan States Other

Central Govt CWC

Other key agencies

Loan States

Other Maritime States

C1Coastal Management Planning and Policy

Senior level management training, led discussion groups, identifying issues and weaknesses-output strategy and policy √ √ √ √

C2 Training of Trainers

Wide spectrum technical, environmental, institutional issues, training techniques-located at CWPRS-output cadre of high quality 'coastal trainers'

C3Sustainable Shoreline Planning and Design

Intensive wide spectrum coastal management training to held at CWPRS-training by 'coastal trainers' √ √

C4Exposure visits to other countries

Exposure to alternative soft solutions for coastal protection √ √ √ √

C5Central level coordination and training workshops

Workhsops to address specific issues √ √ √ √

S1

Training and Development of Management Information Systems

Training in database design and management, computer skills √

Also CWC & MoEF staff

S2Project Management and Monitoring

Project management skills required to meet project objectives √ √

Other as appropriate

S3Community management of the shoreline

Training and development for Shoreline Management Organisations √

S4

Coastal Management Training at International/ National Institutes-exposure visits

Specialist training in key coastal topics in India and overseas, exposure visits overseas for technical staff. √

S5Integrated Shoreline Planning and Management

Parallel training to support the preparation of shoreline management plans. Support for stakeholder participation √

Include other shoreline stakeholders

S6Project workshops and training

Various workshops to address project implementation and coastal issues √ √

Also CWC and MoWR

Central Level Training(funded by TA grant)Training Course Details

Training of a cadre coastal trainers-candidates to be highly qualified and experienced and selected nationally


101

Figure 18: Training Program and Linkages to the Consultancies

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Assessment & planOver seas visits Tr

aini

ng

of

Trai

ners

Central level training

Assessment & plan

Central level training & training of trainers

Strategies,policy & institut. change

Institutional assessment

Support for Sub Project Implementation

Cen

tral L

evel

Tr

aini

ngSt

ate

Trai

ning

State Level Training

C

onsu

ltanc

ies

Year 1

TRANCHE 3

Support for Effective Institutions

PLANNING AND DESIGN SUPPORT CONSULTANTS

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Planning and Design (Task)

Planning and Design Support

Year 8

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN CONSULTANCY

T2 Plan/Design T2 Implementation

TRANCHE 1

Shoreline Mang. Plans/ Information systems

T1 Subproject Implementation

TRANCHE 2

Planning and Design

Implementation support

T3 Plan/Design T3 ImplementationTech

nica

l and

In

vest

emen

ts

Project Management Support

CHANGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS


102

Appendix 14

OUTLINE SCOPE OF CONSULTANCIES

A. Summary

1. The project consultancies have been designed to: (i) effectively manage and implement the project to ensure timely delivery and the highest possible quality of outputs; (ii) to identify plan design and implement appropriate and sustainable solutions; and (iii) to develop the capacities and institutions to effectively plan and manage the shorelines

2. Establishing the capacities for effective planning and design for sustainable coastal protection and management is a fundamental requirement and presents a serious challenge to the project. To ensure an effective transition with minimal risk a fairly high component of international consultants is proposed.

3. Package A - Project Management and Design. Consultant will include project management as well as planning and design activities. The consultant will be directly responsible for the planning and design activities for the second tranche projects in year 1 and 2. From year 3 the consultancy will change to a role to support and supervision of national planning and design support consultancies (Package B). This is approach is designed to help develop and support the buildup of national level capacities for shoreline planning and management.

4. It is proposed to tender the Project Management and Design Consultancy as separate contracts for each state but arrange the tender evaluations so that a single consulting organization is appointed for the three states. This will allow improved coordination between the states as well as significant cost savings.

5. Package B - Planning and Design Support. Consultants will take on the role of planning and design of sub projects during year 3. The terms of reference and the final requirements for this consultancy will be defined once the type and scope of the Tranche 3 funded projects are defined.

6. Package C - Institutional Development and Change Management Consultancy.(funded by the TA Grant) The development of policy, institutional change and capacity building must be initiated at Central Government level. A separate consultancy is proposed to support the Central Water Commission achieve these objectives. The consultants will work primarily with the Central Water Commission (CWC). Working through the CWC the consultancy will address issues in the three loan states as well as the remaining coastal states and union territories.

7. To ensure the maximum impact and flexibility of training the training budgets will be managed by the Package A and Package C consultants. These will be as ‘provisional sums’. Requests for expenditure would be approved and reimbursed through the PMU. The consultants would pre-finance the training activities with reimbursement against approved expenditures.

8. A summary of the three consultancy packages are shown in Table 32. Detailed information on the inputs and estimated costs are given in Supplementary Appendix P.


103

Table 32: Summary of the Proposed Consultancy Packages

Package A - International Project Management and Design Consultant (PMDC) A total of 726 person-months (p-m) of a multidiscipline consultancy; including 115 p-m of international consultant and 611 p-m of national consultants. Of this package 363 p-m would relate to project management and 363 p-m relating to the planning, design and supervision work. Each state would have its own consultancy contract; however to provide continuity for the three states as well as cost savings recruitment will be arranged to ensure a single consulting organization is recruited for the three states. Costs would be apportioned to each state according the required inputs for each state. The project management and design consultant would be initially be engaged for three years, with a second stage for five years starting in year 3. For years 1 and 2 the PMDC would be fully responsible for planning and design activities. From year 3 the PMDC planning and design role would gradually change to the supervision of nationally recruited planning and design support consultancies. A key output of the project will be to build up the national capacities for planning and design of coastal protection and management through the private sector as well as the state and national Institutions. An international team leader would coordinate the activities for years 1 to 3, from year 4 one of the National consultants would take on the team leader role. Package B - Planning and Design Support Consultancies (PDSC)

A total 284 p-m of National Consultants with 29 p-m of supporting international experts. Starting in year 2 these consultants would be recruited by each of the SEA for specific planning, modeling and designs support specific projects under Tranche 3. The scope of works and TOR for these consultancies would be tailored to meet the specific requirements. The package B consultancies are designed to develop national level private sector capacities in coastal planning and design through the implementation of actual planning and design assignments.

Package C Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants(IDCC)-funded by the TA A total 73 p-m of National Consultants with 7 p-m of supporting international experts. This consultancy will provide support to the management of training and institutional change. The consultants would be contracted directly by the Central Water Commission (CWC) and would run from 36 months from year 1 to year 4. This consultancy would support institutional development in CWC and help strengthen the coordination and linkages with other ministries. The consultancy would support the central training program for the states including training and institutional support to the other maritime states.

B. Outline Terms of Reference for International Project Management and Design

Consultants (Package A Tranche 1)

1. General

The International Project Management and Design Consultant (PMDC) will be responsible for the project management, planning and design activities. The full consultancy would run for a total of 96 months 2010 to 2017. The stage 1 would be for 36 months from month 1 to month 36 of the project. The required consulting services are summarized in Table 33 below. To ensure a coordinated and integrated approach it is proposed that a single consultancy company would be recruited, there would however be separate contracts with each state-Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka;

Table 33: Project Management & Design Consultancy Inputs (Tranche 1)

Position Total Maharashtra Goa Karnataka

Person Months A. International 1 Team Leader 26.00 11.70 2.60 11.702 Institutional Development Specialist 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.353 Coastal Planning Consultant/design engineer 11.00 4.95 1.10 4.954 Coastal modeler 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.055 Construction Specialist 6.00 2.70 0.60 2.706 Environmentalist 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.357 Community Planning/social Specialist 5.00 2.25 0.50 2.258 Economist 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.359 Tourism Specialist 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90

10 PPP Specialist 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.9011 Unspecified specialists as required 4.00 3.60 0.80 3.60

Subtotal International 74.00 35.10 7.80 35.10


104

B. National

1 Coastal Engineer/Project Manager (1 for each state) 108.00 36.00 36.00 36.00

2 Institutional Specialist 7.00 3.15 0.70 3.15 3 Coastal Planner 18.00 8.10 1.80 8.10 4 Coastal modeler 11.00 4.95 1.10 4.95 5 Construction Management Specialist 12.00 5.40 1.20 5.40 6 Assistant Coastal Engineers 36.00 16.20 3.60 16.20 7 Land Use/GIS Specialist 6.00 2.70 0.60 2.70 8 PPP Enterprise specialist 4.00 1.80 0.40 1.80 9 Community Planning/social Specialist 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05

10 Environmentalist 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05 11 Ecologist(marine science) 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.35 12 Economist 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05 13 Water quality specialist 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90 14 Unspecified 15.00 6.75 1.50 6.75

Subtotal National 249.00 99.45 50.10 99.45 Total 323.00 134.55 57.90 134.55

2. Scope of Services

9. Part I: Project Management Support. The consultants will assist with the overall project coordination through the relevant agencies at national, state, district and panchayat levels. The consultants will work closely with the state project management units to ensure the effective and timely delivery of the project outputs. These will include:

(i) Working with the state executing agencies, state project management units to identify the project management needs, planning, strategies and schedules for execution.

(ii) Support the National Steering Committee, State Working Groups and District Planning Councils with the requirements to support and guide the project implementation.

(iii) Detailing and supporting the projects strategy to support the implementation of sustainable coastal protection and management through participative and integrated planning and management.

(iv) Ensuring the implementation schedules reflect the envisaged integrated approach with phasing of all the interrelated activities.

(v) Identifying the critical paths of activities and ensure that they are priority tasks are given particular attentions

(vi) Assisting with all tasks on the critical path, and ensure these are given particular attention. Assisting with project administration, performance and monitoring and preparation of project reports and tender documents.

10. Part II: Support for Effective Institutions. The consultants will support the projects aims to develop effective institutions for sustainable planning and management of the coastline. The component includes the development of professional capacity for planning, design and management through strengthening of the government, institutions as well as the private sector. These will include:

(i) Prepare an institutional review and assessment of the needs for sustainable coastal protection and management. Identify the capacity and resource gaps at different levels and identify how these could be addressed through institutional development and capacity building. The review should include the relevant institutions and national, state, district, panchayat and community levels.

(ii) Preparation of institutional and training needs assessments for the state and district institutions. Prepare a detailed training plan for the state level training.


105

(iii) To liaise closely with the Technical Assistance Program (‘Support for Sustainable Strategies and Institutional Development’) to integrate the state and district level needs with a national training and institutional development program.

(iv) Plan and work with the PMU in each state to implement the training program. Pre-finance the training costs.

(v) Prepare a strategy for institutional strengthening and development of private sector consultants and Government Institutes to support the planning and management of the shorelines

11. Part III: Support for Planning and Design is directed at the preparation of long term sustainable development plans and management for the shoreline. Project selection, detailed feasibility studies and designs for the sub projects will also be prepared under this component. The key tasks of the consultant will include:

(i) Establishment of a coastal management information system including a GIS 16 and supporting technical information.

(ii) Prepare participative shoreline management plans for the whole coastline of the three states. The plans will be based on technical assessments of the coastal process and issues. The plans will also identify potential economic opportunities for the coastal areas. The plans will be non statutory and prepared in close cooperation of the District Planning Authorities.

(iii) Selection, planning and design of the Tranche 2 sub projects

12. Part IV: Support for Coastal Protection and Management Projects. The consultants will provide management and supervision support for the sub projects including the provision of the specialist support for the offshore geotextile reefs.

C. Outline Terms of Reference for Planning and Design Support Consultancies (Package B Tranche 1)

1. Introduction

13. The Planning and Design Support Consultancies (PDSC) are proposed to provide technical support to the main consultants in key areas, as and when required. The type and scope of the planning and sub projects design is very varied and it will be necessary to source specialist support consultants to meet specific needs. During Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 (to a lesser extent) the PDSC would work in a support role to the main PMDC consultancy, during Tranche 3 the PMDC would take on the lead role for technical planning and design with the PMDC consultant working in a support role.

14. The PDSC would start in year 2 or 3 with a scope of works to be defined based on an assessment of the requirements during year 2. The packaging of the consultancy would also depend on the type and scope of the works; options include direct contract of individuals, or larger groups through private consultancy companies or institutes.

2. Development of Private Sector Capacities for Planning and Design

15. The PDSC is designed to develop the capacities for planning and design at the state level; which are presently very limited. Recruitment of the PDSC would be thorough the ADB procedures (shopping or tender) depending on the size and type of the work; both private sector and state institutes could participate, with selection based on both quality and cost. The main inputs would be through national consultants however budget provision has been made to recruit international consultants to provide specialist inputs. The objective is that by the end of the project there would be a pool of qualified and experienced national consultants from the private sector and Government institutes providing commercial consultancy. These consultants would provide the key support for the

16 This should build on the simple GIS developed under the PPTA


106

long term needs of coastal planning and design including capacities to undertake professional and high level numerical modeling of the coastal processes. The project would also develop and establish effective and competitive processes for selection and recruitment of consultants.

3. Estimated Inputs

16. At this stage the inputs are only indicative. For the whole project the estimated requirements for the PSDC are for a total of 313 pm. For Tranche 1 the proposed inputs are 49pm (33pm national and 6pm international), A preliminary estimate of the breakdown of inputs for Tranche 1 is shown in Table 34 below.

Table 34: Input Estimate for the Planning and Design Support Consultants (Tranche 1)

Position Total Maharashtra Goa Karnataka

Person Months

A. National 1 Coastal Planner 6 2.70 0.60 2.70 2 Coastal modeler 6 2.70 0.60 2.70 3 Design Engineer 6 2.70 0.60 2.70

4 Assistant Coastal Engineers (design and supervision) 6 2.70 0.60 2.70

5 Land Use/GIS Specialist/Autocad 4 1.80 0.40 1.80 6 Community Planning/social Specialist 3 1.35 0.30 1.35 7 Environmentalist (coastal ecologist) 4 1.80 0.40 1.80 8 Private sector development specialist 2 0.90 0.20 0.90 9 Economist 2 0.90 0.20 0.90 10 Water quality specialist 1 0.45 0.10 0.45 11 Unspecified 3 1.35 0.30 1.35

Subtotal National 43 19.35 4.30 19.35

B. International 1 Coastal Planning Consultant/design engineer 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90 2 Coastal modeler 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90 3 Economist 1.00 0.45 0.10 0.45 4 Unspecified specialists as required 1.00 0.45 0.10 0.45 Subtotal International 6.00 2.70 0.60 2.70 Total 49 22.05 4.90 22.05

D. Outline Terms of Reference for the Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (Package C)

1. General

17. The institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (IDCMC) would be contracted by the Central Water Commission using TA grant funds proposed for the project. The proposed inputs are shown in Table 35 below.

18. The IDCMC consultancy would start in the second part of year 1 and would continue over 36 months till year 3. The start has been scheduled to allow the state level PMDC consultant get established and identify the institutional needs at the state level before identifying the key issues and needs at the national level.

Table 35: Proposed Inputs for the Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants.

Position Total pm A National

1 Team Leader Institutions/ Management Expert 36

2 Training Consultant 6


107

3 Institutional Change Consultant 18 4 Workshop Facilitator 5 5 Technical Advisor 4 6 MIS/GIS Consultant 4 Subtotal National 73

B. International 1 Governance/ Institutional consultant 3 2 Education/ Institution consultant 2 3 Unspecified specialists as required 2 Subtotal International 7 Total 80

2. Scope of Services

19. The consultancy would support the institutional strengthening and development of the CWC and help the coordination and linkages with the other related national ministries. The consultancy through the CWC will identify, coordinate and address issues of long term shoreline management strategies and the introduction of policy for all the mainland coastal areas and union territories. The consultancy would implement a training needs evaluation using the assessment prepared in the states as a point of reference. The consultancy would help organize and support the centralized training program with participants from central government, the three loan states as well as the other maritime states and union territories. The key tasks of the consultant will include:

(i) Prepare an institutional review of the related Government and non Government agencies involved in coastal protection and management. Examine the linkages and coordination of activities between the different agencies and ministries. Define the present and recommend future roles and responsibilities.

(ii) In liaison with the states define the roles and requirements for the MoWR and the CWC to best support coastal protection and management. Examine the role of the CPDAC and develop the capacities of CPDAC to coordinate coastal management.

(iii) Prepare a review of capacities and resources of the CWC and other ministries and departments related to coastal protection and management. Identify the gaps and how these could be addressed. In coordination with the PMDC loan consultants plan and organise the central training programme for selected staff. The training programme would include high level managerial training including Coastal Management Policy and Planning, Exposure Visits to other countries, Central Level Coordination Training and Workshops.

(iv) The consultant would develop and implement a programme of ‘Training of Trainers’ to create a high level cadre of ‘coastal trainers’. Once the established the training group or cadre would support training through a series of short training courses at the state and district level. Recruitment of coastal trainers would be from Government, institutes and private sector. A range of skills and background would be sourced including engineers, scientists, economists, environmental and social specialists.

(v) Through participative dialogue develop long term strategies for the management of the coastline. Support the formalization of strategy into Government policy.

technical assistance consultant's report · technical assistance consultant's report ....

Documents