Completion Report

Project Number: 26006 Loan Numbers: 1570 and 1571 July 2008

Indonesia: Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resources Management Project

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – rupiah (Rp)

At Appraisal At Project Completion (3 October 1997) (10 April 2007)

Rp1.00 = $0.000293 $0.000110 $1.00 = Rp3,410 Rp9,092.50

ABBREVIATIONS AAET – Agency for Agricultural Education and Training ADB – Asian Development Bank ADF – Asian Development Fund BAPEDAL – Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan

(Environmental Impact Management Agency) AR – artificial reef BAPPEDA – Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Derah

(Regional Development Planning Agency) BAPPENAS – Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional

(National Development Planning Agency) BI – Bank Indonesia BRI – Bank Rakyat Indonesia CFRM – coastal fisheries resource management COFISH – Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resource

Management Project DGCF – Directorate General of Capture Fisheries COREMAP II – Coral Reef Management and Rehabilitation Project Phase II DGF – Directorate General of Fisheries DFS – district fisheries services EA – executing agency EIA – environmental impact assessment EIRR – economic internal rate of return FIRR – financial internal rate of return FLC – fish landing center GDP – gross domestic product GIS – geographic information system GOI – Government of Indonesia HH – household IA – implementing agency ICFRMP – Integrated Coastal Fisheries Resource Management Project IEC – information and education campaign KKPK – Komite Kelautan dan Perikanan Kabupaten

(district fisheries and coastal committee) KPPL – Komite Pengelolaan Perikanan Laut

(marine fisheries management committee) KUB – Kelompok Usaha Bersama

(microenterprise or joint business group) LCO – local community organization

LKMP – Lembaga Keuangan Masyarakat Pantai (coastal community finance or micro-finance institution)

LPAC – local project advisory committee MCS – monitoring, control and surveillance LKMP – Lembaga Keuangan Masyarakat Pantai

(coastal community finance or micro-finance institution) M&E – monitoring and evaluation MMAF – Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries MOF – Ministry of Finance MPA – marine protected area NGO – nongovernmental organization O&M – operation and maintenance OCR – ordinary capital resources PAC – project advisory committee PAM – project administration manual PBME – project benefit monitoring and evaluation PCC – project coordinating committee PCO – project coordinating office PCR – project completion report PERDA – Peraturan Daerah (regional regulations) PFS – provincial fisheries service PIU – project implementation unit PMC – project management consultant POKJA – Kelompok Kerja (technical working group) PPTA – project preparatory technical assistance QPR – quarterly progress report REA – resource and ecological assessment RRP – report and recommendation of the President SEA – socioeconomic assessment SSB – single-side band SOE – statement of expenditure TA – technical assistance TAC – total allowable catch

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ha – hectare kg – kilogram km2 – square kilometer kVa – kiloVolt-ampere m – meter m2 – square meter M3 – cubic meter gt – gross ton hp – horsepower

GLOSSARY

awig-awig – customary law bupati – regent/mayor keppres – presidential decree pimpro – project manager/head of PCO Pokmaswas – Community Surveillance Group

NOTES

(i) The fiscal year (FY) of the Government and its agencies ends on 31 December. FY before a calendar year denotes the year in which the fiscal year ends, e.g., FY2006 ends on 31 December 2006.

(ii) In this report, "$" refers to US dollars and “SDR” to special drawing rights.

Vice President C. Lawrence Greenwood, Jr., Operations Group 2 Director General A. Thapan, Southeast Asia Department (SERD) Director U. S. Malik, Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources Division,

SERD Team leader C. Wensley, Principal Water Resources Engineer, SERD Team member H. B. Taylor, Project Officer, SERD

CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA i

MAP

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 1 B. Project Outputs 2 C. Project Costs 4 D. Disbursements 5 E. Project Schedule 6 F. Implementation Arrangements 6 G. Conditions and Covenants 7 H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 8 I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 9 J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 9 K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 9

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 10 A. Relevance 10 B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 11 C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 12 D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 12 E. Impact 13

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. Overall Assessment 14 B. Lessons 14 C. Recommendations 15

APPENDIXES 1. Project Framework 16 2. Project Accomplishments 27 3. Distribution of Project-Financed Facilities 33 4. Participatory Coastal Resources Management in East Lombok (Case Study) 35 5. Fish Landing Centers Facilities 40 6. Project Costs by Component 51 7. Loan Utilization by Year 52 8. Project Implementation Schedule 56 9. Status of Compliance with Major Loan Covenants 64 10. Project Accomplishments and Impacts 71 11. Financial and Economic Analyses 72 12. Fisheries Sector Statistics 85 13. Demographic and Poverty Data 92

BASIC DATA A. Loan Identification 1. Country 2. Loan Numbers 3. Project Title 4. Borrower 5. Executing Agency 6. Amount of Loan 7. Project Completion Report Number

Indonesia 1570/1571 Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resource Management Project Republic of Indonesia Directorate General of Capture Fisheries 1570: $26.00 million 1571: SDR11.00 million ($15.00 million) PCR: INO 1043

B. Loan Data 1. Appraisal – Date Started – Date Completed 2. Loan Negotiations – Date Started – Date Completed 3. Date of Board Approval 4. Date of Loan Agreement 5. Date of Loan Effectiveness – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 6. Closing Date – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions

7. Terms of Loan – Commitment Charge

– Interest Rate

– Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years)

9 June 1997 27 June 1997 12 September 1997 13 September 1997 04 November 1997 03 February 1998 (signing date) 04 May 1998 21 April 1998 0 31 December 2003 1570: 30 May 2006; 1571: 17 May 2006 3 0.75% ordinary capital resources (OCR) Pool-based variable rates until 31 December 2002 and London interbank offered rate-based (floating) for OCR 25 years for OCR 35 years for Asian Development Fund (ADF) 6 years for OCR 10 years for ADF

ii

8. Disbursements a. Dates

Loan 1570 Loan 1571

Initial Disbursement

23 June 1998 24 June 1998

Final Disbursement

30 May 2006 17 May 2006

Time Interval

96 months 95.5 months

Effective Date

21 April 1998

Original Closing Date

31 December 2003

Time Interval

68 months

b. Amount Loan 1570 ($)

Category

Original

Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation

Amount

Canceled a

Amount

Disbursed

Undisbursed

Balance b

01 Civil Works 5,527,000 5,221,000 306,000 4,701,568 519,432 02 Surveys and Studies 545,000 491,000 54,000 485,520 5,480 03A Equipment (ICB/IS) 4,909,000 3,009,000 1,900,000 2,818,098 190,902 03B Equipment (Local Purchase)

1,182,000 370,000 812,000 353,990 16,010

03C Vehicles 491,000 337,000 154,000 336,112 888 04 Materials 1,963,000 662,000 1,301,000 591,888 70,112 05 Consulting Services – International Consultants

2,354,000 2,573,000 (219,000) 2,286,425 286,575

06A Staff Training 182,000 183,000 (1,000) 165,144 17,856 06B Postgraduate Training 545,000 675,000 (130,000) 649,784 25,216 06C Extension Training (LCO) 400,000 59,000 341,000 43,192 15,808 06D Extension Training (Government)

436,000 0 436,000 0 0

07 Project Office Operation 82,000 120,000 (38,000) 102,491 17,509 08 Operating Recurrent 236,000 0 236,000 0 0 09 Interest During Construction

5,100,000 4,300,000 800,000 2,642,491 1,657,509

10 Unallocated 2,048,000 0 2,048,000 0 0 11 Tsunami Assistance 0 500,000 (500,000) 0 500,000

99 Imprest Fund 0 0 0 0 0

Total 26,000,000 18,500,000 7,500,000 15,176,704 3,323,296( ) = negative, ICB/IS = international competitive bidding/international shopping, LCO = local community organization. a Three partial cancellations were carried out: $4,500,000 on 16 July 1998; $2,200,000 on 26 November 2001; and

$800,000 on 27 October 2003. b The final undisbursed balance was cancelled on 30 May 2006 and closure of the OCR loan was effective on the

same date.

Loan 1571 ($) Category

Original

Allocation

Last Revised a Allocation

Amount

Canceled b

Amount

Disbursed

Undisbursed

Balance c 01 Civil Works 2,363,000 2,186,668 176,332 1,863,615 323,05302 Surveys and Studies 2,009,000 640,053 1,368,947 680,800 (40,747)03A Equipment (IS) 536,000 1,987,963 (1,451,963) 1,891,488 96,47503B Equipment (Local

Purchase) 136,000 1,266,293 (1,130,293) 1,217,320 48,973

iii

03C Vehicles 136,000 239,274 (103,274) 145,020 94,25404 Materials 1,617,000 1,117,873 499,127 982,998 134,87505 Consulting Services – Local Consultants

1,291,000 2,969,999 (1,678,999) 2,710,844 259,155

06A Staff Training 945,000 1,055,240 (110,240) 986,140 69,10006B Extension Training (LCO) 2,455,000 1,281,905 1,173,095 1,530,868 (248,963)06C Extension Training (Government)

509,000 33,888 475,112 37,482 (3,594)

07 Project Office Operation 1,200,000 189,660 1,010,340 167,618 22,04208 Service Charge 441,000 512,908 (71,908) 289,613 223,29509 Unallocated 1,362,000 0 1.362,000 0 010 Tsunami Assistance 0 492,556 (492,556) 0 492,556

99 Imprest Fund 0 2,056 (2,056) 0 2,056

Total 15,000,000 13,976,336 1,023,664 12,503,807 1,472,529( ) = negative, IS = international shopping, LCO = local community organization. a As of 05 April 2006. b Two partial cancellations were carried out: $900,002.46 on 27 October 2003; and $800,002.36 on 10 August

2004. c The final undisbursed balance was cancelled on 17 May 2006 and closure of the ADF loan was effective on the

same date. Loan 1571 (SDR)

Category

Original

Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation

Amount

Canceled a

Amount

Disbursed

Undisbursed

Balance b

01 Civil Works 1,733,00 1,561,658 171,342 1,337,404 224,25402 Surveys and Studies 1,473,000 465,594 1,007,406 493,874 (28,280)03A Equipment (IS) 393,000 1,338,712 (945,712) 1,271,755 66,95703B Equipment (Local Purchase) 100,000 873,118 (773,118) 839,129 33,98903C Vehicles 100,000 166,950 (66,950) 101,534 65,41604 Materials 1,186,000 787,051 398,949 693,419 93,63205 Consulting Services – Local Consultants

947,000 2,123,450 (1,176,450) 1,943,587 179,863

06A Staff Training 693,000 758,016 (65,016) 710,058 47,95806B Extension Training (LCO) 1,800,000 884,870 915,130 1,057,272 (172,402)06C Extension Training (Government)

373,000 25,924 347,076 28,418 (2,494)

07 Project Office Operation 880,000 136,878 743,122 121,400 15,47808 Service Charge 323,000 356,713 (33,713) 201,739 154,97409 Unallocated 999,000 0 999,000 0 010 Tsunami Assistance 0 341,851 (341,851) 0 341,851

99 Imprest Fund 0 0 0 0 0

Total 11,000,000 9,820,785 1,179,215 8,799,590 1,021,196( ) = negative, IS = international shopping, LCO = local community organization, SDR = special drawing rights. a Two partial cancellations were carried out: $900,002.46 on 27 October 2003; and $800,002.36 on 10 August 2004. b The final undisbursed balance was cancelled on 17 May 2006 and closure of the ADF loan was effective on the

same date.

iv

9. Local Costs (Financed) - Amount ($) 8.351 - Percent of Local Costs 27.66 - Percent of Total Cost 18.41 C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($‘000) Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign Exchange Cost 28,870 19,330 Local Currency Cost 41,970 30,497 Total 70,840 49,827

2. Financing Plan ($‘000) Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual Implementation Costs Borrower Financed 30,060 22,147 ADB Financed 35,250 24,748 Other External Financing Total 65,310 46,578 IDC Costs (including service charges) Borrower Financed 0 0 ADB Financed 5,540 2,932 Other External Financing 0 0 Total 70,850 49,827 ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction, OCR = ordinary capital resources. 3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($‘000)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual A. Base Cost 1. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management 15,150 12,370 2. Community Development and Poverty Reduction 12,400 9,260 3. Environmental Improvement of Fish-Landing

Centers

17,020

14,978 4. Institutional Strengthening and Project

Management

8,530

10,287 Subtotal (A) 53,100 46,895 B. Contingencies

1. Physical 5,310 0 2. Price 6,900 0

Subtotal (B) 12,210 0 C. Interest and Service Charge During Construction 5,540 2,932 Total 70,850 49,827

v

4. Project Schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual Date of Contract with Consultants Project Management Consultant First half 1998 9 October 1998 MCS & GIS Consultant (Institutional Strengthening) First half 1998 12 January 2000 Construction Management (CBRM Consultant) Second half 1998 8 November 2002Civil Works Contract (Major Contracts) Tegalsari Fish Landing Center - Date of Award Second quarter 2000 11 October 2002 Supplementary 8 October 2003 Supplementary 9 September 2004 Completion of Work Second quarter 2003 29 January 2005 Prigi Fish Landing Center – Date of Award Second quarter 2000 20 September 2002 Supplementary 9 September 2003 Supplementary 23 August 2004 Completion of Works Second quarter 2003 17 December 2004Equipment and Supplies Dates First Procurement 22 December 1998 Last Procurement 30 December 2004 Completion of Equipment Installation 29 May 2005Other Milestones OCR First Partial Cancellation Second Partial Cancellation Third Partial Cancellation Final Cancellation

16 July 1998

26 November 27 October 2003

30 May 2006 ADF First Partial Cancellation Second Partial Cancellation Final Cancellation

27 October 2003 10 August 2004

17 May 2006 ADF = Asian Development Fund, CBRM = community based resource management, GIS = geographic information system, MCS = monitoring, control and surveillance, OCR = ordinary capital resources. 5. Project Performance Report Ratings Implementation Period

Development Objectives

Ratings

Implementation Progress

From 21 April 1 to 31 December 1998 S S From 01 January to 31 December 1999 S S From 01 January to 31 December 2000 S S From 01 January to 31 December 2001 S S From 01 January to 31 December 2002 S S From 01 January to 31 December 2003 S S From 01 January to 31 December 2004 S S From 01 January to 31 December 2005 S S From 01 January to 31 May 2006 S S S = satisfactory.

vi

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Missiona

Date

No. of Persons

No. of Person-Days

Specialization of Membersa

Fact Finding 17 March–5 April 1997 4 80 a, b, f, g, Appraisal 9–27 June 1997 5 59 a, b, c, d, e, h Project Inception 13–18 April 1998 2 12 a, m Project Review Mission 1 6–17 May 1999 1 12 a Project Review Mission 2 3–14 May 2000 1 12 a Midterm Review 2–17 July 2001 3 48 a, i, l Project Review Mission 3 14–23 October 2002 2 20 k, l Project Review Mission 4 16–30 July 2003 2 30 k, l Project Review Mission 5 5–18 October 2004 2 28 k, l Project Review Mission 6 5–20 September 2005 2 32 k, o Project Completion Review b 22 September–6 October 2007 2 32 j, n no. = number. a a – project specialist (fisheries), b – program officer, c – project economist, d – senior project economist, e –

counsel, f – consultant (coastal environmental specialist), g – consultant (agribusiness development/microcredit specialist), h – counsel, i – consultant (resource economist), j – consultant (agricultural/natural resources economist), k – senior agriculture and natural resources specialist, l – associate project analyst, m – assistant project analyst, n – consultant (project evaluation specialist/mission leader), o – project officer.

b The project completion review was prepared by Graham M. Walter, consultant (project evaluation specialist and review team leader), Homer Taylor, Project Officer, and Dimyati Nangju, (project completion review mission support), under the guidance of Christopher Wensley, Principal Water Resources Engineer, SERD.

2

34

5

1

1

2

3

4

5

J a v a S e a

B a n d a S e a

A r a f u r u S e a

I N D I A N O C E A N

S o u t h C h i n a S e a

P A C I F I C O C E A N

S u l a w e s i S e a

S U M A T R AK A L I M A N T A N

S U L A W E S I

H A L M A H E R A

I R I A N

J A V A

S E R A M

ARU

SULA

BURU

WAIGEO

YAPEN

BIAK

LOMBOK

SUMBAWA

SUMBA

BALIFLORES

TIMOR

WETAR

ALOR TANIMBAR

BACANBANGGAI

MOROTAI

TALAUD

SANGIHE

OBIMAYORBATAONE

LAUT

BUTONMUNA

BELITUNG

BANGKA

LINGGA

NIAS

SIBERUT

PAGAI

NORTH BENGKULU

BATU

SIMEULUE

WE

NATUNA

MADURA

DOLAK

BANGKA-BELITUNG

NANGGROE ACEHDARUSSALAM

NORTHSUMATRA

RIAU

RIAU ISLANDS

WEST SUMATRAJAMBI

BENGKULU

SOUTH SUMATRA

LAMPUNG

WEST JAVA

BANTEN

CENTRALJAVA

BALI

WEST NUSATENGGARA

EAST NUSATENGGARA

SOUTHSULAWESI

WESTSULAWESI

SOUTHEASTSULAWESI

CENTRALSULAWESI

SOUTHKALIMANTAN

CENTRALKALIMANTAN

WESTKALIMANTAN

EAST KALIMANTAN

EAST JAVAYOGYAKARTA

GORONTALO

NORTH SULAWESI

NORTH MALUKU

MALUKU

PAPUA

WESTPAPUA

TIMOR-LESTE

M A L A Y S I A

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

National Capital

Provincial Capital

Road

Provincial Boundary

International Boundary

Boundaries are not necessarily authoritative.

Bengkalis District, Riau Province

Tegal City, Central Java Province

Trenggalek District, East Java Province

Banyuwangi District, East Java Province

East Lombok District, West Nusa Renggara Province

Project Sites

INDONESIA

COASTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANDFISHERIES RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

(as completed)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Kilometers

N

08

-24

51

R. M

arm

ita

108 00'Eo

108 00'Eo

132 00'Eo

132 00'Eo

0o

0o

8 00'So

8 00'No 8 00'No

8 00'So

JAKARTA

Pekanbaru

Ambon

Ternate

Jayapura

Manado

Kendari

Manokwari

Gorontalo

Kupang

Semarang

Palembang

Pangkal Pinang

Serang

Bengkulu

Padang

Pontianak

Palangkaraya

Banjarmasin

Samarinda

Makassar

Palu

Mamuju

Yogyakarta

Denpasar

Bandung

Jambi

Tanjung Pinang

Bandar Lampung

Medan

Banda Aceh

Surabaya

Mataram

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved two loans on 4 November 1997 comprising $26 million from its ordinary capital resources (OCR) and SDR11 million ($15 million equivalent) from the Asian Development Fund (ADF) to support the Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resources Management Project in Indonesia. The objectives were to (i) promote sustainable management of and conserve coastal fisheries resources by controlling destructive fishing practices and overfishing, and improving fisheries resources and related habitats; and (ii) reduce extensive poverty in coastal areas by providing opportunities to increase the incomes and improve the living standards of coastal communities. 2. The Project was undertaken in four districts and one city, covering Bengkalis in Riau Province, Tegal City in Central Java, Trenggalek in East Java, Banyuwangi in East Java, and East Lombok in West Nusa Tenggara. The project scope included activities to (i) promote community-based coastal fisheries resource management (CFRM); (ii) increase the incomes and living standards of poor coastal communities through provision of appropriate opportunities and social infrastructure facilities; (iii) rehabilitate facilities in selected fish landing centers (FLCs) to improve sanitation, the environment, and fish quality; and (iv) strengthen the fisheries resource management capability of coastal communities, nongovernment organizations, and national and district agencies.

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

3. The project design and objectives were in line with ADB’s fisheries’ policy and its country development strategy to promote sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty in Indonesia. While following the fisheries policy in focusing on resource management, and involving the stakeholder communities in planning and implementation, it introduced what was then an innovative element of social infrastructure by recognizing that fishing communities were disadvantaged in part by their isolation from social facilities (water supply, drainage, village halls roads, and health centers) and markets. 4. It was in line with Indonesia’s Five Year Development Plan (1993/94–1998/99), and was designed to address two major problems facing Indonesian fisheries and coastal fishery resources: (i) depletion of coastal fisheries resources, and (ii) the pervasive poverty and social disadvantage of coastal communities. These two problems are closely interrelated and the project design recognized the need to address them simultaneously to break the vicious cycle of environmental degradation and poverty. The project also provided some upgrading and rehabilitation of fish landing facilities to improve sanitary and environmental conditions and to enhance the quality and value of fish production by reducing physical losses and improving quality. 5. The design involved the stakeholder communities in coastal resource management plans and in (i) establishing fisheries sanctuaries and marine protected areas (MPAs); (ii) rehabilitating fish habitats, including rehabilitation and replanting of mangrove areas; (iii) creating artificial reefs and fish restocking; and (iv) reducing overfishing and the use of destructive methods through community-based fisheries surveillance systems. The design recognized that for this approach to be successful, effective community organizations needed to be created and empowered, a process that had to begin with social preparation.

2

6. Although the project included social infrastructure to help disadvantaged communities, key elements included assistance in improving livelihoods, in developing alternative livelihood activities, and in facilitating access to credit sources and markets. The initial target for this component was overly optimistic, and the number of beneficiary households was reduced from 20,000 to 5,000 at the midterm review. There was also limited diversification from fisheries-based livelihood activities, primarily because of the limited alternative resource base for such activities (see para. 61). The target for mangrove rehabilitation was also reduced (from 3,000 hectares to 2,000 hectares) following completion of detailed assessments of suitable areas at the five sites; much of the rehabilitation has involved strip planting along fish pond dikes and rivers, rather than planting of extended open areas. B. Project Outputs

7. The project’s logical framework, showing project objectives, components, and targets (at time of appraisal, or, for mangrove rehabilitation and livelihood activities, following reductions made at the midterm review) and achievements is included as Appendix 1. This also summarizes achievements at project goal and objective level, and by individual component. 1. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management Component 8. The CFRM component aimed to rationalize and regulate the use of coastal fisheries resources and conserve fish habitats through: (i) resource and ecological assessment (REA) and socioeconomic assessment (SEA) at the project sites, which would provide the basis for the preparation of site-specific CFRM plans by concerned stakeholders; (ii) implementation of various activities by concerned stakeholders, based on the CFRM plans, including activities such as (a) establishment of MPAs and fish sanctuaries; (b) rehabilitation of damaged habitats (coral reefs and mangroves); (c) implementation of artificial reef and fish re-stocking programs in protected areas; (d) reduction and shifting of fishing effort from overfished stocks to underfished stocks (e.g., tuna and squid); and (e) pollution, siltation, and erosion control; (iii) design and implementation of a monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system at the Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF) and the project provinces—covering fisheries information systems, legislation, regulation, licensing and law enforcement; and (iv) design and implementation of a nationwide information and education campaign (IEC). 9. The component was fully implemented by project completion and activities are continuing. CFRM plans were formulated to address problems identified in the REAs and SEAs, and have been implemented by coastal communities through the establishment and monitoring of MPAs and fish sanctuaries as well as the enactment of fisheries regulations, enforcement of local laws, and development and implementation of an IEC campaign. Twenty six community-based coastal fisheries resource management committees have been established at the project sites with the assistance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the local government. Eight district fisheries advisory committees have been established and remain active. Appendix 2 provides details of activities implemented under the CFRM component, including fish sanctuaries and MPAs established under the project, artificial reefs deployed and coral reefs protected, and mangrove areas rehabilitated and/or managed. 10. Surveillance and law enforcement are critical for the effective control of destructive fishing practices and overfishing and for sustainable management of fisheries resources. Each project site was provided with a patrol boat (with boathouse, berth and slipway) and a set of communication equipment for use in MCS activities. The deployment of these is listed in Appendix 3. However, community participation is very important at the local level, and the

3

project has had significant success in capacity-building programs, and raising awareness and appreciation within communities of fisheries resources and habitats (including mangroves). Appendix 4 gives an example of participatory management in East Lombok, which has been effective in reducing destructive fishing activities through community action programs in monitoring and surveillance and enactment of sanctions using customary laws. The impact on sustainability is discussed in paras. 50–51 below. 2. Community Development and Poverty Reduction 11. The community development and poverty reduction component was aimed at promoting non-fishing income-generating activities and improving social infrastructure in the project areas to help improve the socioeconomic status and quality of life of the coastal communities. It was hoped that this would also help wean fisherfolk away from fisheries activities, thereby reducing pressure on fisheries resources. It had three key interventions: (i) organization of coastal fishers into self-reliant groups, cooperatives, or associations, to be empowered for CFRM and livelihood and/or microenterprise development through social preparation, training, and capacity building; (ii) development of microenterprises and income diversification projects; and (iii) improvement of social infrastructure in selected villages. 12. At completion, 309 microenterprises, or joint business groups (Kelompok Usaha Bersama [KUBs]) with 4,623 members were assisted by the Project; this represents an 856% increase in the number of KUBs (from 32 KUBs with 773 members in 2002). The rapid increase in the number of KUBs is attributed to (i) the intensified community organizing and social preparation efforts of the project coordinating office (PCO) and project implementation units (PIUs), with the help of the project management consultant (PMC) and the nongovernmental organization (NGO) contractors; and (ii) a successful site-level lEC campaign for a shift in livelihoods, from capture fishing to other income-generating activities, in line with the Project’s resource management and conservation and poverty reduction objectives. Of the 309 KUBs, most are involved directly in fisheries activities with only 24 involved in fisheries- and non-fisheries related alternative livelihood activities. The fisheries-based microenterprises are engaged in fishing, mariculture or aquaculture, fish trading, and fish processing. The non-fisheries microenterprises include support to fishing operations (e.g., supply of fuel, ice, and gear to fishing vessels) and other activities such as herbal medicine production; goat, chicken, and duck farming; tapioca and sago production; furniture making; sewing; and kiosks for various products. These KUBs were provided with assistance by the Project in the form of (i) coaching by NGOs; (ii) training, technical assistance, and equipment for the selected enterprises; and (iii) facilitation of access to formal credit institutions and linkages to wider market networks. 13. In addition to the KUBs, 18 microfinance institutions (Lembaga Keuangan Masyarakat Pantai [LKMP], coastal communities finance institutions) were set up in four project sites: six in Bengkalis, three in Trenggalek, one in Banyuwangi, and eight in East Lombok. The LKMPs are key to the (i) sustainability of assets provided by the Project to beneficiaries, (ii) development of existing KUBs, and (iii) provision of working capital to KUBs. One LKMP in Keruak, East Lombok (LKMP Mapan Mandiri), established in 2001, has been quite successful, funding 14 KUBs involved in mariculture, fish parboiling, shrimp paste production, and fish trading, and making a net profit of more than Rp2 million as of end 2003. The success of this LKMP was used as a microfinancing model for replication in other project sites and non-project coastal communities. Its improved banking system was adopted by the LKMT Teluk Pambang in Bengkalis, which was established in 2003 and oversees six KUBs.

4

14. One hundred and twenty nine social infrastructure facilities were built in 34 villages in the five project districts. The facilities include (i) access roads from fish landings to markets; (ii) a wooden jetty and fish landing quay; (iii) erosion control and riverbank rehabilitation measures; (iv) drainage facilities and canals; (v) public toilets, multiple family toilets, garbage collection bins, and garbage trucks; (vi) water supply lines, deep wells, and rainwater catchment tanks; (vii) clinics; and (viii) meeting halls. Most of the facilities are managed by nearby communities, but will be eventually transferred to the village authorities. No issues were raised regarding resettlement, with the land acquired reportedly comprising largely state land. Minimum fees for use of water are being collected by the community to cover the operation and maintenance cost of the water supply facilities. Other facilities (such as roads, bridges, and river retaining walls) are operated and managed by concerned district government agencies. The facilities have improved the quality of life of poor coastal communities through better environmental sanitation, provision of domestic water supply and waste disposal facilities, improved health and nutrition, protection of fishing villages from flooding, and effective people’s participation in coastal community development and fisheries resource management. 3. Environmental Improvement of Fish Landing Centers 15. The fish landing centers (FLCs) component was intended to upgrade and rehabilitate facilities at selected fishing ports and fish landing centers in the Project area to: (i) improve sanitary and environmental conditions, (ii) enhance the quality and value of fish production, and (iii) reduce losses and improve the quality of fish and fish products. The scope of work for each site varied with its actual condition and requirements, as described below. The status of completion and operation of these facilities is summarized in Appendix 5. 16. Improvements were introduced in the fish landing facilities in Bengkalis (Meskom, Penampi, Muntai, and Jangkang), Tegal (Tegalsari), Trenggalek (Prigi), Banyuwangi (Muncar, Kalimoro, and Grajagan) and East Lombok (Tanjung Luar, Batu Nampar, and Labuhan Lombok). In Bengkalis, a wooden jetty was constructed and the quay was rehabilitated in Meskom Village, while in two other villages canals were rehabilitated for berthing of fishing vessels. In Tegalsari and Prigi FLCs, complex civil works were completed in 2004, including the construction of a breakwater, jetties, wharves, harbor basin, roads, drainage and buildings. In view of the improvements undertaken, Tegalsari FLC was upgraded from type D (fish landing place) to type C (coastal fishing port), and the Prigi FLC was upgraded from type C to type B (archipelagic fishing port).

4. Institutional Strengthening 17. The institutional strengthening component was intended to: (i) strengthen the institutions responsible for fisheries resource management through training, capacity building, and the provision of a fisheries information system and varied equipment; and (ii) ensure efficient and effective project implementation through the establishment of a project management system at the central and local levels. From 1999 to 2001 an institutional assessment of DGCF and concerned local agencies was conducted to identify their training needs, and specific training programs were developed and implemented for various stakeholders; these provided the basis for training activities, fellowships, and study tours over the last four years of the project. C. Project Costs

18. At appraisal, the total project cost was estimated at $70.84 million, including foreign currency costs of $28.88 million (41%, and including IDC and service charge), and local

5

currency costs of $41.97 million (59%). In early 2005, a new category for both loans was created for tsunami damage rehabilitation assistance. 19. At project completion, the total project cost was $49.83 million, or 70% of the original estimate. The foreign currency costs amounted to $19.330 million, and local currency costs $30.50 million. ADB financing equaled to $27.68 million, of which $19.33 million was for the foreign exchange costs and $8.35 million for the local currency costs. ADB financing accounted for 56% of the total project cost, compared with envisaged financing of 58%. The lower-than-expected ADB financing resulted primarily from the Government’s decision to finance from its own fund a major construction package in Tegalsari FLC; this resulted from ADB’s inability to agree with the bidding procedure of the executing agency (EA). Actual project costs were lower than the appraisal estimates in dollar terms because of cost savings resulting from the rupiah’s depreciation against the dollar, and the large amounts budgeted in the unallocated and IDC loan categories. There was no shift between foreign and local costs, as the reallocations under the OCR and ADF loans were not related to major changes in scope or implementation arrangements. The foreign portion of the project costs decreased from 41% to 39%, while the local cost increased from 59% to 61%, as a result of the Government’s decision to finance the entire Tegalsari FLC construction package, and increased procurement of equipment from local sources for the social infrastructure component and activities. Appendix 6 presents a project cost summary. D. Disbursements

20. The disbursement mechanism envisaged at appraisal followed ADB’s standard loan agreement provisions. The project design anticipated full loan disbursement in less than 5 years. However, the loan closing was extended by 24 months, mainly to sustain the social infrastructure activities and partly to address the manpower shortage in the early stages of implementation resulting from government reorganization. Disbursement of ADB loans during the first year of the project after loan signing was sufficient for the start-up, but could have been better if the consultants had been recruited and fielded as envisaged [no comparison is possible, however, due to the absence of appraisal disbursement schedules in the Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP) 1 and project administration manual (PAM)]. Disbursement peaked after the midterm review in 2001 and maintained momentum till late 2005, the last year of physical implementation. During the course of implementation ADB approved three partial cancellations from OCR (totaling $7.5 million) and two partial cancellations from the ADF (totaling $1.7 million equivalent) and corresponding reallocation across loan categories. When final cancellations are included only $27.68 million, or 68% of the original loan amount of $41.0 million was utilized. The yearly loan utilization details are in Appendix 7. 21. The loan funds were disbursed using a range of disbursement procedures with direct payment used for consultant payments and large civil works contracts (primarily the FLCs). The imprest (special) account and statement of expenditure (SOE) procedures were used extensively. DGCF found the special account procedures useful during 1998–1999, following the 1997 financial crisis. The average turnover rate of the imprest account over the 7-year period was 0.85 for OCR and 1.80 for ADF funds (using a cutoff date of April 2006), below ADB’s standard turnover ratio of 2.00.2 1 ADB, 1997. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loans to the

Republic of Indonesia for the Coastal Communities Development and Fisheries Resource Management Project. (Loans 1570/1571-INO, approved October).

2 The annualized imprest turnover rate is computed as the ratio of total liquidation over the time-weighted average fund balance for 12 months.

6

22. At the outset of the Project, the Ministry of Finance (Directorate of Budget Administration) prepared withdrawal applications following submission of relevant documents from the provincial treasury offices. The DGCF PCO had difficulty maintaining financial control and monitoring project expenditures, especially those for reimbursement, due to the numerous small payments made from the special account, as well as staff shortages. This system slowed utilization of loan proceeds, and was changed in 2002, when the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was reorganized and the responsibility for preparing withdrawal applications was entrusted to the EAs, which collected the relevant documents (vouchers and bank statements) from MOF. Under the new system, the EAs were given a more active role in preparing withdrawal applications, but backlogs and delays in submission of withdrawal applications under the imprest (special) account were not entirely eliminated, especially for reimbursement claims, due to the difficulty experienced by the PCO in collecting supporting documents. E. Project Schedule

23. The Project was originally scheduled to be implemented over 5 years from April 1998. However, implementation took a little over 7 years, from 21 April 1998 to 31 December 2005. The implementation period was extended by 1 year in July 2002, by 9 months in January 2004, and by a final 3 months in April 2005. The key factors necessitating the extensions were (i) political and economic crises, which left the Government’s unable to provide adequate funds during the first 3 years of implementation (1998–2000); (ii) reorganization of the Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a new Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), which incorporated DGCF; and (iii) devolution of natural resources management to the local governments, with consequent absorption and adjustment to a large workforce from both the national and local governments. The reorganization and transfer of technical and essential staff to other directorates reduced DGCF’s capacity, and in particular the PCO’s ability to manage the project. The second (9 month) extension was granted following the 2003 ADB review mission, and sought to ensure the sustainability of ongoing project activities and initiatives on coastal fisheries resource management, improvement and maintenance of FLCs, and poverty reduction activities. The third extension was granted to accommodate completion of tsunami rehabilitation activities, but DGCF decided not to implement these, due to the delayed commencement of initial activities and a lack of time before the closing date. Implementation delays in the construction of fish landing structures were encountered in the award of contracts for Tegal and Prigi FLCs, due to the procurement methods used, which did not conform with ADB guidelines. Appendix 8 compares planned project implementation at appraisal with the actual execution. F. Implementation Arrangements

24. As the EA, DGCF had overall responsibility for project coordination, supervision, and implementation through the PCO, which was controlled by a project director reporting to the DGCF secretary. The PCO had a full complement of technical and administrative staff and was provided with various equipment, vehicles, and other facilities to support project implementation. In 2002, the EA provided the PCO with additional staff for project planning, management, and operation, resulting in improved project management at the national level and stronger overall project implementation. PIUs were set up at the local level, and staffed by personnel from the district fisheries services (DFS) and other district government agencies to exercise day-to-day supervision of local project implementation. 25. An inter-agency project coordinating committee (PCC) chaired by the DGCF secretary was established at the onset of project implementation to ensure efficient coordination and

7

cooperation between the agencies and departments involved in project implementation. A technical working committee (Kelompok Kerja [POKJA]) consisting of members from DGCF and other directorates of MMAF was created to assist PCO in implementing the Project. At the site level, local project advisory committees chaired by the relevant regents or mayors (bupati) were established in each project district or city at the beginning of project implementation, to coordinate overall implementation among various local level agencies. 26. The PMO and PlUs were supported by a project management consultant (PMC), which provided assistance to PCO and the PlUs in project management, coastal fisheries resource management, community development and poverty reduction, environmental improvement of FLCs, and institutional strengthening. In addition, the Project was also supported by MCS and geographic information system (GIS) - related consulting services, from 12 January 2000 to 31 December 2002. A construction management and supervision consultant company was recruited by the PCO to provide assistance with the design of a number of infrastructure facilities, and supervision of construction works at the FLCs; the company’s contract was extended until 31 August 2005 to assist in the management of the remaining civil works. G. Conditions and Covenants

27. The Government’s compliance with the loan covenants was generally satisfactory. Conditions precedent to loan effectiveness were met on time and the loans were declared effective 2 weeks prior to the scheduled date. The Loan Agreement was amended in March 2005 to include tsunami assistance in the loan category. Covenants relating to project implementation and coordination, reporting, and auditing of project accounts were met satisfactorily. However, the economic crisis and political unrest that engulfed the country in the late 1990s affected and delayed the provisioning of counterpart funds and fielding of consultants in the first 3 years of implementation. Appendix 9 shows the status of compliance with the loan covenants.

28. Compliance with major loan conditions and covenants was generally satisfactory, although some were delayed, as they were beyond the control of the Government and DGCF. DGCF was able to complete the generation of baseline data for the REA and SEA within the first 2 years of implementation (i.e., in 1999) as required. However, a second REA and SEA and total allowable catch (TAC) studies had to be carried out in 2003 and 2004 to complete and update data and measure initial impacts of key project activities. 29. CFRM plans should have been implemented in selected sites beginning in the third year of implementation. Although CFRM planning was accomplished a year late (by end 2001), due mainly to insufficient budgetary support, it was nonetheless effective; for example, the project completion review mission confirmed the significant contribution of the CFRM plan in East Lombok, where impressive progress was achieved in coastal fisheries protection through participatory coastal resources management that involved the active participation of the coastal communities, and the application of customary law (awig-awig). See paras.10 and 50–51, and Appendix 4. The Borrower was also required (within 1 year of effectiveness) to identify all other existing microcredit programs in the project provinces suitable for project activities, but by the project’s end DGCF had still not provided the information. 30. It was expected that regulatory measures would be introduced by 31 December 1998 to limit access to and management of coastal fisheries and nearshore fisheries resources to the local government and coastal communities. It was only in April 1999, with the passage of the new autonomy law (Law 22/99), which transferred responsibility to local governments, that

8

regulatory measures were drafted. The conditions and covenants were generally realistic. However, the sustainability of the Project could have been increased by including covenants on (i) sustainability action plans, which were proposed by the last review mission in 2005; and (ii) retaining a core of experienced staff members to oversee the review and follow up on (a) implementation of the sustainability action plan by local governments and (b) continuing support for microenterprise groups (KUBs) and community fisheries resource monitoring and surveillance groups. The workshop on project sustainability would have been more meaningful if backed up by a provision in the loan agreement. H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

31. The main project management consultant was selected and engaged in accordance with the ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants. A total of 136.71 person-months of international and 304.86 person-months of national consulting services were utilized by the project management consulting firm under package A, compared with the appraisal provision of 91 person-months of international and 157 person-months of national consulting services. The consulting services commenced on 1 November 1998. The extension and additional person-months were proposed and initiated by DGCF, due to the (i) initial delay in project implementation resulting from the financial, social and political crisis in the country in late 1990s; and (ii) the need to meet actual project requirements, and expand the coverage of project activities. One position was transferred from package B to package A, and new international and local consultant positions were included, with some foreign and local currency costs reallocated; local currency costs were reduced, as some domestic inputs were no longer required. Several consultants were replaced during the contract period, including the international consultant who served as the original team leader (replaced under amendment no. 5), and national consultants; reasons for replacement included health and other personal reasons, and work on other assignments. A total of 8 amendments were made to the project management consultant contract. The services were completed in September 2005. 32. Under the second package (package B), a total of 31 person-months of international and 75 person-months of domestic consulting services were to be provided for the MCS, GIS, and facilities improvement. Engagement of the MCS and GIS consulting firm followed ADB guidelines and consultants were mobilized in February 2000. The contract was amended twice and a total of 16.84 international and 38 person-months of national consulting services were utilized. 33. For the construction supervision and management services segment (package C), 28 person-months of services were to be provided by a consulting firm with selection according to ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants. The consultant would supervise the construction and management in six project locations in four provinces. The contract was finalized in November 2002, with the delay due to incomplete submission of required evaluation documents and clarifications sought from DGCF. The contract was amended five times to accommodate additional personnel and extension and continuation of work activities, with the latter fully completed in August 2005. The cost increased from the original Rp3,927,137,500 to Rp6,238,004,500, and involved 81.37 person-months of professional staff services. 34. Equipment—mainly laboratory equipment, specialized items and vehicles—was procured through a mix of international shopping, local bidding and direct purchase. Local competitive bidding was used for construction and improvement, including dredging and construction of breakwaters at FLCs. Problems were encountered mainly in the local competitive bidding of a civil works package for improvement of an FLC in Tegalsari, where

9

ADB did not agree with the bidding process followed by DGCF in the prequalification of interested bidders for construction of the breakwater structure. DGCF eventually decided to fully finance the contract. Also, ADB did not agree to DGCF’s proposal to bypass competitive bidding for a breakwater and dredging works and instead negotiate directly with a contractor who had previously won a civil works contract for Prigi FLC in Trengagalek. ADB advised DGCF of its objections, and DGCF agreed to bid and award the contract through local competitive bidding. I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

35. ADB’s annual supervision missions indicated that the PMC’s performance was satisfactory. DGCF staff and staff in the project districts concurred with this assessment, although differences in the working styles of individuals were noted. In the early years of the project some of the consultants appeared technically overly qualified, with inadequate community development skills, but most performed well, and in later years in particular worked well with the local consultants and project staff. The local consultants were judged to be technically competent and worked well with staff. The contractors generally performed satisfactorily, apart from the initial contractor for the Tegelsari port. NGOs were recruited locally and appeared committed to the project. They were considered good at community development but needed training from DGCF in fisheries resource management. They had insufficient skills and experience, however, in microenterprise development. J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

36. The overall performance of the EA was satisfactory in achieving project targets, with initial delays being beyond their control. Implementation in the early years of the project was difficult, due to the financial crisis, reorganization of DGCF, and devolution of responsibilities from the central to district government. DGCF was reorganized several times during the course of the project: initially under the control of DGF in the Ministry of Agriculture, in 1999 DGF became part of the new Ministry of Sea Exploration and Fisheries, and from 2001 was under the Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. The project manager in Jakarta changed in 2000, 2002 and 2003, with the last manager remaining in place for the last 3 years of the Project. Site PIU managers changed generally only once during the Project, except Lombok, which had 4 managers. 37. These changes affected the continuity of knowledge and the skills balance. At project commencement, PCO core staff were representative of the various DGF directorates in the Ministry of Agriculture. However, over the course of the Project, many returned to their original working units as a result of the establishment of the new Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. PIU staff was also changed, while several site managers and assistants concurrently held positions within the provincial fisheries services (PFS) or DFS, resulting in impaired PIU performance. This problem has worsened following project completion, with many staff trained under the project transferred to other duties, reducing the effectiveness of the DFS and impacting project sustainability. K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

38. The project completion report (PCR) rates ADB’s performance as satisfactory. The Government considers ADB’s project oversight of the Project to be satisfactory, noting in particular that ADB assigned the same senior project officer throughout the life of the project. Nine supervision review missions were fielded during the 8 years, with a memorandum of understanding prepared at the end of each mission clearly setting out recommended follow-up

10

actions. The Government considered ADB quite responsive in providing explanations and information and responding to queries. They indicated, however, that ADB’s procedures were complicated, and significant time was needed for administrative processes associated with partial loan cancellations, although the processing of direct payments submitted by contractors worked well. 39. It might be noted, however, that neither ADB nor DGCF were well positioned to address poverty in coastal communities. ADB’s review missions did not have specific expertise in income generating activities and seemed unable to provide sound advice to the Government on how to implement the microenterprise component. When the midterm review mission found that few microenterprises had been created 3 years after project implementation, it apparently adopted the simple solution of reducing the number of potential beneficiaries from 20,000 to 5,000. If the mission had been accompanied by a microenterprise specialist (either an ADB staff member or a consultant), it might have come up with a more effective strategy to address poverty issues.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE3

A. Relevance

40. Overall, the Project is rated “highly relevant”, both at time of approval and completion. The Project was designed to address depletion of coastal fishery resources and the pervasive poverty and social disadvantage of coastal communities. These problems are closely interrelated and must be addressed simultaneously to break the vicious cycle of environmental degradation and poverty. 41. As noted in para. 3 above, the project completion review mission found that the Project’s approach to these problems—using an integrated and participatory approach, and involving institutionalization of coastal resource conservation and management measures—was appropriate. The strategy for reducing poverty in the project area was also appropriate, combining (i) a short-term strategy to provide poor fishers with supplementary and alternative livelihood initiatives, so that the coastal communities will not rapidly deplete fisheries resources; and (ii) a long-term strategy of rehabilitating coastal fisheries resources through rehabilitation of mangroves, prevention of destructive fishing practices, and introduction of artificial reefs and MPAs. 42. The project design and objectives at approval were very much in line with ADB’s country development strategy for Indonesia (promoting sustainable economic growth and reducing poverty), and its fisheries policy. The fisheries policy emphasized the need for capacity building to create an appropriate policy and institutional environment that leads to optimal utilization and ensures sustainable management of fisheries and aquatic resources. Conservation was a key aspect, but recognition of the need to reduce poverty as a prime cause of resource degradation was essential. Stakeholder participation in monitoring and law enforcement was stressed. The project remains in line with ADB’s strategies at completion, with poverty reduction cited as a key priority, and including an emphasis on environmental management and sustainable use of natural resources through local level, participatory approaches.

3 For project loans, the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) guidelines use four core criteria for the rating of

performance: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability (see OED’s guidelines at http://www.adb.org/Documents/Guidelines/Evaluation/PPER-PSO/default.asp).

11

43. The project was in line with Indonesia’s policies and strategies at the time of approval (Indonesia’s Five Year Development Plan 1993/94–1998/99) and remains so at completion. At approval the Government’s policies emphasized the need for (i) improved utilization and sustainability of coastal and marine resources; (ii) active participation by communities in coastal environment management; and (iii) reduction of extensive poverty in coastal areas via promotion of economic activities through cooperatives, small scale enterprises, and provision of basic social infrastructure. Improvement of the welfare of coastal communities remains a key policy objective, along with sustainable marine and fisheries resource management that can increase the carrying capacity and quality of coastal and marine ecosystems. B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

44. The Project is assessed “effective” in meeting most of its objectives and target outcomes. As noted in paras. 8–10 above, the Project achieved or exceeded all its CFRM targets, except the mangrove rehabilitation target, which was reduced at the time of the midterm review. Details on achievements, impacts and benefits are set out in Appendix 10, and summarized in the right hand column of the project framework (Appendix 1). Part A of Appendix 10 provides details of achievements, with impacts on marine areas, fish sanctuaries established, coral reefs protected and rehabilitated, mangrove areas rehabilitated and managed, reductions in fishing effort, and coastal fishing areas monitoring and regulated. The area of mangrove to be rehabilitated was reduced when it became apparent that the five project sites did not provide sufficient suitable areas for rehabilitation, as much of the mangrove areas in the two sites in Java were strips along rivers and fish ponds. Part B of Appendix 10 provides details on the community development and poverty reduction component, showing the successful establishment of cooperatives and microenterprises and the provision of social infrastructure. While individual enterprises have been successful and profitable (see the financial analysis section of Appendix 11), the achievement is significantly below the original target. Part C of Appendix 10 provides details on the achievement and impacts of the FLC component, while part D covers institutional strengthening. 45. While national statistics show a small growth in the fisheries sector up to 2004 (Tables 1–8 Appendix of 12), fish landings overall in the project sites, apart from East Lombok and Nusa Tenggara Barat as a whole, have generally been declining recently (see Tables 9–12 of Appendix 12); this is attributable in part to pressure on the resource base, but is also a result of recent increases in the price of fuel, which has reduced coastal, offshore and deep ocean fishing activities. This makes it very difficult to predict what the without-project fish landings and production might have been. As part of the economic analysis, Appendix 11 provides information on fish quality improvements and benefits for fish landed at ports improved under the FLC component; these benefits are less than assumed at appraisal due to the small decline in landings. 46. Appendix 11 also provides information on the estimated benefits of the mangrove and fisheries resources rehabilitation and management activities. 47. A major objective of the project was reduction of poverty levels through an increase in income-generating opportunities. Unfortunately there is limited data on poverty reduction in the specific project sites, and the lack of baseline data makes it impossible to ascertain what the Project has achieved in the context of poverty reduction; it is clear that it has made a contribution, however. Tables 1–5 of Appendix 13 provide some demographic and poverty data on the project districts, but the data is insufficient to estimate income changes in the districts, and Table 6 thus provides only a partial picture. While some improvement is evident, it is not

12

possible to attribute this to the project, although the Project undoubtedly contributed. Part C of Appendix 10 provides some limited examples of income increases in the project sites. C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs

48. The Project is assessed “efficient”. Financial analyses 4 have been made of several microenterprises established by fisherfolk and cooperatives under the Project. These are set out in Appendix 11 and cover activities such as (i) shrimp culture, shrimp paste and shrimp cracker production; (ii) fish processing, including filleting, shredding, parboiling, smoking, and drying; (iii) caged culture and fattening of lobsters and groupers; (iv) surimi5 production, an increasingly widespread activity; (v) seaweed production; (vi) fishing, including pole-and–line and longline; and (vii) a few non-fishing activities such as ice making. There have been few non-fishery related activities. The varied microenterprises show rates of return of 20% to over 40%, with returns for caged lobster and grouper culture enterprises of over 100%. It is typical of microenterprise projects to exhibit very high financial internal rates of return (FIRR) values, mainly due to low capital investment and production costs relative to high revenues, but these are also highly volatile and subject to changes in output prices and production cost, with returns possibly differing greatly yearly and by location. Thus, for example, the shrimp culture enterprise chosen from Bengkalis has a significantly higher rate of return than the shrimp culture enterprise in Banyuwangi. 49. As demonstrated in the economic analysis in Appendix 11, many of the benefits from fisheries resource rehabilitation and management will only be gained in the long term, although some benefits have already been realized, and incremental benefits will increase over time. The microenterprise activities are already showing benefits, which should be sustained over time. The Project’s economic internal rate of return (EIRR) is estimated at 12%. This compares with an EIRR of 19% estimated at appraisal, and 26% at the midterm review. The main differences appear to be the lower benefits calculated for fish quality improvements in the PCR. The Government PCR estimated a return of 24%, but this PCR suggests that the microenterprise benefits were overestimated, while benefits from the resource rehabilitation and management activities were underestimated. D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

50. The Project is assessed “likely sustainable”. The community awareness programs appear to have been very successful. The community is involved in resource management and surveillance, with communities successfully conducting surveillance and monitoring activities themselves on fisheries resources, fishing methods, and mangroves, which is a positive sign of sustainability. In East Lombok, adoption of awig-awig has allowed the communities to successfully reduce destructive fishing practices and protect the resource base. Appendix 4 provides a brief description of how this participatory management approach developed, and its legal and operational foundations in customary law. The project completion review mission noted the substantial replication and multiplier effects of the awareness programs and community resource surveillance and monitoring in NTB as a whole, following these procedures.

4 The Government PCR and the PPTA ADB. 2004. Preparing the Integrated Coastal Fisheries Resource

Management Project. Manila [TA No.4373-INO] provided several case studies of actual and potential microenterprises in the Project sites, with consistent findings. The project completion review mission lacked resources to mount independent surveys, but examined these and verified and selected some appropriate examples for use.

5 Targeted at the Japanese market; water leached, minced de-boned fish flesh used in processed fish products such as fish cakes, fish balls, and crab sticks.

13

In Tegal, the mission noted the multiplier effect of both the mangrove rehabilitation program and the community fisheries resource surveillance systems in neighboring districts. The Government informed the mission that the same was true in the other project sites. 51. However, community awareness programs need to be reinforced and continued, and some funds are needed for local government operations and for activities such as patrol boat operation. Several community groups have asked government for allowances to continue their involvement (the Ministry of Forestry has provided allowances for similar work in forestry conservation areas), which casts some doubt on the sustainability of these initiatives. Allowances should not be needed—resource management is in the interest of the communities—and thus the awareness campaigns may need reinforcing. While customary laws have been adapted for use in law enforcement and surveillance, consistent and continued enforcement will be necessary. Conflicts among fisherfolk could undermine this. 52. Community involvement was largely achieved through the activities of NGOs, with support from local governments. Unfortunately, this may not be sustainable unless the Government changes its staff resource planning. Many government officials trained under the Project have been transferred by bupati to other jobs, thus reducing the effectiveness of the DFS in providing technical assistance to and supervising the completed facilities and fishers groups. This high turnover should be stopped or minimized by issuing regulations or laws preventing and/or discouraging newly elected bupati from replacing the government bureaucracy at will. 53. Local governments need funds to maintain the facilities provided under the Project. In the case of Tegal port, the mission noted the low fees charged to boats for docking at the wharf and also the low fees for rental of land within the port for commercial processing activities. Operational costs far exceed earnings. While it is understood that fees are government regulated as ports are seen as providing a service, scope exists for raising fees, to help cover operating costs at a minimum. In the longer-term consideration might also be given to running the ports on a commercial basis, rather than with government funding. E. Impact

54. As noted above, Appendix 10 sets out some impacts of the Project. Overall the environmental impact was positive as a result of the resource management, rehabilitation and the surveillance, monitoring and law enforcement activities. Evidence from the project completion review mission findings, the government PCR and the Integrated Coastal Fisheries Resource Management Project PPTA show: (i) decreased incidence of destructive fishing activities; (ii) increase in mangrove coverage; (iii) increase in live coral in artificial reefs, fish sanctuaries, and MPAs; (iv) increase in fish catch rates and in the number of fish species caught; and (v) improved sanitation and cleanliness at the FLCs. 55. The Project has increased the capability of coastal communities, empowering and improving the ability of communities to protect their own resources through coastal resource management, monitoring and surveillance activities, and increasing their ability to engage in alternative livelihood activities and access microcredit. The Project also had a significant impact on the capabilities of DGCF and the DFS. The impact of the latter, however, has been diminished by staff transfers out of the DFS, as noted above.

14

56. The Project also had a significant impact on livelihoods, as discussed in sections B and C above. No specific project activities targeted gender or indigenous peoples. 6 However, women were very much involved in fish processing activities and many of the other microenterprises. Likewise, the only indigenous peoples encountered were in Bengkalis (Akik); they received social infrastructure support including a clean water supply and a community tank to collect rainwater for drinking, as well as cool boxes for better handling of their fish catch.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

57. Overall the Project is assessed “successful”. It was highly relevant to the Government and ADB’s development strategies and to their respective fisheries policies and it continues to be highly relevant after completion. While the Project encountered initial implementation delays (due to the financial crisis, reorganization of DGCF and devolution of responsibilities from the central to district government), by completion it had achieved almost 100% of its physical targets. It has had a positive environmental impact and has helped reduce poverty in the project areas. Individual microenterprises introduced as part of the Project are financially viable and sustainable. The recalculated EIRR of 12% is considered acceptable for a Project with an emphasis on capacity building and resource sustainability, conservation and management, and which has had significant demonstration and multiplier effects in neighboring coastal areas. 58. The Project was the first coastal resource management project in Indonesia to introduce the concept of stakeholder community participation in resource management, including monitoring and surveillance. The design recognized that to be successful in this, community organizations needed to be created and empowered, social preparation and capacity building being an essential initial step. The awareness campaigns need to be regularly reinforced, however, and community resource management groups given local government support. B. Lessons

59. The key lesson from the project is the importance of community involvement and empowerment in fisheries resource management, as noted in para. 58. Monitoring and surveillance of fisheries resources cannot be achieved through government actions without the support and participation of the community. For this and any other activity involving community participation, social preparation is needed at project commencement and ongoing capacity building is needed throughout the project, with periodic reinforcement after project completion. However, implementation of this component, particularly given the complexity of local organizations and the widespread nature of the sites to be covered, was beyond the capacity and experience of the local consultants. The government fisheries services should have been more involved in implementation from the outset, assisting in creating effective community frameworks, and providing continued support and reinforcement. 60. While the Project attempted to develop alternative income-generating livelihood activities for coastal communities to relieve pressures on fisheries resources, such a laudable goal cannot be achieved if there are few alternative resources on which these activities could be based. Setting arbitrary targets without an assessment of possibilities is meaningless and frustrating to the government and project implementers, while raising expectations of

6 The Project was approved in November 1997, before ADB's Policies on Gender and Development and Indigenous

Peoples were adopted in 1998.

15

beneficiaries that cannot be met. A realistic assessment should be made at the feasibility stage, for which the project requires appropriately skilled staff (in the form of staff from the EA or other agencies, NGOs or consultants) to implement such a component. If NGOs are used, they must have skills and experience in microenterprise and livelihood development. C. Recommendations

61. The Project did not develop many alternative livelihood activities, focusing instead on fishery resource-related activities. This appears to be partly due to the lack of alternative resources activities could be developed, but may also be related to the lack of experience of DGCF staff in non-fishery activities. As noted in para.60 above, if a follow-on project seeks to develop alternative livelihood activities, then other agencies may need to be engaged in the project together with DGCF, and any NGOs involved should have experience in microenterprise and livelihood development. 62. The Project’s community-led awareness and resource management programs and activities (monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement) should be replicated elsewhere. 63. Additional Assistance. The community awareness programs seem to have been very successful and community involvement in resource management and surveillance is a positive sign of sustainability. Community awareness programs need to be reinforced and continued. However, the local government should provide adequate funds to finance the community’s operations, and for activities such as patrol boat operation. 64. Future Monitoring. The regulatory and enforcement measures noted in para. 65 below should be monitored, particularly if there is a follow-on project. 65. Covenants. All covenants have been complied with. Most relate to project implementation and thus no longer need follow-up. The regulatory measures covered in Covenants 16–19, which have already been implemented by the Government, need to be kept in place and enforced. 66. Follow-Up. The last ADB review mission in September 2005 called for the EA and all participating local governments to prepare comprehensive sustainability action plans for all project activities to ensure sustainability after project completion. These should have been completed and submitted to ADB by 31 December 2005. ADB has not yet received these, but the Government indicated that the sustainability action plans had been prepared 2 years ago, and agreed to submit the action plans to ADB within 1 month. 67. Timing of the Project Performance Evaluation Report. The project performance evaluation mission may be fielded in 2009, 3 years after project completion. This will allow time for the resource enhancement activities with long gestation periods to show some impact on coastal communities, and for microenterprise development to spread and prove its sustainability. Should the Integrated Coastal Fisheries Resource Management Project be implemented, then a sector evaluation covering both these projects and the two coastal reef management and rehabilitation projects7 may be more appropriate.

7 ADB. 1998. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loan to the

Republic of Indonesia for the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management (L1613-INO, approved March), and ADB, 2002. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loan to the Republic of Indonesia for the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Phase II (L 1962-INO, approved December).

16

Appendix 1

PROJECT FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

1. Sector/Area Goals 1.1 To sustain

fisheries resources management and conserve coastal fisheries resources

• Well managed coastal

fisheries; fish biomass (stocks) have stabilized or improved (by 30%) in the project coastal fishing areas

• Continued fisheries

resource assessment, length-frequency studies, and landing statistics

• Coastal fisheries

resource management policy remains consistent and efficient monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) sustained

• Well managed

coastal fisheries as indicated by community-based coastal resource management planning and implementation, or increase of 30% in fish biomass (stocks) in the project coastal fishing areas

Coastal communities in five project sites continue to effectively manage and conserve coastal fisheries resources after project completion. Data on biomass not available, but surveys during implementation showed an increased number of fish species.

1.2 To reduce poverty

among coastal fishing communities

• Active participation of various stakeholders and full government support

• Socioeconomic

survey at midterm and project completion and socioeconomic profiles at the district level

• No substantial

population immigration to project sites and no unexpected increases to basic community costs

• Poverty level

reduced from current level of 60% of project coastal fishing communities

No data available on poverty reduction in the specific project sites, but district data shows increase in per capita incomes.

2. Objectives 2.1 To promote

community-based coastal fisheries resource management (CFRM) and conservation

• Fishing effort regulated

within total allowable catch and communities in four sites involved in CFRM

• Coastal fish stock

assessments at commencement, midterm, and completion of the Project and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports

• Legislation

modified to recognize participatory CFRM

• Communities in

four sites involved in CFRM planning and implementation, and fishing effort regulated within total allowable catch

Communities have been actively involved in the management, monitoring and surveillance of coastal fishery resources in five sites (N.B. Banyuwangi separated from Trenggalek as project site in 2001).

A

ppendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions evised Performance Indicators/Targetsa

PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

R

2.2 To raise incomes

and improve living standards of poor coastal communities by providing income diversification opportunities and improving social infrastructure

• About 40,000

community households increase their income by 30% and improve their living conditions

• Socioeconomic

surveys at commencement, midterm, and completion of the Project

• Livelihood

opportunities are available and population of fishing communities remain stable

• About 40,000

community households increased their income by 30% and/or improved their living conditions

The welfare of over 70,000 households has improved (6,600 in Bengkalis; 34,000 in Tegal; 9,000 in Trenggalek; 19,000 in Banyuwangi; 8,000 in East Lombok). PCR survey (2005) shows increase in incomes of microenterprise group (KUB) beneficiaries increased by nearly 50% (see 3.2 below).

2.3 To rehabilitate selected small-scale fisheries infrastructure and improve environmental conditions and fish production quality

• About six landing places improve their environmental conditions and operations efficiency

• Environmental evaluation, enterprise costs, and local fish prices

• No major increase in energy costs and full cooperation of the Government and fisherfolk

• About six landing places improve their environmental conditions and operating efficiency

12 fish landing centers in 5 project sites rehabilitated with environmental conditions and operating efficiency improved considerably.

2.4 To strengthen the

capabilities of coastal communities, community development organizations, and government agencies concerned

• CFRM capabilities of 35

fishing communities, 10 community development organizations, and the Directorate General of Fisheries (DGF) and government agencies in project areas strengthened

• Project progress

reports and midterm review and project completion report (PCR)

• Active participation

of various stakeholders and full government support

• CFRM capabilities of

35 fishing communities, 10 community development organizations, the Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF), and local governments in the project areas strengthened

The capabilities of 41 NGOs and fishing communities, DGCF, provincial fishery services and Kabupaten fishery services in five project sites have been strengthened through domestic and overseas training in CFRM, fisheries resources management, and social development.

17

18

Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

3. Project Components/ Outputs

3.1 Coastal Fisheries Resource Management

• Conducted fisheries

resource and related ecological and socioeconomic assessments, and generated a database

• Four project coastal

fishing areas covered by assessments and the total allowable catch (TAC) in each area determined

• Continued resource

assessments, and project progress report

• Coastal fisheries

resource management policy remains consistent and efficient MCS sustained

• Four project coastal

fishing areas covered by resource and socioeconomic assessments, and the total allowable catch (TAC) in each area determined

REA-I, REA-II, SEA-I, SEA-II and TAC studies conducted in five Project sites.

CFRM plans prepared for 5 project sites in addition to management plans for specific fisheries.

• Developed CFRM plans

• At least four CFRM plans developed at four sites

• Review mission and PCR

• No substantial population immigration to project sites and no unexpected increases to basic community costs

• At least four CFRM plans developed at four sites

• Initiated and

implemented conservation activities for fisheries resources and related habitats

• Rehabilitated coastal

fisheries resource and related habitats and reduced fishing effort

• Established four marine

protected areas (MPAs), 25 artificial reefs, and eight fish sanctuaries, protected 50 hectares (ha) of coral reefs, and rehabilitated 3,000 ha of mangroves; fishing effort reduced by 25%

• Coastal fish and

ecological assessments and M&E reports

• Four MPAs, eight fish

sanctuaries, and 50 ha of protected coral reefs established

• 25 clusters of artificial

reefs established and 2,000 ha of mangrove areas rehabilitated; fishing effort reduced by 25%

Two MPAs covering 1,317 ha established in East Lombok; 21 clusters of artificial reefs established, comprising 2,486 ha; 10 fish sanctuaries covering 453 ha established; 300 ha mangrove areas newly planted and 1,506 ha of mangrove areas managed by community groups; fishing effort reduced by 50% in Tegal.

A

ppendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Implemented

monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) system.

• Four coastal fishing

areas monitored and regulated; licensing system and laws enforced; destructive fishing reduced by 50%

• Environmental

evaluation and PCR

• Legislation

modified to recognize participatory fisheries resource management

• Four coastal fishing

areas monitored and regulated; licensing system and fisheries regulations enforced; destructive fishing reduced by 50%

Participatory fishery surveillance (Siswasmas) already operational in five project sites with active community groups (Pokmaswas). Destructive fishing reduced considerably but no hard data available.

• Conducted

information and education campaign and training program on resource management

• Awareness of CFRM increased among 80% of government officials and 70% of communities in project areas.

• Project progress reports, midterm review, and PCR

• Awareness of CFRM increased among 80% of government officials and 70% of communities in project areas.

CFRM awareness among government officials increased by 90% and among communities in project areas by 98%.

3.2 Community Development and Poverty Reduction

• Organized coastal

fishing communities and developed community cooperatives

• 100 fishers’

associations and/or cooperatives formed

• Socioeconomic

surveys at initial, midterm, and completion of the Project

• Livelihood

opportunities are available and fisherfolk population remains stable

• 100 fishers’

associations and/or cooperatives formed or strengthened

309 KUBs and 18 microfinance institutions (LKMPs) formed.

• Provided technical, credit (revolving funds), marketing, and social services to cooperatives

• 100 fishers’ cooperatives received technical, credit, and other social services

• Project progress reports

• No major increase in energy costs and full cooperation of Government and fisherfolk

• 100 fishers’ associations and/or cooperatives received technical, credit, marketing, and social services

309 KUBs and 18 LKMPs provided with technical, production inputs, equipment, access to credit and marketing.

19

20

Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Established new

microenterprises and income-generation projects

• 20,000 fishers provided

with income-generation opportunities

• Active participation

of various stakeholders and full government support

• 5,000 fishers’

households provided with income-generating opportunities

4,623 community household were trained and given equipment, and access to credit and marketing. Their incomes have increased between 50% and 67%.

• Improved basic

social infrastructure facilities

• 35 fishing villages have

improved basic social infrastructure facilities

• 35 fishing villages

have improved basic social infrastructure services

34 coastal fishing villages have newly constructed or rehabilitated basic social infrastructure facilities.

3.3 Environmental Improvement of Small-scale Fish Landing Centers (FLCs)

• Improved

environmental conditions of FLCs

• Six FLCs rehabilitated,

improved landing management system

• Environmental

evaluation, project progress reports, midterm review, and PCR

• No major change

in energy costs and proper engineering design made

• Six FLCs

rehabilitated, and fish landing management systems improved

12 FLCs rehabilitated and fish landing management systems in these centers improved. Adequate clean water supply, drainage, and waster disposal systems constructed at five sites.

• Installed clean water supply, drainage, sewage, and waste disposal systems

• Adequate clean water supply, drainage, and waste disposal systems constructed at four sites

• Socioeconomic surveys at commencement, midterm, and completion of the Project

• Active local participation and political will, and full government support

• Adequate clean water supply, drainage, and waste disposal systems constructed at four sites

• Improved fish-

handling facilities • Clean and efficient

storage and equipment for fish-handling provided at four sites

• M&E report • Clean and efficient storage and equipment for fish handling provided at four sites

Clean and efficient storage and equipment for fish handling provided at five sites.

A

ppendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Constructed wave

protection structure and rehabilitated coastal landing sites

• Breakwater structures

constructed in one fish-landing site

• Breakwater structures

constructed in one fish landing center

Breakwater structures constructed in Tegal and Trenggalek.

• Improved production quality and reduced fish losses

• Fish losses reduced by about 40%

• Fish losses reduced by about 40%

Fish losses in Trenggalek, Banyuwangi and Bengkalis reduced between 5% and 75%.

• Increased value of fish products

• About 20% of fish products increased their value

• Value of fish and fishery products increased by 20%

Values of fish and fishery products increased by 12–18 times in Tegal and Banyuwangi.

3.4 Institutional Strengthening and Project Management System

• Strengthened and

improved national fisheries information system and network

• Geographic information

system (GIS) and MCS system of DGCF and local governments installed, 50 government staff have strengthened capability to use fisheries information system, GIS and MCS

• Institutional

assessment reports and M&E

• Policy framework

remains unchanged and strong political will exists for institutional changes

• GIS and MCS system

of DGCF and local governments installed, 50 government staff have strengthened capability to use fisheries information system, GIS and MCS

GIS equipment installed in five Provincial Fishery Services and five District Fishery Services (DFS) in five project sites. MCS equipment installed in five project sites. 89 staff trained on GIS and 281 staff trained on MCS.

21

22

Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Provided technical

assistance, training, equipment for project implementation

• Technical assistance

and training provided to support key project activities

• Project progress

reports, midterm review, and PCR

• Adequate technical

assistance provided

• Technical assistance

and training provided to support key project activities

Various kinds of technical assistance, training and equipment provided to implementing agencies and other agencies.

• Established a project management system

• Effective project management system established and functioning

• Project performance report

• Strong commitment of staff and organizations to resource management and social development

• Systems provided to support project management activities

Effective project management system established and functioning in five project sites.

• Improved capabilities of government agencies, local governments, local community organizations, and communities on coastal resource management and social development

• Capabilities of 100 Government and local government agency staff , 10 local community organizations, and 35 communities strengthened on CFRM and social development

• Capabilities of 100 Government and local government agency staff , 10 local community organizations, and 35 communities strengthened on CFRM and social development

1,983 staff from DGCF and provincial and district fishery services, and 41 staff from NGOs and communities given various kinds of training. 43 staff from seven fisheries agencies were provided with postgraduate training in Thailand and Bogor, Indonesia. Their capabilities have been strengthened following the training.

4. Project Activities

• $18.6 million

• Coastal fisheries

resource management policy remains consistent; efficient MCS sustained

A

ppendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

4.1 Coastal Fisheries Resource Management

• Conducted

fisheries resource and related ecological assessments and socioeconomic assessments (generated data base)

• $2.8 million

• Continued resource

assessments, and project progress report

• Developed CFRM plans

• $1.8 million

• No substantial

population immigration to project sites takes place and no unexpected increases to basic community costs

• Review mission and PCR

• Implemented fisheries resource and related habitat conservation activities and reduced fishing effort

• $3.3 million • Coastal fish and ecological assessment and M&E reports

• Implemented MCS system

• $5.4 million

• Legislation modified to recognize participatory fisheries resource management

• Environmental evaluation and PCR

• Conducted information and education campaign and training program on resource management

• $5.3 million • Project progress reports and midterm review and PCR

4.2 Community Development and Poverty Reduction

• $16.1 million • Livelihood opportunities are available and fisherfolk population remains stable

23

24

Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Organized coastal

fishing communities and developed community cooperatives

• $3.0 million

• Provided technical extension, marketing, and social services to cooperatives

• Socioeconomic

surveys at commencement, midterm, and completion of the Project

• No major increase

in energy costs and full cooperation of the Government and fisherfolk

• $4.1 million

• Established new microenterprises and income generating projects

• $5.4 million • Project progress reports

• Improved basic social infrastructure facilities

• $3.6 million • Active participation of various stakeholders and full government support

4.3 Environment Improvement of Small-scale FLCs

• $20.7 million

• Improved

environmental conditions of FLCs

• $8.1 million

• Installed environmental conditions of FLCs

• Environmental

evaluation, project progress reports and midterm review and PCR

• No major change in

energy costs and proper engineering design prepared

• $1.5 million

A

ppendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Fish port

management facilities

• $0.6 million

• Socioeconomic

surveys at commencement, midterm, and completion of the Project

• Constructed wave protection structure and rehabilitated coastal landing sites

• $9.3 million

• Active local

participation and political will, and full government support

• Improved production quality and reduced fish losses, and increased value of fish products

• $1.2 million • M&E report

4.4 Institutional Strengthening

• $15.6 million

• Strengthened and

improved national fisheries information system and network

• $3.1 million

• Institutional

assessment reports and PBME

• Policy framework

remains unchanged; there is a strong political will for institutional changes

• Provided technical assistance, training, and equipment for project implementation; project management system established

• $5.1 million • Project progress reports and midterm review and PCR

• Adequate technical assistance provided

25

26

Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators

at Project Appraisal Project Monitoring

Mechanism

Risks/Assumptions Revised Performance

Indicators/Targetsa PCR Evaluation of Accomplishments

• Improved capability

of government agencies, local governments, and communities in coastal resource management and social development

• $2.3 million

• Project performance

report

• Strong commitment

of staff and organizations to resource management and social development

• Interest during construction

• $5.1 million

CFRM = coastal fisheries resource management, DFS = District Fishery Services, DGCF = Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, DGF = Directorate General of Fisheries, FLCs = fish landing center, GIS = geographic information system, ha = hectare, KUB = Kelompok Usaha Bersama (project-assisted microenterprises), LKMP = Lembaga Keuangan Masyarakat Panfai (microfinance institution), M & E = monitoring and evaluation, MCS = monitoring, control, and surveillance, MPA = marine protected area, NGO = nongovernmental organization, PCR = project completion report, PBME = project benefit monitoring and evaluation, REA = resource and ecological assessment, SEA = socio-economic assessment, TAC = total allowable catch. Source: ADB staff assessments.

PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Table A2.1: Mangroves Planted and Managed Area (ha)

No.

Project Site

Province 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total

Location

Present Condition

Remarks A. Mangroves Planted 1.

Bengkalis

Riau

—

25

—

30

50

105

Bentan Air, Muntai and Teluk Pambang

25% of Rhizophora and 85% of Avicennia planted in 2001 have died

Avicennia was planted fronting the sea

2. Tegal

Tegal 3.55 3.45 — — — 7 Muarareja, Mintaragen, and Panggung

No information

3. Banyuwangi Banyuwangi

— 30 10 30 30 100 Wringin Putih village (Tegalpare, Kabatmatren, and Kedung Muncing Hamlets)

20% of mangrove planted in 2001 have died

4. Trenggalek Prigi — 3.2 2 3.8 4.2 13.2 Pancer Ngrumpukan, Pacer Bang, Pancer Cengkrong, Blado, Konang, Kambal, and Pelang Coasts

30% of mangrove planted in 2001 and 11% of mangrove planted in 2002 has died.

5. East Lombok West Nusa Tenggara

— — 10 52 13.5 75.5 Gili Petagan, Ujing, Serewe Bay, and Pengoros, Labu Pandan, Tekalok Village and Dadap Pelur Hamlet

20% of mangrove planted in 2002 and 2003 has died.

High mortality due to planting from seed instead of seedlings

Total 3.55 61.65 22 115.8 97.7 300.7 B. Mangrove Management 1. Bengkalis

Riau — — — 243.4 — 243.4 Bantan Tua and

Kembung Partly damaged Under Regent’s

decree; managed by 9 groups

2. Trenggalek East Java — — — 50.8 20 70.8 Pancer Ngrumpukan, Pancer Bang, Pancer Cengkrong, Blado, Konang, Kambal, Pelang and Damas Coasts

Partly damaged (11%) Under management of the community’s mangrove management task force, which is at initial stage A

ppendix 2

27

28

Appendix 2

Area (ha) No.

Project Site

Province 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total

Location

Present Condition

Remarks

3. East Lombok West Nusa Tenggara

— — — 1,192 — 1,192 Gili Sulat good Under traditional law of “awig-awig”; located within MPA in Gili Sulat; to be legalized by MMAF in 2004 as a local conservation area

Total — — — 1,146 20 1,506.2

ha = hectare, no. = number, MMAF = Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, MPA = marine protected area. Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A2.2a: Fish Sanctuaries Established

Area Number TraineesNo. (ha) (units) (persons)

1 Bengkalis Riau — — — 8 281 —2 Tegal Central Java 12 1 Karang Jeruk 3 55 —

3 Banyuwangi East Java 289.23 1 Kayu Aking 6 212

Regulation on FS has been issued; fish were released inside FS

4 Trenggalek East Java 81 1 Pasir Putih 6 154

FS has been legalized by Regent's Devree; restocking included inside FS

5 East LombokWest Nusa Tenggara 71 7

Serewe Bay, Ekas Bay, Jukung Bay, Taked Belanting & Taked Pedamekan in alas Strait/ Flores Sea, Belang and Paserang Island 7 170

Sea ranching inside FS in 2002 & inside MPA in 2003

289.23 10 — 30 872

Fish Sanctuary MCS training/workshops

Remarks

Total

Project Site Province FrequencyLocation

FS = fish sanctuary , ha = hectare, MCS = monitoring, control and surveillance, MPA = MPA = marine protected area, no. = number. Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Appendix 2

29

30 A

ppendix 2 Grouper fry

Shrimp fry

Grouper fry

Pearl Oyster Spats

Grouper fry

Shrimp fry

Lobster seedlings

Pearl Oyster spats

Shrimp fry

Grouper fry

(kg)1 Bengkalis Riau — — — — — — — — — — —

2 TegalCentral Java — — — — — — — — — — —

3 Banyuwangi East Java — — 1,250 10,000 100 800,000 10,000 Kayu Aking

4 Trenggalek East Java 5,000 1,000,000 — — 15,000 1,000,000 — — — —

Pasir Putih, Pancer, Ngurumpukan, Pancer Bang

5 East Lombok

West Nusa Tenggara — — — 6,750 — — — 4,000 — —

Ekas Bay and Gili Sulat

5,000 1,000,000 1,250 6,750 25,000 1,000,000 100 4,000 800,000 10,000Total

No. Project Site Province

Restocking (pieces)2001 2002 2003 2004

Location

Table A2.2b: Fish Sanctuaries Established (continued)

kg = kilogram.

Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A2.3: Artificial Reefs Deployed and Protected Coral Reef Area Established

Number (units)

No.

Project site

Province

Protected Coral Reef

Area (ha)

Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total Clusters

Type of AR

Remarks

1 Bengkalis Riau — — — — — — — — — — — 2

Tegal

Central Java

4

Karang Jeruk (FS)

—

23

20

24

40

107

4

Used car tyres

Excl. 10 units of triangle concrete and used-tire ARs deployed by Fisheries Service

3

Banyuwangi

East Java

55

Kayu Aking (FS)

350

—

210

250

275

1,985

10

Stupa-like concrete

Deployed inside fish sanctuary, excl. 432 ARs deployed by local government; the protected coral reef area to be assessed in 2004

4

Trenggalek

East Java

15

Pasir Putih (FS)

344

350

—

—

—

694

2

Concrete reef balls

Protected coral reef area is inside fish sanctuary

5

East Lombok

West Nusa Tenggara

103

Ekas Bay (FS), Jukung Bay (FS), Gili Sulat (MPA), Taked Pedamekan (FS), and Taked Belanting (FS)

—

—

300

300

—

600

6

Stupa-like concrete

—

AR = artificial reef, excl = excluding, FS = fish sanctuary, ha = hectare, MPA = MPA = marine protected area. Total 177 — 373 530 574 15 2,486 21

Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Appendix 2

31

32 Appendix 2

Table A2.4: Marine Protected Areas Established

Area Number(ha) (units)

1 Bengkalis Riau — — —2 Tegal Central — — —3 Banyuwangi East Java — — —4 Trenggalek East Java — — —

5 East LombokWest Nusa Tenggara 1,317 2

Gili Lawing-Gili Sulat and Gili Petagan (Alas Strait)

Gili Lawang-Gili Sulat (Selat Alas) – 1,206 ha; Gili Petagan (Selat Atlas) – 111 ha

1,317 2

Location Remarks

Total

No. Project Site Province

ha = hectare. Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A2.5: Distribution of Communication Equipment at Project Sites

RepeaterLink

Repeater Rig SSBHandheld

Radio Base

Antenna1 Bengkalis 2 1 — — 15 —2 Tegal 1 2 1 1 15 —3 Trenggalek 1 — 2 — 41 34 Banyuwangi 3 2 — — 15 —5 East Lombok 1 1 — — 64 —

9 6 3 1 150 3

No. Project Site

Number of Unit

Total no. = number, SSB = single-side band. Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A2.6: Location of Repeaters and Link Repeaters Installed at Project Sites

No. Project Site Repeater Link Repeater1. Rupat Island2. Rangsang IslandPatuk Mountain 1. Telomoyo Mountain(Yogyakarta) 2. Karimun Jawa Island

3 Trenggalek Sengunglung Mountain —1. Lampon 1. Gragajan2. Muncar 2. Banyuwangi3. Bangsring

5 East Lombok Sambela Timbanuh Mountain

Bengkalis Island

2 Tegal/Semarang

4 Banyuwangi

1 Bengkalis

Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT-FINANCED ACTIVITIES

Table A3.1: Status of Patrol Boats at Project Sites

Motor Body1 KM Terubuk/ Bengkalis good/ in

operationgood Bengkalis River - fair Head of PIU PIU poor fair •

2 KM Barakuda/Tegal good/ in operation

good Jetty of Navy at Semarang - fair

Head of Provincial Fisheries

Provincial Fisheries Service

good good

3 KM Hiu/Trenggalek good/ in operation

good None Head of District Fisheries

PIU good fair

4 KM Sardenilawangi/ Banyuwangi

good/ in operation

good Old port - fair Head of District Fisheries

PIU good good •

5 KM Abalone/ East Lombok

good/ in operation

good Tanjung Luar - fair Head of District Fisheries

PIU fair fair

No.Kondisi Berth Location and

ConditionChief-in-

CommandName of Patrol Boat/

Project Site RemarksAdministration for operations needed for accountability using the operation support.

Patrol boats in all project sites are ready for operation

Operation Support

Administration for Operation

Output of Operation

KM = kapal motor (motorized boat), PIU = project implementation unit. Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A3.2: Status of Hand-held Radios at Project Sites

No. Project SiteQuantity

(unit) Condition Status of Ownership Remarks1 Bengkalis 15 Good Head of District Fisheries Service (HDFS) Already distributed to Pokmaswas2 Tegal 15 Good Provincial Fisheries Services Already distributed to Pokmaswas3 Trenggalek 41 Good HDFS Already distributed to Pokmaswas4 Banyuwangi 15 Good HDFS Already distributed to Pokmaswas5 East Lombok 64 Good HDFS Already distributed to Pokmaswas

Total 150 Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005). A

pp endix 333

34 Appendix 3

Table A3.3: Number of Civil Investigators and Fishery Resource Surveillance Staff in

Project Sites (as of 31 December 2005)

PPNS Wasdi1

1 Bengkalis Selat Baru 1 — 8,4392 Tegal Tegalsari FLC 1 2 13,7943 Trenggalek Pasirputih 3 1 4,2424 Banyuwangi Office of District Fisheries Service 2 2 12,922

- Tanjung Luar (Keruak)- Belanting (Sambelia)- Ketapang (Pringgabaya)

11 12 44,572

7 5,175

Total

No. Project Site Location of Surveillance post No. of FishersNumber of

5 East Lombok 4

FLC = fish landing center, no. = number, PPNS = Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil (civil investigators). 1Wasdi: fishery resource surveillance staff. Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A3.4: Number of Community Groups for Fishery Resource Management Initiated by Project

(as of 31 December 2005)

Bengkalis Tegal Trenggalek BanyuwangiEast

Lombok Total1 KKPK 1 4 1 1 1 8

2KPPL (with different names at different sites)

3 8 3 8 6 28

3

Community Task Force for Mangrove Management/ Surveillance or Fish Sanctuary Surveillance

9 1 4 1 6 21

4Community-Based Surveillance Groups (Pokmaswas )

8 1 3 4 6 22

Institution

KKPK = Komite Kelautan dan Perikanan Kabupaten, (district fisheries and coastal committee), KPPL= Komite Pengelolaan Perikanan Laut (marine fisheries management committee). Source: PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Appendix 4 35

PARTICIPATORY COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN EAST LOMBOK (CASE STUDY)1

A. Introduction 1. One of the most impressive achievements of the Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resources Management Project is the development of sustainable approaches to management of fisheries resources through local community participation in monitoring and surveillance activities. Through community awareness and capacity-building programs that began under the Project, the communities in East Lombok District and other project districts have continued to manage fisheries resources in their areas even after project completion in December 2005; communities are now aware that it is in their best interest to look after the coastal fisheries resources in their areas. 2. This appendix describes how the participatory management approach was initiated and developed in East Lombok, and how the communities have been effective in reducing destructive fishing practices through a community action program involving monitoring and surveillance of and sanctions against violators. B. Background 3. Lombok Timur society is from the Sasak tribe who follow customary laws (awig-awig). The awig-awig laws have been used by the Sasak tribe to maintain harmony among tribal members, including the fishing communities. As early as 1994, fishers in Tanjung Luar Village had formed a group named “Darling”, through Keputusan Desa (village decision) no. 04/LMO/KPTS/1994. The group applies awig-awig to regulate fishing activities and to protect fisheries resources in and around the village. In 1997, Tanjung Luar Village formed a working group (Kelompok Kerja, or POKJA) to strengthen the organization and operation of Darling. When project implementation began in 1999, the Project’s international fisheries management consultant and community leaders (e.g., M. Syaifullah and Ir. Aris Kabul Pranoto) initiated the formation of a new marine fisheries management committee (Komite Pengelolaan Perikanan Laut, or KPPL) with a broader mandate and authority. In Tanjung Luar, the fishers decided to convert Darling and Pokja into KPPLs. 4. In 2000, the Project adopted and expanded the participatory approach to management of fishery resources practiced by villages through the awig-awig. Six village-based KPPLs were initially formed in the coastal villages of Lombok Timur. With active participation of the villagers, a total of 21 village-based KPPLs were eventually formed, representing 21 coastal villages in East Lombok District. 5. In 2002, the project staff and the consultants realized that village-based KPPLs were not appropriate because of the lack of clear boundaries for each village, which caused considerable conflicts among the villagers on how to manage fisheries resources. It was concluded that a more effective approach would be to establish KPPLs on the basis of fishing areas or zones 1 Selected references: (i) District Fisheries Services. 2006. Compilation of the Awig-awigs Regarding Coastal

Fisheries Resources Management in the District of Lombok Timur. Selong, District of Lombok Timur. (ii) Bachtiar, Imam and Muhammad Saifullah. 2005. Kelembagaan Komite Pengelolaan Perikanan Laut (KPPL) di Lombok Timur. Kabupaten Lombok Timur: Dinas Fisheries Services. (iii) Government of East Lombok District. 2006. Local Regulation of East Lombok District No. 9 of 2006: Regarding Participative Coastal Fisheries Resources Management. Selong.

36 Appendix 4

(kawasan perikanan). However, as the village KPPLs were only 1 year old, it was considered premature to dissolve them immediately and convert them into area KPPLs. As a compromise the communities operated both village-based KPPLs and area-based KPPLs in the same regency (kabupaten). To strengthen these KPPLs, the Project provided financial and technical assistance in the form of training in monitoring and control, surveillance, fisheries management and system operational procedures. In addition, the project also provided KPPLs with equipment, meeting rooms and speedboats to enable them to carry out monitoring and surveillance effectively. The Project formed seven area KPPLs, which are responsible for the management of fisheries resources in six areas: Teluk (Bay) Ekas, Teluk Serewe, Teluk Jukung, Labuhan Haji-Sakra Timur, Pringgabaya, and Sambalia. Labuhan Haji and Sakra Timur are managed jointly by two KPPLs because the two areas have a narrow coastal strip. The ADB project completion review mission visited KPPL Sambalia and KPPL Labuhan Haji and held detailed discussions with their committee members about their activities and achievements. 6. In 2004, the communities formed the district fisheries and coastal committees (Komite Kelautan dan Perikanan Kabupaten or KKPK), which comprised 23 members, 7 of whom are from KPPLs. KKPK reviewed the activities of village and area KPPLs, and recommended that to avoid duplication and minimize conflicts, village-based KPPLs should be dissolved, with only area-based KPPLs operating in Lombok Timur. 7. In 2005, the Project encouraged the district parliament to issue regional regulations (Peraturan Daerah, or PERDA)2 so that both KPPL and KKPK would operate under a clear legal mandate. PERDA No. 9 on Participative Coastal Fisheries Resources Management was eventually approved by the district parliament in 2006, following completion of the Project in December 2005. This PERDA represents the Project’s final participatory management achievement. In addition, in 2005, District Fisheries Services (DFS) in Lombok Timur prepared a compilation of the awig-awig on coastal fisheries resources management (CFRM) C. Organization and Coordination 8. The central and district governments realized well before the Project was designed and implemented that coastal fisheries resources in Indonesia cannot be managed, monitored and supervised by the government agencies alone. To protect coastal fisheries resources, it is essential that communities are involved in monitoring, surveillance and protection of coastal fisheries resources. Under the Project, the Government has succeeded in promoting the participation of the communities through the formation of KKPK and KPPLs. Thus, in East Lombok, the DFS is responsible for managing the coastal fisheries resources, in cooperation with the KKPK and KPPLs. 9. The head of the district (Bupati) appoints the 15 to 23 members of the KKPK for a 3-year term, with a possible 3–year extension; members include representatives from various groups of fishermen (e.g., boat owners, mariculture fishers, female fishers, pearl businessmen etc.), religious leaders, sea product companies, local universities, and fishery schools. The duties and authorities of the KKPK include the following:

(i) Provide advice and input to the DFS on the problems of fisheries resources management.

2 These two publications (available in Bahasa Indonesia and English) are excellent sources of information about

participatory management in Lombok Timur.

Appendix 4 37

(ii) Disseminate information regarding fisheries resources management policies and regulations.

(iii) Identify, clarify, verify, and solve CFRM problems in the management or district areas.

(iv) Monitor and evaluate every program conducted by all parties in managing coastal fisheries resources.

(v) Implement the Fisheries Information Center’s programs. (vi) Conduct a quarterly coordination meeting. (vii) Prepare progress reports on CFRM program implementation in the entire district.

10. KPPLs have been formed in every management area or zone, including embayments and open coastal waters, and are bordered by a subdistrict (kecamatan) boundary. The membership of each KPPL ranges from 6 to 36 persons. They include various stakeholders, including village representatives, groups of fishers, female fishers, religious leaders, youth leaders, and village administration. The DFS head approves the election of KPPL representatives for a 3-year term, which can be extended for another 3-year term. In the case of KPPL Labuhan Haji, the project completion review mission noted that the committee consisted of 35 members: the chairman, 2 vice chairmen, 2 secretaries, 2 treasurers, and 28 members of 4 divisions (operations, jury, decisions, and women fishers). The jury and decision divisions are involved in the trial of suspected violators. 11. KPPLs have the following duties and authorities:

(i) Prepare coastal fisheries resource management plans in consultation with the communities and DFS.

(ii) Execute plans that have been approved by DFS and all villages in the affected zones.

(iii) Apply sanctions for violations of approved management plans using customary laws.

(iv) Identify, clarify, verify and solve CFRM problems within the management zone. (v) Prepare annual reports on the implementation of the coastal fisheries

management plans. D. Standard Operational Procedures 12. Under Law No. 32/2004, the district government is authorized to manage fisheries resources up to six km (four miles) from the coast. Under this law, KPPLs have been empowered by the DFS to manage mangroves, coral reefs and fishing stocks in protected areas (e.g. fish sanctuaries, marine protected areas and other rich fish breeding grounds) within the 6 km coastal zone. To protect these areas, KPPL members monitor and supervise the area under their jurisdiction whenever they go fishing in their own boats. Anyone caught illegally fishing in the protected areas or using bombs, poisons and other destructive fishing practices will be arrested and tried in a customary court. If convicted, their fish and fishing gear can be confiscated, and fines of up to Rp500,000 ($50) levied for the first violation, Rp1,000,000 ($100) for the second violation, and Rp2,000,000 ($200) for the third violation. 13. In the customary court, the suspects are tried by the divisi pemutus (decision division), and divisi juri (jury division); the village chief and police serve as witnesses. Divisi juri consists of experts who can identify and certify whether the fish has been caught using destructive fishing practices, even if they did not see the poison or bomb used by the suspect. Divisi pemutus has the authority to impose fines on suspects on the basis of available evidence and the awig-awig

38 Appendix 4

law related to management of coastal fisheries resources. In Indonesia, the customary law court is more effective than the formal court, because the trial is brief and rapid, does not require direct evidence, and uses social pressure, rather than the imposition of fines and threat of imprisonment. Although fines up to Rp2,000,000 are stated in the awig-awig, in reality the fine is seldom collected because the suspects are often too poor to pay the fine. Their promise not to repeat the crime has been generally sufficient, as the penalty for the second offense will be much more severe than the first offense, with the community banning them from fishing in the area. 14. In addition to the protection of coastal fisheries resources, KPPLs are also involved in regulating mariculture (seaweed, pearl oyster farms and lobster farms), to ensure it is not carried out in areas where it might interfere with boat and ship channels. They also promote the use of environmental friendly fishing gear, and discourage the community from cutting mangrove trees for housing materials or charcoal production. If there are conflicts among the community members with regard to the rules and regulations imposed by the KPPL, it will solve these conflicts using awig-awig laws. E. Funding Arrangements 15. DFS provides financial support to KPPLs to enable them to carry out the monitoring and surveillance in their respective areas. For example, the KPPL in Sambalia has been provided with a speed boat and a grant of Rp2.5 million per year to enable KPPL to buy diesel fuel to operate the boat. However, the chairman of KPPL Sambalia complained that the financial assistance from DFS is insufficient to support monitoring and surveillance for the entire year. As a result, KPPL Sambalia members are forced to use their own boats and their own money to carry out surveillance. He also complained that the committee members are not financially compensated for their hard work in protecting coastal fisheries resources. He noted that the Ministry of Forestry provides farmers involved in protection of forest resources an allowance for their work. He argued that members of KPPLs should be given the same treatment by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fishery. This and other issues indicate that the training of KPPL members needs to be reinforced by DFS, to remind individuals that the protection of coastal fisheries resources is for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the Government or others. Therefore, it is in their best interest that they safeguard these resources and ensure their use is sustainable. F. Achievements 16. Despite financial constraints, KPPLs have made impressive achievements in managing coastal fisheries resources during the past 7 years:

(i) During 2001–2004, the use of bombs and poisons declined slowly and eventually disappeared in Teluk Serewe, Teluk Ekas and Teluk Jukung.

(ii) In 2003, KPPL Teluk Jukung was given a first class award by the Government during the national contest among 76 KPPLs for its success in reducing the number of instances destructive fishing practices were used, from 35 in 1998–2000 to only four in 2003.

(iii) After only 1 year of operation, KPPL Pringgabaya and KPPL Sambalia were able to reduce the number of incidents involving destructive fishing practices by 70%, and KPPL Labuhan Haji-Sakra Timur by about 90%.

(iv) The project completion review mission to KPPL Sambalia found that the number of conflicts occurring in this area has declined steadily from 130 cases in 2003 to

Appendix 4 39

100 cases in 2004, 15 cases in 2005, 10 cases in 2006, and 6 cases in 2007 (up to October 2007). All cases have been resolved using the awig-awig law.

G. Summary and Conclusions 17. Effective protection of coastal fisheries resources in Kabupaten Lombok Timur has been achieved through active participation of the communities in the management of these resources. The success of this participatory management approach is attributed to effective collaboration between DFS and the communities, the effective organizational network and structure of KPPLs, the use of awig-awig to solve conflicts among fishers, and the commitment of the district government to issue PERDA relating to participatory CFRM. This achievement was made possible by the Project, which provided financial and technical assistance to the communities.

FISH LANDING CENTER FACILITIES 40 Table A5.1: Status of Facilities for Fish Landing Centers

Piu Bengkalis

App

(as of 31 December 2005) endix 5

1 Meskom 100 m Rehabilitated stairs of wooden jetty

Good • Fishers can moor their boats near the stairs

• 80 fishing and cargo vessels (carrying fuel and building materials) can moor alongside the jetty

• Reduced operational costs and time spent mooring vessels

• 212 fisher households benefit from the jetty • Fish catch is fresher, increasing price

• Increased security for vessels or engines

• 80 fishing and cargo vessels (carrying fuel and building materials) can moor alongside the jetty

• Reduced operational costs and time spent mooring vessels

• 212 fisher households benefit from the jetty • Fish catch is fresher, increasing price

• Increased security for vessels or engines

• Supplies 212 fisher households with ice • Reduced time to buy ice

• The 8 group members managing the ice plant benefit directly

• Reduced operational costs for fishers

• Increase in group members managing the plant

• 212 fisher households benefit from the plant forsale of their fish catch

• Increase in group members managing the plant

• 25 group members managing the plant benefitdirectly

• Increase in fisher household income

• Reduced time to buy ice

• Reduced operational costs

Good

6 Penampi 1 unit Mini ice plant Good

Impact

2 Meskom 350 m Wooden jetty Good

Benefits to the CommunityNo. Size

─ Improved quay Good

500 fishing households can more easily load and offload their boats

5 Meskom 1 unit Repaired engine of existing fish powder plant

3 Meskom

Name of Village

Good1 unit Repaired engine of existing mini ice plant

4 Meskom

Type of Facility Condition

A

ppendix 5 41

• Shrimp fry are supplied to brackish water ponds inthe vicinity

• Creation of work opportunities

• Some economic species are domesticated • Creation of business opportunities

• Provision of income generation opportunities for local community

• Increased export of shrimp and fish

• Increased tax-related income for local government

• • Conservation of fishery resources and recovery of nearby fish stocks

• Increased income of fishers from increased fish catch

• Increased security and reduced need formaintenance of patrol boat

• Conservation of fishery resources and recovery of nearby fish stocks

• Fishing vessels and catch are controlled • Increased income of fishers from increased fish catch

Hatchery station Good

8 Bengkalis District

1 unit Surveillance post Good

7 Tanjung Medang

─

Fish catch is controlled

9 Bengkalis district

1 unit Boathouse for patrol boat

Good

ImpactNo. Type of Facility Condition Benefits to the CommunityName of Village Size

m = meter. Source: DGCF/PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A5.2: Status of Facilities for Fish Landing Centers 42 Piu Tegal (as of 31 December 2005)

App

No. Size Type of Facility Condition1 Tegalsari — Fish washing

tanksGood • Reduced pollution caused by fish fillet

processing waste• Improvement of community health

in the coastal village

• Reduced amount of water used for cleaning fish

• Savings in operational costs of fish fillet processing

• Encourages other fillet entrepreneurs to use similar fish cleaning tanks

2 Tegalsari 1 unit Front gate Good • FLC logo installed • Promote the FLC to a wider public

• Entrance for FLC users • More visitors

3 Tegalsari 418 m2 Fisher training hall Good • Training center is available to fishers and community

4 Tegalsari 2,448 m Road and drainage

Good • The FLC compound is maintained in a clean, tidy, healthy and comfortable state

• Faster transportation

5 Tegalsari 138 m Flushing drain Good • The FLC compound is maintained in a clean, tidy, healthy and comfortable state

6 Tegalsari 784 m2 Port office Good • An integrated service place for fishers and community is made available

• Working productivity improved

7 Tegalsari 300 m3 Water reservoir Good • Fishers and fish processors’ need for water is fulfilled

8 Tegalsari 100 m2 Surveillance building

Good • Provides a place to conduct surveillance against violators

9 Tegalsari Mooring pond 1,700 m2, supply pond 20,000 m2,

pond line 6,000 m2

Harbor pond Good • Provides a place for mooring and loading and unloading boats

• Increased number of moored boats

ImpactBenefits to the CommunityName of Villages

endix 5

No. Size Type of Facility Condition10 Tegalsari 342 m2 Kiosk Good • Fulfills the needs of fishers for supplies

and fishing gear

• Reduced time for transporting processed fish

• Reduced transport cost for processed fish

• Reduced cost for transporting processed fish

• Additional value added to fish products

• Reduced dependence by fishers on fish traders

• Increased volume of and price for marketed fish

• Fishers can sell their fish catch directly • Increased income of local government

1,345.5 m Breakwater • Reduced waiting time for mooring and unloading fish catch

•

377 m Training jetty • Current is reduced by the breakwater

2 units Navigational lights

• Reduced time for transporting processed fish

• Reduced transport cost for processed fish

• Reduced cost for transporting processed fish

• Value added to fish products

Good

12 Tegalsari 1,914 m2 Fish auction hall Good

11 Tegalsari 756 m2 Packing building

Name of Village Benefits to the Community Impact

Improved traffic to and from the FLC

14 Tegalsari 1,500 m Fish drying lot Good

13 Tegalsari Good

FLC = fish landing center, m = meter, no. = number. Source: DGCF/PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Appendix 5

43

Table A5.3: Status of Facilities for Fish Landing Centers 44 Piu Trenggalek (as of 31 December 2005)

No. Size Type of Facility Condition1 Prigi 4 m2 Fish auction hall Good • Fishers can sell their fish catch directly • Fish price increased by Rp 1,000

per kg• Sanitation improved • Income of local government

increased• Reduced dependence of fishers on fish

traders2 Prigi 655 m2 Port office Good • An integrated service place for fishers

and the community is made available• Working productivity improved

3 Prigi 200 m2 Public toilet Good • Public toilets for port users are made available

• Diarrhea prevalence decreased from 20 to 1 case/month

• Improved sanitation in fish landing center compound

4 Prigi 180 m2 Ice and saltstorage

Good • Ice and salt are made available for fishers • Fish quality maintained

• Reduced supply costs • Fish price increased

• Numbers of fish traders and processors increased

5 Prigi 450 m2 Kiosks Good • Used as place to process and sell fish products for 6 microenterprise groups

• Improved volume of sales and income of fishers

6 Prigi 650 m Harbor Good • Boat mooring simplified • Increased number of boats184 m • Time for loading supplies and unloading

fish catch reduced• Fish losses reduced to 2%

7 Prigi 25,956 m2 Breakwater Good • Waves toward harbor ponds reduced • Fishers’ boats are safe in harbor ponds

• Sediment and erosion reduced

• Boat safety increased8 Prigi 83,000 m2 Landfill Good • Appropriate landfill for fish industry

provided9 Prigi 4,224 m2 Road Good • Improve mobility of fishers and

community to and from FLC compound• Reduced transport time and cost

Name of Village Benefits to the Community Impact

Appendix 5

A

ppendix 5 45

No. Size Type of Facility Condition10 Prigi 550 m Drainage system Good • FLC compound kept clean, tidy and

comfortable• Community health and environment

improved• Improved security within the FLC complex

• Increased activities within FLC complex70 tons • • Fish quality maintained3 units • Health of fishers improved70 tons • • Lower operational costs 1 unit • Increased productivity

14 Prigi 2 units Water and sewage treatment installation

Good • Fishers’ health improved • Improved comfort

15 Prigi 153 m2 Bridge Good • Mobility of fishers and community to and from FLC compound improved

• Reduced time and cost of transport

16 Prigi 4 units Navigational lights Good • Safety of boats moving to and from harbor improved

250 kVA

Name of Village Benefits to the Community Impact

Port lighting Good

12 Prigi Water supply system Good Water made available for users of FLC

11 Prigi

Fuel needs of fishers and users of FLC fulfilled

13 Prigi Fuel station Good

kg = kilogram, FLC = fish landing center, kVA= kiloVolt-ampere, m = meter, no. = number, Rp = rupiah. Source: DGCF/PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Table A5.4: Status of Facilities for Fish Landing Centers 46 Piu Banyuwangi (as of 31 December 2005)

App

No.Name of Village Size Type of Facility Condition Benefits To the Community Impact

1 Tembokrejo 300 m Drain in fish auction (TPI) Kalimoro

Good • Sanitation in and around auction hall improved

• Health of fishers improved

2 Tembokrejo 200 m Surrounding ditch in TPI

Good • Sanitation in and around auction hall improved

• Health of fishers improved

3 Tembokrejo 1 unit Public toilets Good • Sanitation in and around auction hall improved

• Health of fishers improved

4 Tembokrejo 1,000 m Road improvement to TPI Kalimoro

Good • Easier transport • Transport cost reduced by Rp 500/passenger

5 Tembokrejo 1 unit Fish Product Promotion Center

Good • Increased marketing of fish products • Increase (on average) of 1 ton/month in fish products sold

• Increased number of buyers • Additional sales of Rp 400,000/month

• Improvement in fish sold

7 Kedungrejo 2,000 m Road improvement in FLC Muncar

Good • Easier transport • Transport cost reduced by Rp 500/passenger

8 Kedungrejo 400 m Drains Good • Sanitation in and around auction hall improved

• Health of fishers improved

9 Kedungrejo — Fish landing stairs Good • Landing of fish catch to TPI and loading onto trucks simplified

• Landing and loading time reduced by 10-15 minutes

10 Kedungrejo 4 unit Portal Good • More security provided and bigger vehicles avoided

11 Kedungrejo Panjang 600 m, tinggi 3.5 m

Sidewall along FLC Muncar

Good • Flooding and damage to buildings avoided

• Maintenance cost reduced by Rp 200,000/yr/HH

Good6 Tembokrejo Capacity 48 traders

Fresh fish hall at TPI Kalimoro

endix 5

No.Name of Village Size Type of Facility Condition

12 Kedungrejo 1 unit Rehabilitated driedfish market in TPISampangan

Good • Fish product quality improved • Fish loss reduced by 5%

13 Grajagan 300 m Auction hall in TPIGrajagan

Good • Increased selling price of fish • Traders of dried fish increased by 20%

14 Grajagan 1 unit Public toilets Good • Sanitation in and around auction hall improved

• Number of unhygienic actions reduced by 10/day

15 Grajagan 200 m Drains Good • Sanitation in and around auction hall improved

• Fishers’ health improved

16 Grajagan 50 m Surrounding fence Good • Increased security within TPI • Losses reduced 17 Grajagan 1,000 m2 Rehabilitated floor

and yard of TPIGood • Improved TPI service quality • Improved comfort of fishers

Benefits To the Community Impact

FLC = fish landing center, m = meter, no. = number, Rp = rupiah, TPI = Tempat Pelelangan Ikan (fish auction hall). Source: DGCF/PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

Appendix 5

47

Table A5.5: Status of Facilities for Fish Landing Centers 48 Piu East Lombok (as of 31 December 2005)

Appendix 5

No. Size Type of Facility Condition Benefits To the Community Impact1 Tanjung Luar 220 m2 Rehabilitated

meeting hallGood • Fisherfolk can hold meetings on topics of

interest• Fishers’ institutions developed

Increased quality and price of fishIncome of fishers increased by 12%

3 Tanjung Luar 140 m2 Rehabilitated portbuilding

Good • Improved employees’ working productivity • Productive working environment provided

4 Tanjung Luar 362 m2 Rehabilitated parboiling hall

Good • Fish parboiling can be done in a high intensity, hygienic manner

• Daily income of average fish processor increased by Rp191,900

7 Tanjung Luar 32 m2 Public toilet Good • Basic facility for FLC users provided • Sanitation of FLC complex and health of fishers improved

Type 21 = 2 unitsType 36 = 2 units

13 Tanjung Luar - Rehabilitated drains Good • Sewerage is made possible • Sanitation of FLC complex and fisherfolk’s health improved

• Income for local government from water users of Rp 4,199,055 per year

•

• Needs of community with respect to water supply fulfilled

15 Batunampar - Parboiling hall Good • Can possibly be rented16 Batunampar - Warehouse for fish

auction hallGood • Can possibly be rented

17 Tanjung Luar Seawall construction Good • Protection against coastal erosion

18 Tanjung Luar 1 unit Fence and gatesurrounding FLC

Good • Increased security within FLC complex • Assets in FLC are secured

• Fishers’ supplies and gear needs fulfilled •

Selling of fish catch simplified

GoodWater reservoir Consumption of clean water can improve community’s health

19 Tanjung Luar 150 m2 Kiosks Good Income increased by 12%

14 Tanjung Luar -

Good Accommodation given to employees Routine monitoring of FLC• •

2

8 Tanjung Luar Employee housing

─ Rehabilitated processing hall

•Good Fish processing is made available•

Name of Village

Tanjung Luar

App

No. Size Type of Facility Condition Benefits To the Community Impact20 Tanjung Luar 1 unit Water and sewage

treatment installationGood • Sewerage treated before entering public

waters• Sanitation of FLC complex and

health of fishers improved

21 Tanjung Luar 1 unit Dockyard Good • Boat maintenance and repair are possible • Reduced cost

300 m2 • •315 m

23 Tanjung Luar 350 m Betterment of access road

Good • Security and control can be more intensive

• More comfort in working within FLC complex

25 Tanjung Luar 20 trees Landscape renovation

Good • Environment in FLC complex beautified • Comfortable environment created

• Accommodation for incoming fishers provided during unloading of fish catch

•

• Accommodation cost of incoming fishers reduced

• • Fish quality maintainedFish price increased

28 Batu Nampar 180 m2 Rehabilitated fish auction hall

Good • Increased income of local government • O&M funding for facilities in FLC ensured

29 Batu Nampar 180 m2 Rehabilitated meeting hall

Good • Fishers can hold meetings on topics of interest

• Fisher’s institutions developed

• High intensity, hygienic fish parboiling •Sewerage pooled in one location to facilitate treatment

31 Batu Nampar 30 m2 Public toilet Good • Basic facility for FLC users provided • Sanitation of FLC complex and fisher’s health ensured

• • Assets in FLC secured Fish pilferage reduced to 5%

33 Batu Nampar 87.5 m2 Rehabilitated seaweed processing hall

Good • Fish parboiling can be done in a high intensity, hygienic manner

• Fish price increased from Rp 500 to Rp 3,000

Production and income of fish processors increased; average daily income now = Rp 191,900

32 Batu Nampar 430 m2 Fence and gate surrounding FLC

Good Increased security within FLC complex

Good Slaughtering of fish is hygienic

30 Batu Nampar 54 m Rehabilitated parboiling hall

Good

27 Tanjung Luar 90 m2 Rehabilitated floor of fish slaughterhouse

Vehicles easy to park Increased security and comfort

26 Tanjung Luar 2 unit Fishers’ homestay Good Incoming fishers attracted

22 Parking lot Good

Name of Village

Tanjung Luar

endix 549

50 A

ppendix 5

No. Size Type of Facility Condition Benefits To the Community Impact• • Increased boat numbers and catch

volume• Annual income of local government

from berthing increased by Rp 86,400,000

Kiosks constructed • Fishers’ supply needs fulfilled • Reduced operational cost to fishers

Rehabilitated public toilets

• Facility for basic human needs provided • Sanitation maintained within FLC complex

36 Labuhan Lombok

220 m2 Rehabilitated parboiling hall

Good • Fish parboiling can be done in a high intensity and hygienic manner

• Volume, continuity of supply, quality, and price of fish processed maintained

37 Labuhan Lombok

165 m2 Storage and tanks for salting fish

Good • Fish processing simplified • Volume, continuity of supply, quality, and price of fish processed maintained

38 Labuhan Lombok

300 m2 Net drying lot Good • Safe location for drying and repair of nets provided

• Lifespan of nets extended

• • Operational cost reduced

• Fishers’ income increased by 5% due to improved quality and total sales

• • Fish catch kept fresh until port is reached

• Increase in fish price of 10–12%

• Efficiency increased by 30% in comparison with external purchase

Hygienic location for drying fish provided

40 Labuhan Lombok

312 m2 Block ice plant Good Fishers’ need for ice fulfilled

39 Labuhan Lombok

300 m2 Fish drying lot

Good

Good

Fishers’ boats can easily enter harbor, moor, and unload fish catch

35 Labuhan Lombok

120 m2 Good

34 Labuhan Lombok

1,894 m2 Causeway in jetty

Name of Village

FLC = fish landing center, m = meter, no. = number, Rp = rupiah. Source: DGCF/PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 Dec 2005).

Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total

A. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management1. Assessments and Planning 800 2,860 3,660 339 964 1,3032. Information and Education Campaign 890 3,480 4,370 757 2,378 3,1353. Erosion Control Structure 160 250 410 1,500 2,233 3,7334. Rehabilitation and Conservation Activities 460 1,940 2,400 348 942 1,2905. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance 2,880 1,420 4,300 1,299 1,610 2,909 Subtotal (A) 5,190 9,950 15,140 4,243 8,127 12,370

B. Community Development and Poverty Reduction1. Community Organizing and Social Development 420 2,020 2,440 324 1,848 2,1722. Assistance for Establishment of Microenterprises 1,920 5,120 7,040 1,122 2,422 3,5443. Social Infrastructure 1,100 1,820 2,920 1,206 2,338 3,544 Subtotal (B) 3,440 8,960 12,400 2,652 6,608 9,260

C. Environmental Improvement of Fish-Landing Centers1. Improvement of Fish Landings 5,580 8,710 14,290 2,477 10,814 13,2912. Water Supply, Drainage, and Waste Disposal 720 1,010 1,730 286 409 6953. Postharvest Improvement 590 410 1,000 545 447 992 Subtotal (C) 6,890 10,130 17,020 3,308 11,670 14,978

D. Institutional Strengthening and Project Management1. Information and Network Improvement 1,850 750 2,600 1,053 309 1,3622. DGCF and Local Government Capacity Building 1,010 550 1,560 1,364 1,255 2,6193. Project Management 1,320 3,050 4,370 3,778 2,528 6,306 Subtotal (D) 4,180 4,350 8,530 6,195 4,092 10,287

E. Total Base Costs 19,700 33,390 53,090 16,398 30,497 46,895 Physical Contingencies 1,970 3,340 5,310 Price Contingencies 1,660 5,240 6,900

23,330 41,970 65,300 16,398 30,497 46,895 Interest During Construction (OCR) 5,540 0 5,540 2,642 2,642 Service Charge (ADF) 290 290 Total 28,870 41,970 70,840 19,330 30,497 49,827

PROJECT COSTS BY COMPONENT

Appraisal ActualComponent

($'000)

Appendix 6

51

ADF = Asian Development Fund, DGCF = Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Sources: ADB and DGCF/PCO.

LOAN UTILIZATION BY YEAR 52 L1570/1571 in US$/SDR

Appendix 7

L1570 L1571 Total L1570 L1571 Total L1570 L1571 Total01 Civil Works L1570/1571 US$ 136,704 39,054 175,758 507 2,875 3,382 1,351 0 1,351

SDR 29,521 29,521 2,088 2,088 0 002 Surveys and Studies L1570/1571 US$ 25,587 65,383 90,970 27,965 103,635 131,600 19,106 93,821 112,927

SDR 49,422 49,422 75,306 75,306 71,994 71,99403A Equipment (ICB/IS) L1570 US$ 18,532 18,532 0 0 0 003A Equipment (IS) L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 18,974 18,974 (18,974) (18,974)03B Equipment (Local Purchase) L1570/1571 US$ 179,745 25,101 204,846 0 0 0 64,133 6,630 70,763

SD 18,974 18,974 (15,759) (15,759) 20,90R 7 20,90703C Vehicles L1570/1571 US$ 74,451 4,253 78,704 0 0 0 168,185 12,774 180,959

SDR 3,215 3,215 13,311 13,311 (3,347) (3,347)04 Materials L1570/1571 US$ 37,422 5,354 42,776 20,989 17,173 38,162 22,147 32,369 54,516

SDR 4,047 4,047 206,761 206,761 (169,516) (169,516)05 International Consultants L1570 US$ 197,240 197,240 286,649 286,649 613,199 613,19905 Local Consultants L1571 US$ 115,890 115,890 175,600 175,600 138,749 138,749

SDR 82,267 82,267 4,225 4,225 228,309 228,30906A Training-Staff Training L1570/1571 US$ 7,230 58,676 65,906 9,330 57,993 67,323 16,353 76,783 93,136

SDR 44,352 44,352 (25,248) (25,248) 126,280 126,28006B Training-Post Graduate L1570 US$ 599 599 0 0 0 006B Training-Extension (LCO) L1571 US$ 19,142 19,142 6,378 6,378 56,357 56,357

SD 14,469 14,469 (14,469) (14,469) 62,35R 5 62,35506C Training-Extension (LCO) L1570 US$ 14,817 14,817 1,365 1,365 11,192 11,19206C Training-Extension (GOVT) L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0

SD 0 0 33,931 33,931 13,20R 7 13,20706D Training-Extension (GOVT) L1570 US$ 0 0 007 Project Office Operation L1570/1571 US$ 4,911 32,436 37,347 1,280 12,954 14,234 1,820 16,995 18,815

SDR 24,518 24,518 (22,422) (22,422) 4,270 4,27008 Operating Recurrent Costs L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 008 Service Charge L1571 US$ 0 0 2,885 2,885 5,667 5,667

SDR 0 0 0 0 0 009 Interest During Construction L1570 US$ 15,107 15,107 79,475 79,475 162,464 162,46409 Unallocated L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 0 0 010 Unallocated L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 010 Tsunami Assistance L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 0 0 011 Tsunami Assistance L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 099 Imprest Fund L1570/1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SD 0 0 0 0 0 0712,345 365,289 1,077,634 427,560 379,493 807,053 1,079,950 440,145 1,520,095

270,785 270,785 276,698 276,698 335,485 335,485

R

TOTAL IN SDR

Loan Number

TOTAL IN US$

Category1998 1999 2000

Appendix 7

53

L1570 L1571 Total L1570 L1571 Total01 Civil Works L1570/1571 US$ 563,481 281,105 844,586 284,084 226,394 510,478

SDR 222,607 222,607 177,956 177,95602 Surveys and Studies L1570/1571 US$ 32,173 79,375 111,548 8,076 18,933 27,009

SDR 62,713 62,713 15,197 15,19703A Equipment (ICB/IS) L1570 US$ 13,475 13,475 1,500,334 1,500,33403A Equipment (IS) L1571 US$ 46,292 46,292 0 0

SDR 36,909 36,909 0 003B Equipment (Local Purchase) L1570/1571 US$ 83,493 23,396 106,889 11,779 35,275 47,054

SDR 18,559 18,559 27,407 27,40703C Vehicles L1570/1571 US$ 48,088 629 48,717 45,388 4,449 49,837

SDR 500 500 3,571 3,57104 Materials L1570/1571 US$ 59,377 47,442 106,819 98,439 127,495 225,934

SDR 37,476 37,476 98,176 98,17605 International Consultants L1570 US$ 555,450 555,450 146,984 146,98405 Local Consultants L1571 US$ 229,968 229,968 463,270 463,270

SDR 181,524 181,524 353,418 353,41806A Training-Staff Training L1570/1571 US$ 7,768 62,530 70,298 26,934 93,123 120,057

SDR 49,490 49,490 71,406 71,40606B Training-Post Graduate L1570 US$ 104,355 104,355 504,353 504,35306B Training-Extension (LCO) L1571 US$ 63,456 63,456 37,892 37,892

SDR 50,095 50,095 29,726 29,72606C Training-Extension (LCO) L1570 US$ 13,827 13,827 1,991 1,99106C Training-Extension (GOVT) L1571 US$ 22,320 22,320 585 585

SDR (29,423) (29,423) 442 44206D Training-Extension (GOVT) L1570 US$ 0 007 Project Office Operation L1570/1571 US$ 4,812 12,100 16,912 16,993 8,889 25,882

SDR 50,322 50,322 6,754 6,75408 Operating Recurrent Costs L1570 US$ 0 0 0 008 Service Charge L1571 US$ 11,661 11,661 21,669 21,669

SDR 15,477 15,477 16,770 16,77009 Interest During Construction L1570 US$ 281,875 281,875 412,223 412,22309 Unallocated L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 010 Unallocated L1570 US$ 0 0 0 010 Tsunami Assistance L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 011 Tsunami Assistance L1570 US$ 0 0 0 099 Imprest Fund L1570/1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 01,768,174 880,274 2,648,448 3,057,578 1,037,974 4,095,552

696,249 696,249 800,823 800,823

2001 2002Category Loan Number

TOTAL IN US$

LOAN UTILIZATION BY YEARL1570/1571 in US$/SDR

TOTAL IN SDR

LOAN UTILIZATION BY YEAR 54 A

ppendix 7

L1570 L1571 Total L1570 L1571 Total L1570 L1571 Total01 Civil Works L1570/1571 US$ 742,837 231,237 974,074 1,496,787 607,486 2,104,273 1,475,474 473,524 1,948,998

SDR 164,101 164,101 416,021 416,021 323,764 323,76402 Surveys and Studies L1570/1571 US$ 86,215 74,304 160,519 121,608 79,612 201,220 142,124 164,351 306,475

SDR 52,072 52,072 54,389 54,389 111,819 111,81903A Equipment (ICB/IS) L1570 US$ 1,285,757 1,285,757 0 0 0 003A Equipment (IS) L1571 US$ 120,793 120,793 54,395 54,395 1,670,008 1,670,008

SDR 82,966 82,966 37,168 37,168 1,114,712 1,114,71203B L1570/1571 US$ 0 359,064 359,064 801 385,077 385,878 14,039 382,777 396,816

SDR 254,374 254,374 260,445 260,445 254,222 254,22203C Vehicles L1570/1571 US$ 0 49,852 49,852 0 27,281 27,281 0 45,782 45,782

SDR 35,017 35,017 18,607 18,607 30,660 30,66004 Materials L1570/1571 US$ 116,486 212,366 328,852 102,922 259,261 362,183 128,065 281,538 409,603

SDR 150,735 150,735 176,395 176,395 189,345 189,34505 International Consultants L1570 US$ 269,011 269,011 194,884 194,884 23,008 23,00805 Local Consultants L1571 US$ 733,896 733,896 562,736 562,736 290,735 290,735

SDR 518,285 518,285 379,097 379,097 196,462 196,46206A Training-Staff Training L1570/1571 US$ 50,576 279,048 329,624 15,987 184,587 200,574 30,669 173,400 204,069

SDR 199,552 199,552 126,617 126,617 117,609 117,60906B Training-Post Graduate L1570 US$ 35,703 35,703 4,774 4,774 0 006B Training-Extension (LCO) L1571 US$ 262,739 262,739 280,701 280,701 799,383 799,383

SDR 188,826 188,826 191,723 191,723 531,203 531,20306C Training-Extension (LCO) L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 006C Training-Extension (GOVT) L1571 US$ 4,765 4,765 0 0 9,812 9,812

SDR 3,460 3,460 0 0 6,801 6,80106D Training-Extension (GOVT) L1570 US$ 0 0 007 Project Office Operation L1570/1571 US$ 21,352 23,027 44,379 35,006 18,926 53,932 15,458 39,335 54,793

SDR 16,602 16,602 12,948 12,948 26,394 26,39408 Operating Recurrent Costs L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 008 Service Charge L1571 US$ 34,214 34,214 59,830 59,830 92,368 92,368

SDR 24,731 24,731 40,330 40,330 61,772 61,77209 L1570 US$ 526,741 526,741 552,651 552,651 611,955 611,955

09 Unallocated L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0SDR 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Unallocated L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 010 Tsunami Assistance L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 0 0 011 Tsunami Assistance L1570 US$ 0 0 0 0 0 099 Imprest Fund L1570/1571 US$ 0 0 0 71,857 0 71,857 276,639 84,085 360,724

SDR 0 0 0 0 57,529 57,5293,134,678 2,385,305 5,519,983 2,597,277 2,519,892 5,117,169 2,717,431 4,507,098 7,224,529

1,690,721 1,690,721 1,713,740 1,713,740 3,022,292 3,022,292

Interest During Construction

2005L1570/1571 in US$/SDR

Equipment (Local Purchase)

TOTAL IN US$

Category2003 2004

Loan Number

TOTAL IN SDR

Appendix 7

55

Total Loan Utilization Total Loan Utilization L1570 L1571 Total L1570 L1571

01 Civil Works L1570/1571 US$ 343 1,940 2,283 4,701,568 1,863,615 6,565,183SDR 1,346 1,346 1,337,404 1,337,404

02 Surveys and Studies L1570/1571 US$ 22,666 1,386 24,052 485,520 680,800 1,166,320SDR 962 962 493,874 493,874

03A Equipment (ICB/IS) L1570 US$ 0 0 2,818,098 2,818,09803A Equipment (IS) L1571 US$ 0 0 1,891,488 1,891,488

SDR 0 0 1,271,755 1,271,75503B Equipment (Local Purchase) L1570/1571 US$ 0 0 0 353,990 1,217,320 1,571,310

SDR 0 0 839,129 839,12903C Vehicles L1570/1571 US$ 0 0 0 336,112 145,020 481,132

SDR 0 0 101,534 101,53404 Materials L1570/1571 US$ 6,041 0 6,041 591,888 982,998 1,574,886

SDR 0 0 693,419 693,41905 International Consultants L1570 US$ 0 0 2,286,425 2,286,42505 Local Consultants L1571 US$ 0 0 2,710,844 2,710,844

SDR 0 0 1,943,587 1,943,58706A Training-Staff Training L1570/1571 US$ 297 297 165,144 986,140 1,151,284

SDR 0 0 710,058 710,05806B Training-Post Graduate L1570 US$ 0 0 649,784 649,78406B Training-Extension (LCO) L1571 US$ 4,820 4,820 1,530,868 1,530,868

SDR 3,344 3,344 1,057,272 1,057,27206C Training-Extension (LCO) L1570 US$ 0 0 43,192 43,19206C Training-Extension (GOVT) L1571 US$ 0 0 37,482 37,482

SDR 0 0 28,418 28,41806D Training-Extension (GOVT) L1570 US$ 0 007 Project Office Operation L1570/1571 US$ 859 2,956 3,815 102,491 167,618 270,109

SDR 2,014 2,014 121,400 121,40008 Operating Recurrent Costs L1570 US$ 0 0 0 008 Service Charge L1571 US$ 61,319 61,319 289,613 289,613

SDR 42,659 42,659 201,739 201,73909 Interest During Construction L1570 US$ 0 0 2,642,491 2,642,49109 Unallocated L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 010 Unallocated L1570 US$ 0 0 0 010 Tsunami Assistance L1571 US$ 0 0 0 0

SDR 0 0 0 011 Tsunami Assistance L1570 US$ 0 0 0 099 Imprest Fund L1570/1571 US$ (348,496) (84,085) (432,581) 0 0 0

SDR (57,529) (57,529) 0 0(318,290) (11,664) (329,954) 15,176,703 12,503,806 27,680,509

(7,204) (7,204) 8,799,589 8,799,589

2006 Grand Total (A) + (B)

LOAN UTILIZATION BY YEAR

TOTAL IN US$

L1570/1571 in US$/SDR

Loan Number

TOTAL IN SDRGovt. = Government; LCO = local community organizations. Sources: ADB and DGCF/PCO.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 56

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 41

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Activity1999 2000 2001 2005

Establishment of LACs

No.

Coordination and supervision of all project activities

b.

Establishment of PCO

Establishment of PIUs

Briefing of PCO and PIU Staff

Establishment of PCC

Preparation of detailed project Logframe, implementation schedule, and workplans for the various project management system and procedures

a.

Procurement of Project Vehicles and Equipment

Revised Implementation Schedule2002 2003 2004

Project Management

1998

Procurement of Project Management Consultant

Officer's financial training and BME BenchmarkProject Implementation and Management

Appendix 8

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 41.10

1.11

1.121.13

1.13.1

c.

e.

1.13.2a.

b.

c.

Preparation of final monitoring and evaluation report

Selection and contracting of PCRconsultant

Monitoring the conduct and preparation of PCR

Review and finalization of the PCRReport

Preparation of an M&E manual and training on M&E

Preparation of progress and annualreports

Conduct of identification of newproject sites

Conduct of midterm reviewConduct of BME and PCR

BMEa. Review the M&E requirements of the

project as specified in the logical framework

b. Design the M&E system of the different components and the project as a whole

d. Review of project performance during the midterm and final review periods

PCR

Activity

Revised Implementation Schedule1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

No.

Appendix 8

57

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 42

2.1

b.

c.

2.2

b.

c. Progress monitoring and evaluation

d.

2.3

2.4

a.

a.

Selection and contracting of consultants

Monitoring and evaluation of implementation of CBCRM

No. Activity

Revised Implementation Schedule1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005

a. Finalization of TOR, guidelines andoperational system and proceduresfor REA and SEA

Community-Based Coastal Resourcese Management (CBCRM)

2003 2004

CFRM AND MCS

Finalization of TOR, guidelines andoperational system and procedures

Selection and contracting of consultants

Review and evaluation of REA andSEA reports

Preparation and implementation ofCFRM Plan

Recruitment of CBCRM Consultant

Finalization of TOR, guidelines and operational system and procedures

REAs and SEAs

58 A

ppendix 8

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

b.

c. Design and implementation

d. CRM monitoring and evaluation

2.5

2.6

a.

b.

d. Monitoring of IEC implementation3

3.1

a.

Identification and studies of newproject sitesInformation, Education and Communication (IEC)

Design of nationwide and site-specificpublic information and awarenessbuilding program on CFRM andenvironmental conservation andmanagement

Finalization of TOR, guidelines andoperational system and procedures

Selection and contracting of LCOs

c. Training of PCO and PIU personnel inIEC, including materials development

Development of instructional andinformation materials for IEC

Community Development and Poverty Reduction

Selection and contracting of consultants

2003No. Activity

Revised Implementation Schedule1998 1999 2000 2001 2004 20052002

Appendix 8

59

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

b. Selection and contracting of LCOs

3.2

3.3

3.4

b.

3.5

Monitoring and evaluatiion of income diversification activites

a.

a. Selection of villages where social infrastructure improvements are to be undertaken

b. Determination of exact needs for social infrastructure improvement in selected villages

Social preparation and community a. Monitoring of implementation of social

preparation and community organizingactivities at the project sites by LCOs

No. Activity

Revised Implementation Schedule1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Microenterprise and livelihood a. Implementation of microenterprise

development activities, including identification of possible

Implementation of income Development of detailed guidelines and mechanisms for implementation of the poverty reduction activities of the project

Social Infrastructure

Implementation and monitoring of social infrastructure improvement

c.

60 A

ppendix 8

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

44.1

b.

c.

e.

4.2

4.4

Recruitment of consulting engineers

Recruitment of contractors

b. Implementation of training programs for PCO/PIUs, LCO in the various areas and aspects of microenterprise development and micro-credit management

Environmental Improvement of Fish Landing CenterEnvironmental Monitoring and ImpactAssessment

Selection and contracting of consultantsMonitoring and evaluation of EIA studies

Preparation of monitoring andevaluation report

a. Preparation of the detailed TOR for contractors to undertake the environmental monitoring and impact assessment of project components as required (especially infrastructure components)

a. Assessment of training needs of LCOs and evaluation of current training programs and training methods used by extension workers at the project sites

Provision of training, extension andcredit services

Revised Implementation Schedule1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

3.6No. Activity

2005

d. Determination of potential adverseenvironmental impact andrecommended required mitigations

4.3 Review of plan and design works offish landing center

Appendix 8

61

62

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 44.5

55.1

b.

5.2

f. Monitoring of implementation of Training and HRD plan including overseas fellowships

a. Finalization of TOR, guidelines and operational system and procedures

g. Evaluation of training programs/courses conducted under the Project as basis for further refinement/improvement

b. Identification of institutional strengths and weaknesses of DGF and Dinas Perikanan and evaluation of strengthening needs

c.

e. Development of Training and HRD Plan for DGF and Dinas Perikanan personnel

Institutional Assessmenta. Review of objectives, organizational

structure, and actual performance of DGF and Dinas Perikanan at the four sites

Institutional Strengthening and Support ServicesRecruitment of consultant

20052002 2003 2004Revised Implementation Schedule

1998 1999 2000 2001No. Activity

Selection and contracting of consultants

Identification of training and HRD needs of fisheries personnel at the central and provincial/district levels

d. Formulation of strategic HRD plans and interventions for central and provincial /district level personnel

Monitoring and evaluation of implementation

Appendix 8

Appendix 8

63

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 45.3

f.

5.45.5

5.6a.

b.

2005No. Activity

Revised Implementation Schedule1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

a. Review and assessment of the appropriateness and adequacy of the existing fisheries information system vis-a-vis its projected use for CFR

Strengthening of GIS and MCS

b. Determination of requirements forsystems improvements, upgrading,and expansion, including humanresources and logistical needs

c. Design and development of theimproved information system toaddress resource management

d.

Strengthening of Fisheries Information

Design training program for various stakeholdersImplementation of various trainingprogram

Monitoring of utilization of fisheriesinformation system

Strengthening of Project ManagementSystems

Procurement/acquisition , installation, testing, and refinements of the system based on actual requirements of DGF and Dinas Perikanan at the four sites

e. Preparation of operating manual on the use and maintenance of the system and training of PCO/PIU staff on systems applications

Training Program

Legend: : Planned as per PAM : Actual : Additional plans

CFR = coastal fisheries resource, CFRM = coastal fisheries resource management, DGF= Directorate General of Fisheries (renamed Directorate General of Capture Fisheries), EIA = environmental impact assessment, GIS = geographic information system, LCO = local community organization, M&E = monitoring and evaluation, MCS = monitoring, control, and surveillance, PCC = project coordination committee, PCO = project coordination office, PIU = project implementation unit, REA = resource and ecological assessment, SEA = socioeconomic assessment. Source: DGCF/PCO. Final Progress Report (as of 31 December 2005).

64 Appendix 9

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH MAJOR LOANS

Covenant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

1. The Borrower shall make available, promptly as needed, the funds, facilities, services and other resources, which are required, in addition to the proceeds of the loans for the carrying out of the Project and for the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities [ Art. IV, Sect. 4.02]

Immediately after loan effectiveness and yearly thereafter after budget approval

MOF/ BAPPENAS/ MMAF-DGCF

Complied with. Although the counterpart funds were below the requirements during the first 3 years of project implementation. There was remarkable improvement in 2003 as the budget approved was Rp 103.6 billion or $11.51 million more than the projected requirement of $10.6 million determined in the 2001 MTR. For FY2004, an amount of Rp 106.3 or $12.5 million budget was approved which was higher than the FY2003 budget.

2. The Borrower shall cause competent and qualified consultants and contractors, acceptable to the Borrower and Bank, to be employed to an extent and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank [ Art. IV, Sect. 4.03(a)]

To start Immediately after loan effectiveness

MMAF-DGCF/ PCO

Complied with.

3. The borrower shall make arrangements satisfactory to the Bank for insurance of the Project facilities [Art IV, Sect. 4.05]

For the entire period of Project implementation

MMAF-DGCF/ PCO

Government assets are normally not insured.

4. The Borrower shall maintain records and accounts adequate to identify the goods and services financed out of the proceeds of the loans and their use [Art. IV, Sect. 4.06 (a)]

For the entire period of Project implementation

MMAF-DGCF/ PCO

Complied with. Complied with. Separate project accounts were established by DGCF/PCO and PIUs

5. The Borrower shall maintain separate accounts for the Project, have such accounts audited annually, and furnish the Bank with a copy of the audited reports not later than 9 months after the end of each fiscal year [Art. IV, Sect. 4.06 (b)]

Within 9 months after the end of each related fiscal year

MMAF-DGCF/ PCO

Complied with.

6. The Borrower shall furnish the Bank quarterly reports on the carrying out of the project and on the operation and management of the Project facilities [Art. IV, Sect. 4.07 (b).

Within one month after end of each quarter for the entire period of the Project

MMAF-DGCF/ PCO

Complied with. Quarterly Progress Reports have been submitted on regular basis to ADB.

Appendix 9 65

Covenant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

Complied with delay. A consulting firm was engaged to prepare the PCR and completed in December 2005. The PCR was received by ADB in August 2006.

7. The Borrower will prepare a Project Completion Report for submission to the Bank not later than 3 months after the physical completion of the Project [Art. IV, Sect. 4.07 (c)

Not later than 3 months after physical completion of the Project

MMAF-DGCF/ PCO

Complied with. Regular project reviews and visit to project sites were conducted.

8. The Borrower shall enable the ADB’s representatives to inspect the Project, the goods financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, and any relevant records and documents [Art. IV, Sect. 4.08]

Throughout Project implementation period

MMAF/DGCF/ PCO/PIUs

Complied with. 9. The Borrower shall ensure that the Project facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in accordance with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental, and maintenance and operational practices

Throughout Project implementation period

MMAF/DGCF/ PCO/PIUs

Complied with. Due to the reorganization of the Government, the DGF (renamed DGCF) was transferred from Ministry of Agriculture to the new Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries effective 7 December 1999. Aside from PCO Project Manager, a position of Project Director was created in February 2002 to strengthen monitoring who was concurrently Head of DGCF’s Planning Unit. A technical working group (POKJA) assists in project implementation. Five PIUs were also established headed by site managers. Adequate vehicles and office and communication equipment were procured for the PCO and PIUs under the Project.

10. DGCF shall set up a Project Coordinating Office (PCO) within the Directorate of Programs of DGF to oversee day-to-day implementation of the Project. The PCO shall be headed by a full-time Project Coordinator and has adequate qualified and technical administration staff and the necessary communication equipment and vehicles [Sch. 6, para. 2]

As soon as the loans became effective

DGCF/PCO

11. DGCF shall establish an inter-agency Project Coordinating Committee (PCC) chaired by the Director of Programs of DGF to ensure efficient liaison and effective cooperation between the agencies and departments involved in Project implementation [Sch. 6, para. 3]

As soon as the loans became effective

DGCF Complied with. The Secretary of the Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF) was appointed chair of the PCC for more effective liaison among concerned agencies.

66 Appendix 9

Covenant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

12. DGF shall also establish a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) in each Project Province to be chaired by the relevant provincial Governor, district head (Bupati) or by chief of the relevant Dinas Perikanan TK I and II [Sch. 6, para. 4]

As soon as the loans became effective

DGCF

Complied with. Local Project Advisory Committees (LPACs) have been established in all the five Project areas and being chaired by Bupati/Mayor. PCC and LPACs regularly meet at least once a year. Some LPACs meet twice a year. A Technical Working Group (POKJA) has also been created to assist PCO.

13. DGCF shall establish Project Implementation Units (PIUs) at each site in the Project Provinces where Project activities are to be carried out [Sch. 6, para. 5]

As soon as the loans became effective

DGCF Complied with.

14. DGCF shall finalize the establishment of the PCO, PCC, and PIUs within one month after the Effective Date. The Borrower shall ensure that all necessary training on ADB’s project management and implementation procedures is made available to PCO and PIU staff and the staff in charge of Project coordination [Sch. 6, para. 6]

As soon as the loans became effective

MMAF/DGCF Complied with. PCO and 4 PIUs were established in April 1998. PCC was established in May 1998. List of all training given in the last (31st) progress report .

15. Borrower shall ensure throughout the Project implementation period the timely release of the required counterpart funds, and shall cause DGCF to allocate adequate staff and equipment to the PCO and the PIUs for effective supervision, coordination, implementation and evaluation of the Project [Sch. 6, para. 7]

As soon as the loans became effective

MOF/DGCF Complied with delay. Due to the economic crisis and political unrest in the late 1990s, provision of counterpart funds was delayed. Number of staff of PCO and PIUs were adequate but constrained due to non-optimum performance of staff in key positions at provincial or district fisheries offices (PFS, DFS)

16. Borrower shall cause DGCF to complete the recruitment of the consultants for REA, SEA, social preparation, training, MCS, monitoring and evaluation, and fishery infrastructure within six months after the Effective Date to ensure timely commencement of Project activities [Sch. 6, para.8]

Within 6 months after loans became effective

DGCF Complied with delay.

Appendix 9 67

Covenant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

17. DGCF shall prepare a framework for a monitoring and evaluation system and submit it to the Bank for review and approval within the first year of Project implementation. The REA, SEA, and the baseline surveys, which shall generate baseline data for such system, shall be completed within the first two years of Project implementation [Sch. 6, para. 9]

31 December 1999 DGCF

Complied with delay. By early 2000, REA and SEA have been completed as planned (within 14 months from Sep 98 in East Java and Feb 99 in 3 other sites). SEA was completed in East Java in Feb 99 and 3 other sites in Sep 99. REA II, SEA II and Total Allowable Catch (TAC) studies were conducted in Bengkalis, Tegal, Trenggalek, and East Lombok in 2003, but late in Banyuwanggi in 2004. The delays in the second surveys were mainly caused by delayed fielding of consultants and budget constraints resulting from the economic difficulties and political disturbances in 1999 and 2000 years of implementation.

18. DGCF shall undertake a midterm review during the third year of Project implementation to evaluate the actual progress of the Project and shall identify any major issues and problems affecting Project implementation and recommend measures to remedy the identified problems [Sch. 6, para. 10]

At about early-2001 DGCF

Complied with. The midterm review was carried out from 2-17 July 2001.

19. DGCF and the local governments concerned shall complete the preparation of the CFRM plans for each site selected in the Project Provinces and start implementing such plans by the beginning of the third year of Project implementation [Sch. 6, para. 11].

By about early 2000 DGCF

Complied with delay. CFRM planning was accomplished by end of 2001. CFRM activities in such areas as REA, TAC, habitat management (e.g. mangrove planting, artificial reefs deployment, etc.) monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), information, education and communication (IEC) have been implemented based on approved CFRM plans.

68 Appendix 9

Covenant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

20. DGCF shall review indicative user charges prior to the completion of fish landing center improvements to ensure that the charges are sufficient to generate adequate revenue to cover the operation and maintenance costs of the fish landing and handling facilities. DGF shall inform the Bank of the level of user charges to be applied [Sch. 6, para. 12]

31 December 2003 DGCF

Complied with. The current practice was to charge 5% of the value of the fish for all fish landing centers and generally applies throughout Indonesia. The local government of Trenggalek has issued a District Regulation (PERDA 28) prescribing various charges for the services and use of facilities at the Prigi Fish Landing Center (FLC) in Trenggalek. A business development plan (BDA) for the FLC Tegalsari in Tegal has been completed. The plan includes the proposed modifications on the current user charges imposed in the FLC. The FLC has recently been upgraded from PPI to PPP. User charges at Tanjung Luar and Batu Nampar FLCs in East Lombok have been reviewed in 2001 by PMC consultant and revealed that user charges take reference from the national standard at Prigi FLC, provincial government standard for Tegalsari FLC, and district government standard for Tanjung Luar FLC. Result of the study was reported in the 2nd QPR 2005.

21. DGCF shall establish a MCS system and initiate fish stock assessment at the selected sites in the Project Provinces prior to implementation of the training on conversion of purse seiners fishing for small pelagics into tuna longliners [Sch. 6, para.13].

By 30 April 2001 DGCF

Complied with. MCS activities are ongoing in all Project sites. Included in the system were patrol boats, communication equipments such as handheld radios and links of small repeaters. Additional repeaters are to be established to cover the whole project areas both in seas and lands. Licensing system was introduced in Tegal. The Project will not undertake any work related to conversion of purse seiners or any other activities promoting exploitation of fishery resources.

Appendix 9 69

Covenant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

22. The Borrower shall cause regulatory measures to be introduced to limit access to coastal fisheries and transfer responsibility for coastal and near-shore fisheries resource management to the local government and coastal communities by 31 December 1998 [Sch. 6, para. 14]

By 31 December 1998

GOI/MMAF/ DGCF

Complied with delay. Responsibility for resource management within the 4-mile limit has been transferred to the District authorities (Law No. 32/2004) and in the 4-12 mile belt to the Provincial authorities through the new autonomy law UU 22/99 enacted in 1999. District Services Offices have submitted their action plans and allocation of budget for O&M beyond project period.

Control and regulatory measures have been introduced in the new management plans. Licensing systems such as fishing vessel registration in all the Project sites have been designed. Consultations are being carried out continuously to upgrade and strengthen the implementation of the system.

Complied with. Control and regulatory measures have been incorporated in the new management plans. Licensing system in all Project sites has been designed. Consultations were carried out to introduce the licensing system.

23. The Borrower shall cause proper implementation regulations to be adopted at the local level to ensure effective implementation of the National Fisheries Law, particularly with regard to the traditional local fishing rights and access to particular resources and sea domains Sch. 6, para. 15]

31 December 1998 GOI/MMAF/ DGCF

24. The Borrower shall ensure that approval of the AMDAL for any breakwater and dredging operations financed under the Project is obtained prior to commencement of such operations [Sch. 6, para. 16].

Starting 31 December 1998

MMAF/DGCF/ PCO

Complied with. AMDAL (environmental impact assessment) were completed for three fish landing sites in 1998. AMDAL obtained for Tegal FLC approved on 27 October 2003 and Prigi on 5 November 2002. Environmental Management Plan (RKL) and Environmental Monitoring Plan for Labuhan FLC have been prepared.

70 Appendix

Co

9

venant Relevant Date Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

25. DGCF, in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance, Bank Indonesia and Bank Rakyat Indonesia, shall make the micro-credit programs currently being implemented in the Project Provinces available to the fishing communities targeted under the Project. Borrower shall within one year after the effective date, identify all other existing microcredit programs in force in the Project provinces that are suitable for project activities. Sch. 6, para. 17]

Throughout Project implementation period

MOF/BI/BRI/ DGCF

Partly Complied with. The Project has successfully assisted several fisherfolk groups to access credit. Eighteen (18) microfinance institutions (LKMPs) were established: 6 in Bengkalis; 3 in Trenggalek; 1 in Banyuwanggi; and 8 in East Lombok. A guideline and operation manual for LKMP establishment, operation, management and development have been published based on improved microfinancing system and distributed to all project sites. DGCF however was unable to provide information on existing microcredit programs in force in the project provinces that are suitable for the project activities.

ADB = Asian Development Bank, AMDAL = Environmental Impact Assessment, Art. = Article, BAPPENAS = Badan Perencanan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning Agency), BDA = Business Development Plan, CFRM = coastal fisheries resource management, BI = Bank Indonesia, BRI = Bank Rakyat Indonesia, DFS = district fisheries services, DGF = Directorate General of Fisheries, DGCF = Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, FLC = fish landing center, GOI = Government of Indonesia, LKMP = Lembaga Keuangan Masyarakat Pantai (microfinance institutions), LPAC = Local Project Advisory Committee, MCS = monitoring, control and surveillance, MMAF = Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, MOF = Ministry of Finance, MTR = Mid-term Review, para. = paragraph, O & M = operation and maintenance, PAC = project advisory committee, PCC = Project Coordinating Committee, PCO = project coordinating office, PCR = project completion report, PERDA = Peraturan Daerah (Regional Regulation), PFS = Provincial Fisheries Services, PIU = project implementation unit, POKJA = Kelompok Kerja (Technical Working Group), PMC = project management consultant, QPR =quarterly progress report REA = resource and ecological assessment, RKL = Environmental Management Plan, Rp = Rupiah, Sch. = school, Sect. = section, SEA = socioeconomic assessment, TAC = total allowable catch, UU = Undang-undang (National Act). Source: ADB staff assessments.

Appendix 10

71

PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND IMPACTS

(At Completion)

Project Targets Achievements Impacts/ Benefits Coastal Fisheries Resources Management (CFRM) Component

The ecological and socioeconomic condition in the 5 Project sites have been assessed, and the information can now form the basis for fisheries management and community development plans.

REA (Resources and Ecological Assessment), SEA (Sociological and Economic Assessment) and TAC (Total Allowable Catch) studies in 4 Project sites undertaken.

REA-1, REA-II, SEA-1, SEA II, and TAC studies conducted in 5 sites.

CFRM plans developed in 4 sites. CFRM plans prepared for 5 sites in addition to management plans for specific fisheries.

In Tegal, water quality and biological parameters in shrimp/fish ponds and mangrove areas have improved significantly, e.g. increase in benthic density by almost 100% and increase in saprobity index from 0.82 to 1.48.

Four marine protected areas (MPAs) established. Two MPAs covering 1,317 ha established in East Lombok.

Illegal fishing in the MPAs has been minimized and fish density and diversity has increased in the areas.

Eight fish sanctuaries (FSs) established. Ten FSs established covering a total of 453.23 ha.

In Tegal, the number of fish species has increased from 72 to 84.

50 ha of protected coral reefs established. 177 ha of protected coral reefs established.

In Tegal, five coral cover has increased from 20-40% to 25-45%.

25 clusters of artificial reefs (AR) established. 21 clusters composed of a total of 2,486 units of ARs established.

In East Lombok, barnacles, mollusk, some species of algae, and soft corals have been observed to grow on the substrate of newly deployed ARs.

2,000 ha of mangrove areas rehabilitated. 300.7 ha mangrove areas newly planned and 1,506.2 ha of mangrove areas managed by community groups.

-In Bengkalis, the annual mangrove degradation rate of 0.59% is lower than the projected rate of 1.45%. Project interventions have saved about 286 ha of mangrove area. -In Bengkalis, 9 community groups have been formed for the management of 243.4 ha of mangroves. -In Tegal, the mangrove cover in Muarareja has increased by 28% and by 2% in Mintaragen and Panggung. Several community groups have started to prepare mangrove nurseries at their own expense. -In Banyuwangi, the number of mangrove crab collectors

AR = artificial reef, CFRM = coastal fisheries resource management, FS = fish sanctuary, ha = hectare, MPA = marine protected area, REA = resources and ecological assessment, SEA = sociological and economic assessment, TAC = total allowable catch. Source: ADB staff assessments.

72 Appendix 11

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES A. Introduction 1. A financial analysis of representative microenterprise projects and an economic analysis of the Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resource Management Project (the Project) as a whole were carried out. The analyses were based on information obtained from field visits by the project completion review mission, together with secondary data from project reports (report and recommendation of the president, accomplishments reports, review missions by the Asian Development Bank [ADB]) and from government agencies, including the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF), BAPPENAS, and consultants working on the Coral Reef Management and Rehabilitation Project Phase II (COREMAP II) project. The Government’s project completion report (PCR)1 and the report by the consultants on the ADB-financed project preparatory technical assistance (PPTA) for the proposed Integrated Coastal Fisheries Resource Management Project (ICFRMP)2 provided key information, data and analyses for both the financial analyses of the microenterprise projects and the economic analysis of the whole project. B. Financial Analysis 2. The government PCR presents financial analyses of 34 different microenterprises in the five project sites, covering shrimp, caged fish and lobster cultivation, fish and shrimp processing of varied kinds (filleted, dried, smoked, crackers, paste, parboiled, jerky), pole and line fishing, seaweed culture, and a few non-marine based activities. The report provided only summary details of the analyses and the mission could verify only a few of these due to time constraints, but the rates of return for the enterprises are very consistent with the 28 microenterprise analyses presented in the ICFRMP PPTA, and that report presents the analyses in much more detail, giving confidence in the calculated rates of return in both reports. The analyses presented below are thus based on the two reports and the mission’s verification. 3. Livelihood microenterprises were included in the Project to provide alternative and/or supplementary sources of income for target fisherfolk and coastal community households to reduce fishing pressure. Income generated by households from these income-augmenting activities served as the basis for estimating the quantified benefits from successfully established livelihood microenterprises. These enterprises generally required minimal capital investments and were easy to implement given the limited skills, types of available resources, and low level of education of the prospective investors. Data on specific enterprises is not readily available; the examples summarized in Table 1 below, and included in more detail in profiles in Table 5, are from more recently established microenterprises, and the data is projected from time of establishment. 4. The period covered is 6–7 years, including the year of establishment. The analysis indicates that almost all of the enterprises are financially very sound and viable, with rates of return varying from 20% to over 40%, with returns for caged lobster and grouper culture enterprises over 100%. It is typical of microenterprise projects to exhibit very high financial internal rates of return (FIRR) values, mainly due to low capital investment and production costs relative to high revenues. These are highly volatile, however, and subject to changes in output prices and production costs, with returns possibly differing greatly between years

1 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 2005. Coastal Community and Fisheries Resources Management

Project (ADB Loan nos. 1570/1571(SF)-INO – Project Completion Report. Jakarta (December). 2 ADB, 2004. Preparing the Integrated Coastal Fisheries Resource Management in Indonesia. Manila (TA 4373-

INO).

Appendix 11 73

and by location. For example, the shrimp culture enterprise chosen from Bengkalis has a significantly higher rate of return than the shrimp culture enterprise in Banyuwangi. The examples below include surimi, which is an increasingly popular enterprise, particularly in Lombok. Surimi is a semi-processed raw fish paste (containing leached water and minced, de-boned fish) that is simple to make, and is used in processed fish products such as fish balls, fish cakes, crab sticks, etc. It targets the Japanese market, which first developed the process.

Table A11.1: Summary Financial Analyses of Selected Microenterprises Type of Microenterprise Project Site Location FIRR(%) Shrimp Culture Bengkalis 59 Shrimp Culture Banyuwangi 37 Shrimp Paste Bengkalis and Tegal 37 Fish Crackers Bengkalis 23 Shrimp Crackers Bengkalis 19 Fish Fillets Tegal 65 Smoked Fish Tegal 30 Shredded Spicy Fish (Fish Jerky) Lombok 47 Parboiled Fish (Dried Product) Trenggalek 41 Parboiled Fish (Wet Product) Trenggalek 29 Lobster Culture Lombok 140 Grouper Culture Lombok 167 Seaweed Culture Banyuwangi 243 Pole-and-line fishing Lombok 49 Surimi Lombok 42 FIRR = financial internal rate of return. Source: PRIMEX Inc. 2006. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management in Indonesia (ADB TA 4373-INO) – Final Report. Manila. (July). C. Economic Analysis 5. The economic analysis follows ADB’s Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects. The analysis draws upon both the government PCR and the ICFRMP PPTA (footnotes 1 and 2), with the analysis in the government PCR being revised in part using data and approach from the PPTA, where this adds to the robustness of the analysis (the government PCR is somewhat brief in its explanations and assumptions, leaving some parts unclear). Economic costs were based on estimated project intervention investments, as derived from the government PCR and substantiated by the Government. Incremental economic benefit streams were calculated by comparing current and future streams of economic benefits and costs under “with Project” and “without Project” scenarios. These streams represent the incremental economic benefits derived from project interventions including: (i) improved coastal fisheries resource management (CFRM), particularly for mangroves but also coral reefs; (ii) rehabilitation of coastal resources, including mangroves and coral reefs; (iii) awareness and education programs and strengthened community and local government monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the Project coastal areas; (iv) establishment of alternative livelihood microenterprises; (v) provision of improved fishery infrastructure facilities including handling and cold and/or cool storage facilities; and (vi) social infrastructure. 6. Not all benefits under the Project are quantifiable, and in particular the externalities of the awareness and community resource management activities, which have been replicated elsewhere—the Project was the first to involve communities in coastal resource monitoring, surveillance and management programs, with the learning process naturally taking longer than in new projects where lessons from this Project have been successfully adopted.

74 Appendix 11

7. The economic analysis of the whole Project is based on a 7 to 8-year implementation period and an economic life of 20 years. Financial costs (drawn from the government PCR) and benefits were expressed in economic constant terms using domestic price numeraire based on a shadow exchange rate of 1.11 (standard conversion factor [SCF] = 0.90) of the prevailing market exchange rate of Rp10,000 = $1. The local currency component of the costs was adjusted by the SCF, while the foreign exchange component was taken at its full value. Investment costs in the economic analysis included physical contingencies, but exclude price contingencies, taxes, duties, and subsidies. The Project commenced in 1998 and was completed in 2005. Benefits and costs over this period were projected in Indonesian rupiah (Rp), expressed in 2005 constant prices. 8. Benefits from Mangrove and Coral Reef Management. Interventions implemented under the CFRM component of the Project were intended to reduce pressure from human activities that pose major threats to the integrity of coral reefs and mangroves. Although these threats have not and were not expected to be entirely eliminated, it was envisaged that their frequency and severity would be substantially reduced under the Project. The economic analysis of this component is based on the methodology used in the ICFRMP PPTA, which covered all five project sites (plus nine other sites). The valuation of benefits from improved management and rehabilitation of coastal resources, such as coral reefs and mangroves, was based mainly on the types of products that are derived by coastal communities from the use of these resources. 9. Mangroves are highly productive forests that grow along tropical tidal mudflats and coastal areas, extending inland along rivers, streams, and their tributaries, generally in brackish water. Mangrove ecosystems have extremely high natural productivity in terms of the growth of plants and associated organisms. Much of the productivity of mangroves results in products useful to people, and thus produces economic benefits. Over the period 1980–2000, Indonesia’s total mangrove area declined at an annual rate of 5–10%.3 This rate of decline has certainly decreased over the last 5 years as a consequence of greater awareness of the need to conserve these ecosystems. Coral reefs in Indonesia are risk from continuing human activities (e.g., destructive fishing methods and uncontrolled extractive uses) that have degraded these ecosystems. The condition of Indonesia’s coral reefs has deteriorated from good or excellent to poor at a rate of 3.5% of the country’s reefs annually4 as a consequence of these activities. It has been estimated that it will take about 40 years for a coral reef that has been severely damaged due to dynamite fishing to regain 50% of its original productivity.5 10. The quantifiable benefits from mangroves and coral reefs used in the analysis comprise (i) fisheries; (ii) local uses, such as firewood and building materials; (iii) erosion control functions; and (iv) global biodiversity values. 6 The analysis, following the PPTA 3 A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) regression analysis for the period 1980–2000

indicated an average 5%–10% decline in mangrove areas in the whole of Indonesia. However, based on interviews with key persons, the rate is thought to have declined to 4% per year due to (i) a greater awareness among coastal communities of the importance of conserving mangroves and (ii) stricter regulations imposed by local governments on the exploitation of mangroves.

4 This rate was applied in the economic analysis undertaken during the project appraisal: ADB. 1997. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loans to the Republic of Indonesia for the Coastal Community Development and Fisheries Resource Management Project. Manila (Loans 1570/1571 [SF] – INO, approved on 4 November).

5 McAlister, D. 1989. Environment, Economic and Social Cost of Coral Reef Destruction in the Philippines. Nishihara, Okinawa, Japan: Sesoko Marine Science Center, University of Ryukyus.

6 Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms: the different plants, animals and microorganisms, the genes they contain, and the ecosystems they form. This living wealth is the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history. The process of evolution means that the pool of living diversity is dynamic: it increases when new genetic variation is produced, a new species is created or a novel ecosystem formed; it decreases when the genetic variation within a species decreases, a species becomes extinct or an ecosystem complex is lost. The concept emphasizes the interrelated nature of the living world and

Appendix 11 75

methodology, uses reference values derived from documents prepared by AMSAT. 7 It should be noted, however, that no erosion control values were attributed to coral reefs. The coral reef reference values were then adjusted from their 1998 financial values to 2005 terms using the World’s Bank MUV index, and then expressed in 2005 economic constant terms using a domestic price numeraire based on a shadow exchange rate of 1.11 (or SCF = 0.90) of the prevailing market exchange rate of Rp10,000 = $1. It should be noted that global/biodiversity values are difficult, if not impossible, for countries to capture and that national governments seldom obtain more than 10% of these values. For purposes of the economic analysis, only 10% of the estimated global/biodiversity value of coral reefs was applied. The reference values thus derived are presented in Table A11.2 below for coral reefs, and in Table A11.3 for mangroves.

Table A11.2: Economic Reference Values of Coral Reefs, in 2005 Values Condition of Coral Reef

Good-xcellent Fair Poor

Total Value of Coral Reef by Function

Value Function ($/ha/yr) ($/ha/yr) ($/ha/yr) ($/ha/yr)

Fishery Use 218 93 48 359 Local Use 27 11 6 44 Erosion Control – – – – Global/ Biodiversity Value 572 245 126 943 (Rpmillion/ha/yr) (Rpmillion/ha/yr) (Rpmillion/ha/yr) (Rpmillion/ha/yr) Fishery Use 2.180 0.932 0.481 3.594 Local Use 0.268 0.115 0.059 0.442 Erosion Control – – – – Global/ Biodiversity Value 5.722 2.447 1.263 9.432 Note: Total values are based on AMSAT, Ltd., April 2002 (footnote 7) and are expressed in 1998 terms. The function values for coral reefs in various conditions are based on the estimated proportion of the total value accruing to each particular type using the following distribution:

(i) "Good - Excellent" coral reef - 61% of the total value of each type of function (i.e. fishery use, local use, erosion control, or global biodiversity). (ii) "Fair" coral reef - 26% of the total value of each type of function. Source: PRIMEX Inc. 2006. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management in Indonesia (ADB TA 4373-INO) – Final Report. Manila. (July) .

Table A11.3: Economic Reference Values for Mangroves, in 2005 Values

Function $/ha/yr Rp million/ha/yr

Fishery Use 1,041 10.406

Local Use 376 3.760

Erosion Control 2,779 27.790

Global/Biodiversity Value 79 0.793 ha = hectare, Rp = rupiah, yr = year. Source: AMSAT, Ltd., April 2002 (see footnote 7), quoted in: PRIMEX Inc. 2006. Coastal Fisheries Resource

Management in Indonesia (ADB TA 4373–INO) – Final Report. Manila. (July).

its processes. Biological diversity is usually considered at three different levels: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity.

7 Australian Marine Science and Technology, Ltd. (AMSAT). 2002. Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management, Phase II – Final Report (ADB TA 3001-INO). Jakarta (April).

76 Appendix 11

11. The expected incremental benefits derived by the Project from effective CFRM activities refer to the difference between the estimated economic value of coral reef and mangrove areas under the “with Project” and “without Project” scenarios. This difference simply represents the value of coral reef and mangrove areas saved due to effective implementation of CFRM activities in the Project area. Coral reefs are deteriorating at 3% to 3.5% per year and mangroves by 4% per year (studies of specific reefs have reportedly shown increases in coral growth, but data was not available for the project completion review mission). Effective implementation of CFRM is expected to reduce these rates of decline by 50%, resulting in declines of 1.5% and 2%, respectively. The ICFRMP PPTA used these reference values and deterioration rates in deriving the “with Project” and “without Project” scenarios for the whole ICFRMP area, including the Project’s 5 sites. This PCR has used these values, adjusting the hectare coverage to that completed under the Project. These are included in Table A11.4 below. 12. The PPTA also calculated benefits for mangroves and coral reefs that were to be rehabilitated. Regeneration takes time; by project completion, the fishery and local use values of coral reefs in the MPAs are expected to increase by 12% from the current value of about 50% of their original (healthy condition) to about 62%. 8 Benefits from mangrove replanting commence after 8–10 years, and mangroves are expected to reach 60% of their original value. For this PCR, benefits from mangrove rehabilitation are shown separately in Table A11.4 below. Benefits from coral reef rehabilitation are included within resource rehabilitation calculations as the PCR combines these activities with the awareness and education campaigns and monitoring and surveillance activities and does not specify hectares of reefs rehabilitated (coverage of reefs managed is specified). Thus this benefit may be underestimated. The reduction in illegal and destructive fishing as a result of the community awareness and MCS activities is hard to estimate. A reduction of 50% was recorded in some project areas, but the PCR, following the PPTA, adopted 30% as a more realistic overall result; the pre-project estimated catches from illegal and destructive fishing are over 12,000 tons, valued at Rp1.296 million per ton. 13. Estimates of the incremental economic benefits from the established alternative livelihood microenterprises were based on the financial benefits generated by these activities. The assumptions behind the analysis in the government PCR are not clear and thus the project completion review mission adopted the ICFRMP methodology. Financial benefits and costs of alternative microenterprises were estimated in constant end-year 2005 terms. Financial revenues were calculated from estimated financial “farmgate” prices and potential “yields” of the microenterprises. “Farmgate” prices of the different commodities were estimated taking into consideration the (i) price effects of an increased supply of these commodities, and (ii) reduction in transportation costs associated with improved infrastructure. For the financial analysis, the cost of hired labor was included in the enterprise budget analysis, while for the economic analysis, both family labor and hired labor were included. A shadow wage rate of 0.65 was used to convert the cost of unskilled labor wages into economic values. The PPTA calculated incremental benefits for enterprises in all its 14 project sites, including the Project’s five sites, covering varied enterprises. The PCR has adjusted these for the project sites, based on the different type and number of enterprises established. Many of these enterprises are relatively new and productivity increases are expected as they mature. The incremental benefit stream for microenterprises thus assumes a small yearly increase of 3% in net benefits for the first 5 years of operations.

8 Alcala, A. C. and E. D. Gomez. 1979. Recolonization and Growth of Hermatypic Corals in Dynamite-blasted

Coral Reefs in the Central Visayas, Philippines. Proc. Int. Symp. Biogeogr. Evol. South Hemisphere, 2:645-661. The study indicated that it takes about 40 years for damaged coral reefs to regain 50% of their original healthy state and to be productive again.

Appendix 11 77

This is shown in Table A11.6, which summarizes the entire project cost and incremental benefit streams.

Table A11. 4: Incremental Benefits from Mangrove Management and Rehabilitation, Coral Reef Management, and Resource Rehabilitation Activities

(including IEC and MCS) (Rp million)

Mangrove Management and Rehabilitation Resource Rehabilitation

Year Mgt Rehab Total Coral Mgt Rehab, IEC, MCSa Total

2001 981 981 163 1892 2,055 2002 1,898 1898 313 3154 3,467 2003 2,755 2755 452 5047 5,499 2004 3,850 3850 582 5678 6,260 2005 4,877 4877 700 6309 7,009 2006 5,839 5839 809 6309 7,118 2007 6,739 4 6743 909 6309 7,218 2008 7,580 20 7600 1001 6309 7,310 2009 8,352 37 8389 1086 6309 7,395 2010 9,100 53 9153 1163 6309 7,472 2011 9,781 70 9851 1234 6309 7,543 2012 10,415 87 10502 1299 6309 7,608 2013 11,003 104 11107 1357 6309 7,666 2014 11,547 122 11669 1410 6309 7,719 2015 12,050 139 12189 1501 6309 7,810 2016 12,513 158 12671 1540 6309 7,849 2017 12,940 167 13107 1574 6309 7,883

IEC = information and education campaign, MCS = monitoring, control and surveillance, Mgt = management, Rehab = rehabilitation. a Includes reduction in destructive fishing practices resulting from IEC and MCS. Source: PRIMEX Inc. 2006. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management in Indonesia (ADB TA 4373-INO) – Final Report. Manila. (July). 14. Table A11.6 also shows incremental benefits from improvements made at the fish landing centers under the Project, as calculated in the Government’s PCR. Post-harvest and handling losses in the project area are mainly attributed to the lack of, or poor, fish handling and cold storage facilities as well as unsanitary conditions under which fish are transferred from fishing boats to auction halls and traders. Moreover, the lack of proper landing facilities prolongs delivery time and effort by fishers which, in turn, significantly contributes to these losses. These losses vary among the ports, and result in reductions between of 15% to 50%. Table A11.6 also shows the benefits of the social infrastructure provided under the Project, as calculated in the Government’s PCR. This includes benefits from improved water and sanitation facilities, including public toilets, rainwater collection tanks and artesian wells, and other facilities such as meeting halls and roads. 15. Based on the above, and as shown in A11.Table 6, an EIRR for the Project of 12% has been calculated. This compares with the appraisal report calculation of 19% and the midterm review calculation of 26%. The main difference appears to be in the benefits calculated for improvements in fish quality, which are lower in the PCR. The government PCR calculates an EIRR of 24%, but the project completion review mission believes that the benefits from the microenterprise component have been overestimated. 16. A sensitivity test was conducted on the analysis. The EIRR has assumed a project life of 20 years, from 1998 to 2017. Project expenditures are complete, while the benefit stream has slowly built up from commencement to 2007, and is projected for only a further

78 Appendix

11

10 years. The resultant project EIRR is thus not very sensitive to price and other changes. The microenterprise activities are the most likely to be influenced by price volatility, but a drop of 20% in expected benefits from these activities results in only a slight reduction in the EIRR (from 12% to 11%). An overall drop of 10% in all benefits also reduces the EIRR to 11%, while a 20% drop reduces it to 10%.

A

ppendix 11 79

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 130,428,937 206,195,000 308,000,000 (130,428,937) 2004 144,341,000 (144,341,000)2005 206,195,000 308,000,000 101,805,000 2005 42,468,000 126,000,000 83,532,0002006 206,195,000 308,000,000 104,378,937 2006 42,468,000 126,000,000 77,778,5002007 104,378,937 206,195,000 308,000,000 (2,573,937) 2007 77,778,500 42,468,000 126,000,000 5,753,5002008 206,195,000 308,000,000 101,805,000 2008 42,468,000 126,000,000 83,532,0002009 206,195,000 308,000,000 101,805,000 2009 42,468,000 126,000,000 83,532,000

1 077,414,111 31,952,516

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 116,608,450 (116,608,450) 2004 31,296,825 (31,296,825)2005 66,393,600 130,000,000 63,606,400 2005 13,781,000 30,000,000 16,219,0002006 66,393,600 130,000,000 98,849,100 2006 13,781,000 30,000,000 16,219,0002007 98,849,100 66,393,600 130,000,000 (35,242,700) 2007 26,250,000 13,781,000 30,000,000 (10,031,000)2008 66,393,600 130,000,000 63,606,400 2008 13,781,000 30,000,000 16,219,0002009 66,393,600 130,000,000 63,606,400 2009 13,781,000 30,000,000 16,219,000

0 FIRR = 23.11%23,460,537 (433,800)

NPV@24% NPV@24%

C. Shrimp paste (Bengkalis/Tegal) D. Fish Crackers (Bengkalis)

FIRR =NPV@24% NPV@24%

Table A11.5: Summary Financial Analyses of Selected Microenterprises

A. Shrimp Culture (Bengkalis) B. Shrimp Culture (Banyuwangi)

FIRR = FIRR =

80 A

ppendix 11

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 10,587,500 (10,587,500) 2004 45,921,750 (45,921,750)2005 9,975,000 15,000,000 5,025,000 2005 167,013,000 200,000,000 32,987,0002006 9,975,000 15,000,000 5,025,000 2006 167,013,000 200,000,000 32,987,0002007 7,875,000 9,975,000 15,000,000 (2,850,000) 2007 2,461,250 167,013,000 200,000,000 30,525,7502008 9,975,000 15,000,000 5,025,000 2008 167,013,000 200,000,000 32,987,0002009 9,975,000 15,000,000 5,025,000 2009 167,013,000 200,000,000 32,987,000

0 1(743,775) 34,959,154

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 15,740,000 (15,740,000) 2004 64,300,000 (64,300,000)2005 52,500,000 60,000,000 7,500,000 2005 213,800,000 250,000,000 36,200,0002006 52,500,000 60,000,000 14,532,500 2006 213,800,000 250,000,000 36,200,0002007 14,532,500 52,500,000 60,000,000 (7,032,500) 2007 4,200,000 213,800,000 250,000,000 32,000,0002008 52,500,000 60,000,000 7,500,000 2008 213,800,000 250,000,000 36,200,0002009 52,500,000 60,000,000 7,500,000 2009 213,800,000 250,000,000 36,200,000

0 01,453,192 26,516,185

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 2,842,886,000 (2,842,886,000) 2004 75,677,750 (75,677,750)2005 11,352,144,000 12,960,000,000 1,607,856,000 2005 429,324,000 450,000,000 20,676,0002006 11,352,144,000 12,960,000,000 2,840,586,000 2006 429,324,000 450,000,000 63,780,3692007 2,840,586,000 11,352,144,000 12,960,000,000 (1,232,730,000) 2007 2,023,750 429,324,000 450,000,000 18,652,2502008 11,352,144,000 12,960,000,000 1,607,856,000 2008 429,324,000 450,000,000 20,676,0002009 11,352,144,000 12,960,000,000 1,607,856,000 2009 429,324,000 450,000,000 20,676,000

0 0712,233,145 6,498,327

E. Shrimp Crackers (Bengkalis) F. Fish Fillets (Tegal)

FIRR = FIRR =NPV@24% NPV@24%

FIRR = FIRR =

G. Smoked Fish (Tegal) H. Shredded-spicy Fish (Fish Jerky) (Lombok)

NPV@24% NPV@24%

I. Parboiled Fish (Dried Product) (Trenggalek) J. Parboiled Fish (Wet Product) (Trenggalek)

FIRR = FIRR =NPV@24% NPV@24%

Appendix 11

81

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 45,753,750 (45,753,750) 2004 87,157,088 (87,157,088)2005 32,628,750 97,500,000 64,871,250 2005 47,840,625 240,000,000 192,159,3752006 32,628,750 97,500,000 64,871,250 2006 47,840,625 240,000,000 253,0502007 1,050,000 32,628,750 97,500,000 63,821,250 2007 253,050 47,840,625 240,000,000 191,906,3252008 32,628,750 97,500,000 64,871,250 2008 47,840,625 240,000,000 192,159,3752009 32,628,750 97,500,000 64,871,250 2009 47,840,625 240,000,000 192,159,375

1 2106,283,917 254,397,210

YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp) YearCapital Investment

(Rp)Production Cost

(Rp)Revenue

(Rp)Net Benefit

(Rp)2004 36,251,750 (36,251,750) 2004 18,375,000 (18,375,000)2005 39,910,500 178,200,000 138,289,500 2005 34,650,000 45,000,000 10,350,0002006 39,910,500 178,200,000 (97,832,547) 2006 34,650,000 45,000,000 10,350,0002007 20,675,000 39,910,500 178,200,000 117,614,500 2007 34,650,000 45,000,000 10,350,0002008 39,910,500 178,200,000 138,289,500 2008 34,650,000 45,000,000 10,350,0002009 39,910,500 178,200,000 138,289,500 2009 34,650,000 45,000,000 10,350,000

2 0144,352,409 8,096,555

FIRR = FIRR =

K. Lobster Culture (Lombok) L. Grouper Culture (Lombok)

NPV@24% NPV@24%

NPV@24% NPV@24%

M. Seaweed Culture (Banyuwangi) N. Pole-and-Line (Lombok)

FIRR= FIRR=

82 O. Financial Analysis: Surmi (Lombok)

PriceItem Unit Quantity (Rp) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

1. Fixed costs Land m2 200 2,500 500,000 Workshop building building 1 15,000,000 15,000,000 Equipment set 1 26,790,000 26,790,000 Contingencies (5%) 2,114,500Total fixed costs 44,404,5002. Variable costs Fish kg 4,800 2,500 9,600,000 10,800,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 Salt kg 160 3,000 384,000 432,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 Ice block 480 7,000 2,688,000 3,024,000 3,360,000 3,360,000 3,360,000 3,360,000 Sugar kg 480 5,000 1,920,000 2,160,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 Labor person day 640 15,000 7,680,000 8,640,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 Packaging set 160 30,000 3,840,000 4,320,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 Miscellaneous costs amount/year 2,088,960 2,643,840 3,264,000 3,264,000 3,264,000 3,264,000 Repair and maintenance amount/month 12 88,104 845,800 951,525 1,057,250 1,057,250 1,057,250 1,057,250Total variable costs 29,046,760 32,971,365 36,961,250 36,961,250 36,961,250 36,961,2503. Revenue Surimi kg 2,560 25,000 51,200,000 57,600,000 64,000,000 64,000,000 64,000,000 64,000,0004. Total Revenue 51,200,000 57,600,000 64,000,000 64,000,000 64,000,000 64,000,0005. Net income before tax (44,404,500) 22,153,240 24,628,635 27,038,750 27,038,750 27,038,750 27,038,7506. Tax 15% 3,322,986 3,694,295 4,055,813 4,055,813 4,055,813 4,055,8137. Net Income after tax (44,404,500) 18,830,254 20,934,340 22,982,938 22,982,938 22,982,938 22,982,938FIRR 42%

Revenues and Expenses (Rp)

Appendix 11

P. Financial Analysis: Fish Jerky Lombok

PriceItem Unit Quantity (Rp) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

1. Fixed costs Land m2 45 2,750 123,750 Work shop building 1 16,500,000 16,500,000 Equipment set 1 9,069,500 9,069,500 Contingencies (5%) 1,284,663Total fixed costs 26,977,9132. Variable costs Fresh fish kg 800 8,250 5,280,000 5,940,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 Flavoring kg 400 4,400 1,408,000 1,584,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 Packing material amount/month 5 528,000 2,112,000 2,376,000 2,640,000 2,640,000 2,640,000 2,640,000 Labor person day 320 22,000 5,632,000 6,336,000 7,040,000 7,040,000 7,040,000 7,040,000 Miscellaneous costs amount/year 1,154,560 1,461,240 1,804,000 1,804,000 1,804,000 1,804,000 Repair and maintenance amount/month 12 53,270 511,390 575,314 639,238 639,238 639,238 639,238Total variable costs 16,097,950 18,272,554 20,483,238 20,483,238 20,483,238 20,483,2383. RevenueFish Jerky kg 640 60,000 30,720,000 34,560,000 38,400,000 38,400,000 38,400,000 38,400,0004. Total revenue 30,720,000 34,560,000 38,400,000 38,400,000 38,400,000 38,400,0005. Net income before tax (26,977,913) 14,622,050 16,287,446 17,916,763 17,916,763 17,916,763 17,916,7636. Tax 15% 2,193,308 2,443,117 2,687,514 2,687,514 2,687,514 2,687,5147. Net income after tax (26,977,913) 12,428,743 13,844,329 15,229,248 15,229,248 15,229,248 15,229,248FIRR 46%

Revenues and Expenses (Rp)

( ) = negative, FIRR = financial internal rate of return, kg = kilogram, m = meters, NPV = net present value, Rp = rupiah. Source: PRIMEX Inc. 2006. Coastal Fisheries Resource Management in Indonesia (ADB TA 4373-INO) – Final Report. Manila. (July).

Appendix 11

83

Table A11.6: Summary of Project Economic Analysis 84 (Rp million)

Project Total Mangrove Resources Micro Social Total NetYear Investment O&M Costs Mgt/Rehab Rehab enterprise FLC Infra Benefits Benefits

1998 9,581 9,581 (9,581)1999 12,764 12,764 188 188 (12,576)2000 28,683 28,683 209 209 (28,474)2001 68,565 68,565 981 2,055 5,646 2,942 11624 (56,941)2002 102,000 1,885 103,885 1,898 3,467 13,647 1,391 3,236 23639 (80,246)2003 75,976 6,768 82,744 2,755 5,499 19,221 3,146 3,560 34181 (48,563)2004 63,802 7,956 71,758 3,850 6,260 26,445 3,461 3,916 43932 (27,826)2005 14,791 1,413 16,204 4,877 7,009 29,178 3,807 4,301 49172 32,9682006 1,555 1,555 5,839 7,118 30,405 4,187 4,738 52287 50,7322007 1,569 1,569 6,743 7,218 31,317 4,606 5,212 55096.15 53,5272008 1,341 1,570 2,911 7,600 7,310 32,257 5,067 5,733 57966.66 55,0562009 1,787 1,570 3,357 8,389 7,395 33,224 5,573 6,306 60887.36 57,5302010 4,016 1,570 5,586 9,153 7,472 34,221 6,131 6,937 63914.1 58,3282011 9,599 1,570 11,169 9,851 7,543 34,221 6,744 7,631 67016.73 55,8482012 14,280 1,570 15,850 10,502 7,608 34,221 7,418 8,394 70227.16 54,3772013 10,637 1,570 12,207 11,107 7,666 34,221 8,160 9,233 73560.31 61,3532014 8,932 1,570 10,502 11,669 7,719 34,221 8,976 10,156 77036.14 66,5342015 2,071 1,570 3,641 12,189 7,810 34,221 9,873 11,172 80715.63 77,0752016 1,570 1,570 12,671 7,849 34,221 10,861 12,289 84531.78 82,9622017 1,570 1,570 13,107 7,883 34,221 11,947 13,518 88542.63 86,973

EIRR 12%

Appendix 11

( ) = negative, EIRR = economic internal rate of return, FLC = fish landing center, infra = infrastructure, mgt = management, O&M = operations and maintenance, rehab = rehabilitation. a Includes coral reef management and rehabilitation and reduction in destructive fishing practices resulting from information and education campaign (IEC) and monitoring,

control and surveillance (MCS). Source: ADB Staff estimates

Fisheries 5,659.5 5,928.4 6,248.5 6,601.1 6,736.9 7,145.8 7,502.9 7,857.5 8,160.9 8,483.0 13,635.7 10.22Livestock 6,451.4 6,799.5 7,133.3 7,483.1 6,439.7 6,836.9 7,061.3 7,312.7 7,485.2 7,745.2 12,119.8 7.66Estate Crops 9,471.6 9,912.0 10,354.9 10,496.6 10,501.8 10,702.0 10,722.0 11,331.9 11,807.6 12,417.2 14,166.9 4.18Food Crops 31,407.8 32,951.7 33,647.0 32,688.4 33,350.4 34,012.4 34,533.8 34,260.2 34,533.8 35,070.1 42,169.1 3.15Forestry 6,300.9 6,303.6 6,444.1 7,189.8 6,580.7 6,288.1 6,388.9 6,556.2 6,682.2 6,658.9 5,358.1 (1.28)National 354,640.8 383,792.3 413,797.9 433,245.9 376,374.9 379,352.5 398.016.9 411,753.6 426,943.0 444,453.5 504,881.9 3.82( ) = negative.a Preliminary estimate.b Very preliminary estimate.Source: Indonesian Statistics Berau (BPS), 1995-2005.

FISHERIES SECTOR STATISTICS

Table A12.1: GDP of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, and Fisheries (Rp billion)(at 1993 constant prices, 1994-2004)

Subsector 1994 1995 Annual Growth (%) 2000 20011996 2003a 2004b1997 1998 1999 2002

Appendix 12

85

86

Capture

Fishes 2,674,320 2,752,838 2,902,510 3,116,392 3,325,051 3,255,687 3,350,475 3,446,389 3,507,860 3,785,356 3,832,733 3.71 Crustaceans 196,275 203,411 207,079 238,521 243,889 262,351 272,787 297,462 273,512 289,004 291,665 4.20 Molluscs 92,790 98,445 101,229 109,603 98,954 103,460 105,857 161,574 171,897 147,779 172,735 7.62

6,345 126,661 11,095 22,466 8,337 37,794 35,360 26,605 64,506 96,354 14,431 227.35

110,438 111,575 161,543 125,979 47,515 23,152 42,712 34,450 55,731 64,610 8,677 (3.35)

Subtotal 3,080,168 3,292,930 3,383,456 3,612,961 3,723,746 3,682,444 3,807,191 3,966,480 4,073,506 4,383,103 4,320,241 8.48

Fishes 312,227 308,035 314,892 285,360 268,408 306,631 297,189 288,065 285,489 289,510 312,125 0.20 Crustaceans 18,338 16,322 16,270 14,829 16,607 17,874 17,269 17,141 15,605 15,350 14,310 (2.20)Molluscs 3,161 2,092 2,667 1,917 1,885 974 1,203 3,104 1,340 1,177 1,703 7.28

2,365 3,261 1,878 2,152 1,766 2,148 2,673 1,930 2,555 2,656 2,742 5.00

Subtotal 336,091 329,710 335,707 304,258 288,666 327,627 318,334 310,240 304,989 308,693 330,880 0.03 Total capture fishery 3,416,259 3,622,640 3,719,163 3,917,219 4,012,412 4,010,071 4,125,525 4,276,720 4,378,495 4,691,796 4,651,121 3.16 CultureMariculture — — — — — 135,969 197,114 221,010 234,859 249,242 420,919 27.67 Brackishwater pond 346,212 361,239 404,335 370,259 353,750 412,935 430,017 454,710 473,128 501,977 559,612 5.16 Freshwater pond 140,098 162,198 182,918 171,768 168,478 177,622 214,393 222,790 254,625 281,262 286,182 7.71 Cage 33,011 39,855 44,630 26,186 17,639 61,829 60,375 80,050 87,914 97,932 116,066 27.92 Paddy field 78,199 77,665 101,212 94,334 89,930 94,634 93,063 98,180 86,627 93,779 85,831 1.53 Total culture fishery 597,520 640,957 733,095 662,547 629,797 882,989 994,962 1,076,740 1,137,153 1,224,192 1,468,610 10.14

Others (aquatic animal)

Others (aquatic animal)

Marine Capture

Inland open water

Aquatic plants (seaweed)

1998 19991996 1997 2000

Table A12.2: Total Fish Production (t), by Type of Fishery, 1994-2004

Annual Growth

Rate (%) Type of Fishery 2001 2002 2003 20041994 1995

Appendix 12

( ) = negative. Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

CaptureMarine 1,850,244 1,957,678 2,055,034 2,087,802 2,274,680 2,409,029 2,486,456 2,562,945 2,572,042 3,311,821 2,346,782 3.35 Inland open water 465,543 505,559 483,920 508,626 454,712 481,025 618,405 723,555 474,431 545,776 588,507 3.86

Total Capture 2,315,787 2,463,237 2,538,954 2,596,428 2,729,392 2,890,054 3,104,861 3,286,500 3,046,473 3,857,597 2,935,289 3.14 Culture

Mariculture — — — — — — 29,604 39,880 65,624 67,735 81,377 30.66 Brackishwater pond 205,462 212,196 223,360 223,878 243,630 264,365 309,281 324,380 352,875 376,835 440,545 8.05 Freshwater pond 1,388,779 1,388,710 1,396,299 1,343,609 1,251,071 1,251,321 1,268,860 1,266,740 1,248,903 1,310,451 1,131,078 (1.90)Cage 29,731 44,803 39,425 49,975 53,436 53,842 63,524 70,490 63,910 79,187 110,004 15.56 Paddy field 440,149 459,112 470,444 435,265 257,333 308,286 510,381 489,430 538,852 550,000 696,351 7.84

Total culture 2,064,121 2,104,821 2,129,528 2,052,727 1,805,470 1,877,814 2,181,650 2,190,920 2,270,164 2,384,208 2,459,355 1.99 Total fishers/fishfarmers 4,379,908 4,568,058 4,668,482 4,649,155 4,534,862 4,767,868 5,286,511 5,477,420 5,316,637 6,241,805 5,394,644 2.41

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Average Growth

(%)

Table A12.3: Number of Fishers and Fishfarmers, 1994-2004

Type of Fishery 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

( ) = negative. Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

Appendix 12

87

88

A. Food 521,910 533,491 572,506 560,020 636,817 615,750 490,613 451,805 529,717 807,156 842,563 6.35Shrimp 99,532 94,551 100,230 93,043 142,689 109,650 116,187 128,830 124,765 137,636 139,450 4.94 Tuna 79,729 86,470 82,047 82,868 104,330 90,581 92,958 84,206 92,797 117,092 94,221 2.71 Others 342,649 352,470 390,229 384,109 389,798 415,519 281,468 238,769 312,155 552,428 608,892 9.06

B. Non-food 23,469 29,573 25,880 14,397 13,474 28,854 28,803 35,312 36,022 50,628 59,795 16.00 Seeweed 18,689 24,958 22,310 12,699 6,377 25,084 23,073 27,874 28,560 40,162 51,011 30.63 Pearl 103.50 68.40 0.37 58.31 73.82 73.50 9.21 21.75 5.87 12.22 1.71 1,563.70 Ornamental fish 3,232 3,254 2,479 810 192 2,778 2,709 2,682 3,514 3,378 3,516 120.79 Others 1,445 1,293 1,091 830 6,831 919 3,012 4,734 3,942 7,076 5,266 90.85

Total 545,379 563,064 598,386 574,417 650,291 644,604 519,416 487,117 565,739 857,784 902,358 6.52Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

Table A12.4: Export Volume (t) of Fisheries Products, 1994-2004

Description 1994 1995 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004Annual Growth

(%) 1998 1999 2000 2001

Appendix 12

A. Food 1,632,001 1,719,451 1,742,008 1,654,226 1,663,438 1,555,016 1,617,791 1,571,842 1,525,353 1,586,539 1,731,810 0.71Shrimp 1,009,738 1,037,006 1,017,892 1,011,135 1,011,467 888,982 1,002,124 934,989 836,563 850,222 887,127 (1.04)Tuna 182,200 212,783 192,980 189,433 215,134 189,386 223,916 218,991 212,426 213,179 243,937 3.51 Others 440,063 469,662 531,136 453,658 436,837 476,648 391,751 417,862 476,364 523,138 600,746 3.81

B. Non-food 46,721 44,340 43,790 31,942 88,653 50,405 57,283 60,057 45,000 57,005 49,020 10.71 Seeweed 9,029 16,263 18,962 10,522 59,366 16,284 15,670 17,230 15,785 20,511 25,296 49.49 Pearl 20,873 11,710 12,142 15,081 22,862 20,426 25,686 25,257 11,471 17,128 5,866 (2.20)Ornamental fish 9,140 9,607 8,530 3,159 1,122 11,401 13,585 14,603 15,054 15,809 15,809 81.73 Others 7,679 6,760 4,156 3,180 5,303 2,294 2,342 2,967 2,690 3,557 2,049 (5.47)

Total 1,678,722 1,763,791 1,785,798 1,686,168 1,752,091 1,605,421 1,675,074 1,631,899 1,570,353 1,643,544 1,780,830 0.73( ) = negative.Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

Table A12.5: Value of Fish Exports ($'000), 1994-2004

Description 1994 1995 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004Annual Growth

(%) 1998 1999 2000 2001

A. Food 14,016 14,487 16,355 23,853 15,016 32,762 49,986 42,814 46,774 41,334 57,365 21.79Fresh/ Frozen fish 10,552 10,454 9,768 11,876 4,425 4,423 23,682 12,657 18,920 24,788 22,585 41.18 Canned fish 562 371 495 735 1,046 354 914 976 1,495 2,473 2,350 30.27 Fish jelly 285 496 557 754 226 670 634 465 825 384 4,389 128.30 Others 2,617 3,166 5,535 10,488 9,319 27,315 24,756 28,716 25,534 13,689 28,041 42.13

B. Non-food 262,813 148,753 138,540 127,949 46,088 83,056 129,477 119,658 77,236 66,435 78,675 (2.44)Fish fat and oil 4,944 8,454 2,594 2,288 605 2,838 7,549 8,654 8,272 5,832 2,381 37.30 Fish meal 227,213 128,957 126,583 115,180 35,291 71,726 114,656 96,139 61,301 47,746 69,259 1.02 Non-fish meal 20,628 7,725 6,770 5,390 4,296 5,418 6,588 14,166 7,149 7,023 875 (9.17)Others 10,028 3,617 2,593 5,091 5,896 3,074 684 699 514 5,834 6,160 91.06

Total 276,829 163,240 154,895 151,802 61,104 115,818 179,463 162,472 124,010 107,769 136,040 1.66( ) = negative.Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

Table A12.6: Volume of Imported Fisheries Products (t), 1994-2004

Description 1994 1995 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 Annual Growth (%) 1998 1999 2000 2001

A. Food 18,032 21,041 22,622 33,630 19,290 34,417 48,193 42,951 44,670 49,543 99,336 25.32Fresh/ Frozen fish 1,659 9,146 7,333 8,841 4,852 8,080 15,240 10,254 12,278 26,103 17,831 63.00 Canned fish 1,365 805 1,251 1,689 2,574 628 859 1,414 1,650 3,606 2,744 23.89 Fish jelly 2,890 4,711 3,783 6,640 460 3,672 3,052 1,371 898 392 1,027 72.32 Others 12,118 6,379 10,255 16,460 11,404 22,037 29,042 29,912 29,844 19,442 77,734 43.60

B. Non-food 118,681 94,877 104,350 88,739 33,201 41,874 63,283 61,470 47,642 41,246 54,696 (1.65)Fish fat and oil 2,436 5,222 1,771 2,173 856 2,471 4,628 5,270 6,614 7,388 7,266 33.58 Fish meal 92,490 72,959 87,701 77,733 24,912 32,492 50,779 20,346 36,628 29,508 44,656 5.85 Non-fish meal 10,182 4,922 4,587 3,261 2,704 2,415 2,942 4,956 4,017 4,087 472 (13.05)Others 13,573 11,774 10,291 5,572 4,729 4,496 4,934 30,898 383 263 2,302 108.94

Total 136,713 115,918 126,972 122,369 52,491 76,291 111,476 104,421 92,312 90,789 154,032 7.51( ) = negative.Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

Table A12.7: Value of Imported Fisheries Products ($'000), 1994-2004

Description 1994 1995 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 Annual Growth (%) 1998 1999 2000 2001

Appendix 12

89

90

Total Export 1,678,722 1,763,791 1,785,798 1,686,168 1,752,091 1,605,421 1,675,074 1,631,899 1,570,353 1,643,544 1,780,830 0.73Total import 136,713 115,918 126,972 122,369 52,491 76,291 111,476 104,421 92,312 90,789 154,032 7.51Trade balance 1,542,009 1,647,873 1,658,826 1,563,799 1,699,600 1,529,130 1,563,598 1,527,478 1,478,041 1,552,755 1,626,798 0.70Source: Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia 2003, DGCF 2004 and Indonesia Aquaculture Statistics 2003, DGA 2004.

1999 2001 2002 20032000

Table A12.8: Balance of Trade in Fisheries Products, 1994-2000($'000)

Description Annual Growth (%) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2004

Appendix 12

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Marine fish Production (ton) 31,981 28,023 27,359 22,496 8,504 Declining trendValue of fish production (Rp million) 109,304 93,960 91,335 90,039 38,579 Declining trendBrackish water fish production (ton) 217 297 226 212 91 Declining trendValue of brackish fish production (Rp million) 1,830 1,970 1,332 1,315 523 Declining trendNumber of non-motorized boats 17 12 3 3 3 Declining trendNumber of outboard motor boats 564 413 418 418 418 Declining trendNumber of motorized boats (inboard) 472 633 636 611 611 Increasing trendSource: Tegal City Dalam Angka 2006.

Table A12.9: Fish Production Tegal City

Remarks

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Number of marine fishers 3,806 3,806 4,365 4,734 4,473 4,996 Increasing trendMarine fish production (ton) 14,506 57,492 66,978 14,280 14,550 Declining trendValue of marine fish production (Rp million) 21,858 164,403 265,235 101,850 92,083 Declining trendNumber of fresh water fishers 1,950 1,950 1,953 1,976 1,502 1,707 Declining trendFresh water fish production (ton) 244 347 540 562 464 868 Increasing trendValue of fresh water production (Rp million) 1,047 2,104 3,381 4,354 2,838 5,265 Increasing trendSource: Trenggalek Dalam Angka 2005-2006.

Table A12.10: Fish Production in Trenggalek District

Remarks

Appendix 12

91

Source: Lombok Timur Dalam Dangka 2006.

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Number of non-motorized boats 2,982 2,282 737 382 382 491 Declining trendNumber of outboard motor boats 1,972 1,976 1,982 2,088 2,091 3,055 Increasing trendNumber of inboard motor boats 189 189 217 341 341 345 Increasing trendMarine fish production (ton) 18,271 15,499 15,635 15,636 15,636 12,591 12,691 Declining trendTambak fish production (ton) 500 234 784 881 882 874 964 Increasing trendFish pond production (ton) 167 205 223 131 179 187 189 StagnantPlanted area of sea grass (ha) 40 41 41 41 45 45 47 Increasing trendProduction of sea grass (ton) 7,769 7,865 12,840 12,906 14,196 14,979 14,274 Increasing trendNumber of fishers 16,249

Table A12.11: Fish Production in Lombok Timur District

Remarks

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 RemarksMarine Fish ProductionIn Kab. Lombok Barat 13,242.00 13,460.00 14,031.00 14,150.00 13,793.00 StagnantIn Kab. Lombok Tengah 982.00 1,184.00 1,219.00 1,125.00 1,032.00 Increasing trend

In Kab. Lombok Timur 6,813.00 6,140.00 6,324.00 9,331.00 12,112.00

Increasing trend, inconsistent with district data

In Kab. Sumbawa 29,015.00 29,687.00 31,058.00 27,861.00 31,480.00 Increasing trendMarine Culture Production for NTB (ton)Mariculture 81,803.00 79,736.00 83,692.00 81,610.00 90,296.00 Increasing trendSeaweed 25,294.00 29,779.00 40,620.00 36,256.00 55,233.00 Increasing trendPearl culture 0.80 1.40 1.20 2.30 1.40 StagnantGrouper culture 124.00 193.00 158.00 121.00 Declining trendLobster culture 1.70 2.00 1.50 524.90 Increasing trend

Table A12.12: Fish Production in Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB)

Source: Nusa Tenggara Barat Dalam Angka 2006-2007.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND POVERTY DATA

92

Table A13.1: Basic Demographic Indicators in the Project Districts AppHouseholds Density Area

Male Female Total (HH) (persons/sq km) (sq km)Bengkalis 324,158 309,228 656,091 164,022 4.0 55 11,481.77 13 175Tegal 118,746 122,016 240,762 53,353 4.5 6,254 38.5 4 27Trenggalek 337,120 340,115 677,237 174,574 3.9 537 1,261.40 14 157Banyuwangi 758,268 772,758 1,531,026 435,926 3.5 265 5,782.50 21 217Lombok Timur 457,793 515,503 1,009,471 261,296 3.9 621 160,555 20 109

DistrictPopulation Number of

Sub-districtsNumber of

VillagesHH Size

endix 13

HH = household, km = kilometer, sq = square. Source: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). 2007. Kabupaten Dalam Angka 1999-2006.

Table A13.2: Poverty Line and Incidence of Poor in Population

Rp = rupiah. Source: Bada

DistrictPoverty Line

(Rp/capita/month)Poverty Incidence

(%)Number of Poor

PersonsBengkalis 155,860 10.87 70,600Tegal 126,516 20.53 297,200Trenggalek 104,008 24.09 161,500Banyuwangi 125,852 15.90 244,900Lombok Timur 118,740 26.83 274,100

n Pusat Statistik (BPS). 2007. Kabupaten Dalam Angka 1999-2006.

Table A13.3: Average Monthly Expenditure and Household Expenditures

Average Monthly Expenditure

District (Rp/capita/month) Poor Non-poorBengkalis 225,000 71.15 63.07 1.71 1.60Tegal 154,900 64.46 57.08 1.91 2.62Trenggalek 143,600 69.19 60 1.19 2.49Banyuwangi 152,100 62.37 56.22 1.33 2.87Lombok Timur 143,200 72.49 65.93 0.81 1.45

Percent of Income Spent on Food Percent Spent on Education

Percent Spent on Health

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). 2007. Kabupaten Dalam Angka 1999-2006.

Table A13.4: Human Poverty Indicators, All Districts

Bengkalis 10.6 4.7 70.8 49.9 13.8 283Tegal 15.1 17.2 53.2 24.0 32.1 210Trenggalek 9.7 12.0 38.5 26.4 21.7 104Banyuwangi 18.0 17.2 52.8 18.5 26.0 177Lombok Timur 31.8 24.5 58.1 21.3 38.5 295

DistrictMalnourished

children under 5Human Poverty

Index Rank

Percentage of

People not expected to

survive to age 40

Illiteracy rate 15 years old and

above

Population without access to

clean water

Population without access to

health facilities

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). 2007. Kabupaten Dalam Angka 1999-2006. A

ppendix 13 93

Table A13.5: Human and Gender and Development Indicators 94

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female MaleBengkalis 71.1 67.1 94.7 96.0 7.6 8.8 13.5 86.5 27.9 72.1 77 308Tegal 68.0 64.2 75.4 90.6 4.9 6.4 28.6 71.4 40.6 59.4 262 205Trenggalek 71.7 67.8 82.0 94.2 5.8 6.9 25.7 74.3 40.8 59.2 99 155Banyuwangi 66.3 62.5 75.9 90.0 5.2 6.7 16.9 83.1 38.6 61.4 279 327Lombok Timur 59.3 55.9 72.3 79.4 3.9 5.9 44.4 55.6 44.6 55.4 334 337

Income(%)

Proportion of Labor Force(%)

District HDI Rank GDI Rank

VariablesLife Expectancy

(Years)Adult Literacy

(%)Mean Years of Schooling

(Years)

GDI = gender-related development index, HDI = human development index.

Appendix 13

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). 2007. Kabupaten Dalam Angka 1999-2006.

Table A13.6: Per Capita Income in the Project Districts/City

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Bengkalis, Riau 1,517,722 1,170,826 1,196,693 1,235,259Tegal City, Central Java 3,342,730 3,488,637 3,680,075Trenggalek, East Java 2,006,102 2,058,807 2,131,320 2,220,373Banyuwangi, East Java 1,161,587 1,205,858 3,325,056 3,753,350 3,829,345Lombok Timur, NTB 1,894,726 1,917,219 1,965,988 2,055,883 2,131,549

Districts/CityPer Capita Income (Rp) in Constant 2000 Prices

NTB = Nusa Tenggara Barat, Rp = Rupiah. Source: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). 2007. Kabupaten Dalam Angka 1999-2006.