Institutional & Implementation Arrangements
The project has four implementing agencies - MoEF at the national level with lead responsibilities, and the Departments of Forests and Environment (DoFE) of the three participating states. The MoEF and the State DoFEs have the sole mandate and experience in coastal zone management and were, therefore, the obvious choice to lead project implementation. Each of these four main partners has already set up special purpose vehicles in the form of registered societies (NPMU and SPMUs), to manage the project and achieve the PDOs; coordinate project activities on a full-time basis and directly execute some of the relevant project sub components. In addition, Steering Committees (SCs) at the national and the state levels have been set up for intersectoral coordination.
Implementing Agencies and their Responsibilities
|Implementing Nodal Agencies||
Special Purpose Societies
Providing national Policy and implementation framework: approval of project’s overall annual action plans and budget; and implementation oversight
NMPU ( society for Integrtaed coastal Management- SICOM)
Project implementation leadership; accountability to achieve the objectives and implementation of the allotted project component
Gujarat Forests and Environment Department
Providing state policy and implementation framework; approval of state level annual action plans and budget; ensuring timely counterpart financing from state budget; and implementation oversight.
SPMU(Gujarat ecology commission)
State level project implementation leadership; accountability to achieve the objectives; implementation of state components.
Odisha Department of Forests And Environment
SPMU(Odisha SPM Society)
West Bengal Department of Environment
SPMU (Institute of Environmental Studies And Wetland Management)
The NPMU/SPMUs will collaborate with and seek support from and partnership with a range of other agencies to strengthen the capacity of the main implementing agencies. These will include international, national and local knowledge centers; academic and research institutes; private sector business houses and industries; urban and rural local government bodies; civil society groups, NGOs, community based organizations and other government departments responsible for coastal zone development and protection.
During implementation, the NPMU will submit consolidated reimbursement requests for the entire project based on interim unaudited financial reports (state level consolidation will be done by the SPMU and forwarded to NPMU). There will be only one special account for this project.
To be able to efficiently implement the above-mentioned responsibilities, adequate provision of staff, capacity and resources has been made within the NPMU and SPMUs. The proposed institutional arrangements, powers, roles and responsibilities of the various actors and their organizational linkages are presented in Annex 6, and complete details are described in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP).
The Project implementation will begin on July 01, 2010. A detailed project implementation schedule has been developed for a 5-year implementation period.
(A)Project implementation plan and guidelines:
MoEF and the states have prepared detailed PIPs and guidelines in the form of a set of project reports and operating manuals and guidelines. These form the basis for implementation performance monitoring and include:
(a) National and State Project Reports: These project reports include all the project design details and implementation arrangements;
(b) Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for capacity and institution building: The MoEF and DoFEs have prepared detailed plans for capacity and institution building investments; including schedules of implementation, procurement of human and physical resources, and outcome monitoring indicators;
(c) DPRs for pilot investments: For pilot investments the PEAs have prepared detailed project reports which provide similar details for specific pilot investments including relevant environmental and social impact management measures and outcome monitoring indicators;
(d) Financial Management Manual providing the details of funds flow, accounting, auditing and reporting and the related control and accountability mechanisms;
(e) Procurement Manual containing the proposed procurement strategy, methods and procedures to be adopted; documents to be used for procurement of works, goods and consultant services;and powers to award these works and consultancies;
(f) Environmental and Social Assessment and Management Plan;
(g) Governance and Accountability Action Plan;
(h) Communication Strategy and Action Plan;
(i) Detailed project cost model that will be used for monitoring costs and expenditure; and,
(j) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between various PEAs with the respective NPMU/SPMUs outlining the respective roles and responsibilities, reporting and accountability requirements.
B. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results
Monitoring, evaluation and learning: A project monitoring, evaluation and learning (ME&L) framework has been designed to facilitate:
(a) Results and outcome based management;
(b) learning and process enhancement (through participatory methods as well as through independent technical, financial and social audits, and beneficiary satisfaction surveys); and
(c) impact evaluation.
Monitoring indicators: The ME&L system has been designed to align with the existing government systems as far as possible and to avoid information overload. A key objective of the system is continuous learning for timely course correction during project implementation. Three sets of indicators have been developed:
(a) input-output indicators to measure the project implementation performance including related process indicators;
(b) Intermediate results indicators to measure the performance of each project component; and
(c) Outcome indicators to assess the achievement of PDOs
Monitoring reports and management information system (MIS): The NPMU includes a dedicated operations unit with a ME&L specialist and support staff with overall responsibility for planning and coordinating ME&L activities. Similar arrangements have been agreed for the SPMUs.
Quarterly progress reports will be generated by NPMU based on inputs from the three states and its own MIS system for tracking progress of the national component. In addition, the NPMU and SPMUs will prepare respective annual action plans detailing the achievements and lessons learned in the previous year, and proposed implementation plan and budget for the following year. These arrangements should ensure timely collection, analysis and reporting of information, as well as mechanisms to enable efficient use of the ME&L system by managers, policy makers and other key stakeholders. Qualified consultants will be recruited for the design and operation of a computerized MIS during the first year of project implementation.
Ownership and commitment: The GoI is strongly committed to comprehensive management of the coastal and marine areas as evidenced through:
- The setting up of the Swaminathan Committee which submitted its report in February 2005;
- The acceptance of the Committee’s report by GoI in 2006;
- The issue of several draft notification for nationwide dissemination and stakeholder feedback on the revision of the CRZ Notification in 2008; and
- Extensive nation-wide consultations with civil society, NGOs, industry groups and other stakeholders during 2008-10.
This consultation process was completed in April 2010, based on which GoI intends to promulgate a final revised notification. GoI is keen to implement this new ICZM approach to balance the dual needs of conserving the ecosystems of the coastal zone and protecting the traditional rights of coastal communities, while at the same time promoting economic development and poverty reduction in the coastal areas. The states of Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal, similarly, are committed to implementation of the project, including commitment to provide their respective share of the project cost and all other resources necessary to achieve project development objectives.
Institutional sustainability: Historically, the MoEF and the DoFE have had the mandate, budgets and responsibility for implementing the CRZ Notification and in future, they will have the responsibility for implementing the proposed ICZM approach. These regular government ministry and departments are deemed to be sustainable. New institutions in the form of registered societies have been created to develop and pilot institutional mechanisms that would be suitable for the proposed ICZM and decentralized approach. These institutions are very likely to be sustainable either in the same form or after they are converted and merged into regular ministries and departments, once the project demonstrates its successes. The prospect of sustainability will be further strengthened as the GoI desires to build on the project’s success by scaling up ICZM to the rest of the coastal states.
Sustainability of pilot investments: Each pilot investment, as part of its design, has developed a detailed plan for operation and maintenance of the assets that would be created under this project. These plans have identified the institutional responsibilities as well as the funding and other resources that will be required for their long term sustainable operations.
Replicability: Replicability will be the litmus test for the project. To facilitate replication the following steps were taken:
- careful selection of project states based on the diverse nature of challenges they face so that lessons from these pilots would be immediately applicable to other coastal states;
- careful selection of small coastal stretches within each project state so that the lessons learnt from the preparation of ICZM plans and from the implementation of local pilot investments could be readily useful for other coastal stretches experiencing similar challenges within or outside the state; and,
- Dedicating substantial resources for developing high quality ICZM plans and planning processes. Preparation and adoption of successful ICZM plans will depend on stakeholders’ engagement and co-management of the ICZM planning process.
Many pilot investment activities such as mangrove plantations will be co-managed by the local coastal communities and self-help groups. The successful demonstration of co-management benefits will help replicate the project, and the processes it supports.
D. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
The most prominent risks are the reputational risks associated with coastal zone management which must address a wide variety of stakeholders (some of which surfaced in the Bank-financed Albania ICZM and Clean-up Project). During project preparation, elaborate consultations ensured that these issues are reasonably incorporated in the design of the project. MoEF is one of the better performing ministries in implementing the RTI Act, and this project has designated budget and plans to ensure transparent implementation. The project will introduce novel methods to redress potential grievances including supporting vulnerable persons to access legal recourse if they are unsatisfied with the project’s grievance redress mechanisms. A specific independent legal review confirmed that the design of the project has included all reasonable measures to address these reputational risks.
Other major risks, such as low implementation capacity of staff, administrative and procedural constraints in recruiting and maintaining highly skilled and motivated staff, and weaknesses in procurement and financial management systems have been systematically addressed and mitigated in the project design. Each activity has been designed with plans for future operation and maintenance with committed funding from state government agencies.