document of the world bank for official use...
TRANSCRIPT
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 66050-VN
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A
PROPOSED CREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR64.6 MILLION
(US$100 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO THE
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
FOR
COASTAL RESOURCES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
April 12, 2012
Vietnam Sustainable Development Unit
Sustainable Development Department
East Asia and Pacific Region
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the
performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World
Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective as of March 31, 2012)
Currency Unit = VND Vietnamese Dong
VND 20,780 = US$1
US$1.550 = SDR 1
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAA Analytical Advisory Activities AMT Aligned Monitoring Tool
APMB Agricultural Projects Management Board CCC Commune Co-management Committee CPS Country Partnership Strategy CRSD Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development
CSC Central Steering Committee
DAH Department of Animal Health DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DECAFIREP Department of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection
DOA Department of Aquaculture
DOF Directorate of Fisheries DONRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DPC District People Committee DRC District Resettlement Committee ECOP Environmental Code of Practice EMDP Ethnic Minority Development Plan EMP Environmental Management Plan EMPF Ethnic Minority Policy Framework ERR Economic Rate of Return ESMF Environment and Social Management Framework EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FM Financial Management GAP
GTAP Good Aquaculture Practices
Governance, Transparency and Anticorruption Plan GEF Global Environment Facility IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICB International Competitive Bidding ICD International Cooperation Department IDA International Development Association IUU illegal, unregulated and unreported M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MCS
MOLISA monitoring, control and surveillance
Ministry of Labor, Invalids, and Social Affairs MPA Marine Protected Area
MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment NCB National Competitive Bidding NPV Net Present Value
OM Operational Manual
ORAF Operational Risk Assessment Framework
PCRA Procurement Capacity and Risk Management
PCU Project Central Unit PDO Project Development Objective PPC Provincial People‟s Committee PPMU Provincial Project Management Unit PSC
RAP Provincial Steering Committee
Resettlement Action Plan RIA Research Institute for Aquaculture RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SDR Special Drawing Rights
SEA Strategic Environment Assessment SIL Specific Investment Loan
SPF Specific Pathogen Free
TOR Terms of Reference
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
VASI Vietnam Administration for Seas and Islands
VDR Vietnam Development Report
Regional Vice President: Pamela Cox
Country Director: Victoria Kwakwa
Sector Director: John A. Roome
Sector Manager: Jennifer J. Sara
Task Team Leader: Binh Thang Cao
VIET NAM
Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................1
A. Country and Sectoral Context ....................................................................................... 1
B. Sectoral Technical and Institutional Issues ................................................................... 2
C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes .......................................... 3
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES (PDO) ....................................................4
A. PDO............................................................................................................................... 4
B. Project Beneficiaries ..................................................................................................... 4
C. PDO Level Results Indicators ....................................................................................... 5
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5
A. Project Components ...................................................................................................... 5
B. Project Financing .......................................................................................................... 7
C. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design .................................................. 7
IV. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................8
A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements .......................................................... 8
B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................ 11
C. Sustainability............................................................................................................... 11
V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................11
A. Risk Ratings Summary ............................................................................................... 11
B. Description .................................................................................................................. 11
VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................12
A. Economic and Financial Analyses .............................................................................. 12
B. Technical ..................................................................................................................... 13
C. Financial Management ................................................................................................ 13
D. Procurement ................................................................................................................ 14
E. Social........................................................................................................................... 14
F. Environment ................................................................................................................ 15
G. Mainstreaming Governance and Gender .................................................................... 16
Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring .........................................................................18
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................21
Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ..................................................................................26
Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework ................................................................38
Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan ....................................................................................41
Annex 6: Mainstreaming Marine Spatial Planning, Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use.............................................................................................................................44
Annex 7. Key Guiding Principles for Participatory Co-management ....................................46
Annex 8: Guiding Principles on Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance ...............................49
Annex 9: Financial and Economic Analysis ..............................................................................52
PAD DATA SHEET
Vietnam
Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
.
East Asia and Pacific East Region
Sustainable Development Department
.
Basic Information
Date: April 12, 2012 Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (90%);
General public administration sector (10%).
Country Director: Victoria Kwakwa Themes: Environment and natural resources management (P);
Environmental policies and institutions (P);
Infrastructure services for private sector development (S)
Sector Manager: Jennifer J. Sara EA Category: B
Project ID: P118979
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan
Team Leader(s): Binh Thang Cao
Does the project include any CDD component? No
Joint IFC: No
.
Borrower: Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Responsible Agency: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)
Contact: Pham Quang Toan Title: Deputy Director General of the Agricultural
Projects Management Board (APMB)
Telephone No.: (84) 4 37920082 Email: [email protected]
.
Project Implementation
Period:
Start Date: August 1, 2012 End Date: July 31, 2017
Expected Effectiveness Date: October 10, 2012
Expected Closing Date: January 31, 2018
.
Project Financing Data(US$M)
[ ] Loan [ ] Grant [ ] Other
[ X ] Credit [ ] Guarantee
For Loans/Credits/Others
Total Project Cost : US$117.9 million Total Bank Financing : US$100.0 million
Total Co-financing : US$17.9 million Financing Gap : 0
.
Financing Source Amount(US$M)
BORROWER/RECIPIENT US$11.7M
Local Sources of Borrowing US$6.2M
IDA: New US$100.0M
Financing Gap 0.0
Total US$117.9M
.
Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)
Fiscal Year 13 14 15 16 17 18
Annual 5 10 20 30 25 10
Cumulative 5 15 35 65 90 100
.
Project Development Objective(s)
The project development objective is to improve the sustainable management of coastal fisheries in the Project Provinces.
.
Components
Component A: Institutional capacity strengthening for sustainable
fisheries management: (a) inter-sectoral planning of coastal areas; (b)
upgrading of Vietnam fisheries database; and (c) conducting selected policy
research.
US$5.3 million
Component B: Good practices for sustainable aquaculture: (a) improved
bio-security management; (b) improved seed quality management; and (c)
improved environmental management.
US$48.1 million
Component C: Sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries:
(a) co-management of near-shore capture fisheries; and (b) rehabilitation of
fishing ports and landing sites.
US$52.2 million
Component D: Project management, monitoring and evaluation: (a)
project management; and (b) monitoring and evaluation. US$12.3 million
.
Compliance
Policy
Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant respects? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
.
Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [X] No [ ]
.
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No
Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 X
Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 X
Forests OP/BP 4.36 X
Pest Management OP 4.09 X
Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 X
Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 X
Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 X
Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 X
Projects on International Waters OP/BP 7.50 X
Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 X
.
Legal Covenants
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
ARTICLE IV Yes By effectiveness N/A
Description of Covenant: There is one condition of effectiveness which is the approval of the Project Resettlement Policy
Framework by the Prime Minister.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. A.1 Yes July 1, 2012 On-going
Description of Covenant: Establishing and maintaining a Central Steering Committee for general technical and policy guidance.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. A.2 Yes By negotiations On-going
Description of Covenant: Maintaining a Project Coordination Unit in MARD provided with sufficient resources and staffed with
competent personnel in adequate numbers.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. A.4 Yes July 1, 2012 On-going
Description of Covenant: Establishing and maintaining a Provincial Steering Committee in each Project Province.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. A.5 Yes By negotiations On-going
Description of Covenant: Maintaining a Provincial Project Management Unit in each Project Province provided with sufficient
resources and staffed with competent personnel in adequate numbers.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. A.7 Yes By Negotiations On-going
Description of Covenant: Adopting by MARD and Project Provinces an Operational Manual (OM) setting forth guidelines and
procedures for the implementation of the Project; amendments to the OM require prior written agreement of IDA.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. C.1 Yes Prior to subproject
commencement
N/A
Description of Covenant: Preparing and implementing Resettlement Action Plans by Project Provinces in accordance with the
Project Resettlement Policy Framework
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. C.2 Yes Prior to subproject
commencement
N/A
Description of Covenant: Preparing and implementing Environmental Management Plans or Environmental Codes of Practice
by Project Provinces in accordance with the Project Environmental and Social Management Framework.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. C.3 Yes Prior to subproject
commencement
N/A
Description of Covenant: Preparing and implementing Ethnic Minorities Development Plans by Project Provinces in accordance
with the Project Ethnic Minorities Policy Framework.
Name: Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Schedule 2. Section I. C.4 Yes N/A N/A
Description of Covenant: No amendments to the Safeguard Instruments without prior written agreement of IDA; maintaining
policies and procedures to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Safeguard Instruments.
.
Team Composition
Bank Staff
Name Title Specialization Unit UPI
Binh Thang Cao Sr. Agriculture Specialist Aquaculture, Task Team Leader EASVS 178588
Christophe Crepin Lead Environment Specialist Co-Task Team Leader EASER 175113
Steven Jaffee Lead Rural Development
Specialist
Rural Development EASVS 62648
Hisham A. Abdo Kahin Senior Counsel Legal LEGES 225681
Shahridan Faiez Sr. Social Development
Specialist
Aquaculture/Social
Development
ECSS4 202794
Hoai Van Nguyen Procurement Specialist Procurement EAPPR 354796
Ha Thuy Tran Financial Management
Specialist
Financial Management EAPFM 360402
Tuan Anh Le Social Safeguards Specialist Social Development EASVS 350876
Son Van Nguyen Environmental Specialist Environmental Management EASVS 387861
Huong Thi Mai Nong Junior Counsel Legal EACVF 407948
Tam Thi Do Team Assistant Administrative/Operational EACVF 379440
Ngozi Blessing Malife Program Assistant Administrative/Operational EASER 246355
Non Bank Staff
Name Title/Specialization
Flavio Corsin FAO Aquaculture Consultant
Ulrich Schmidt FAO Capture Fisheries
Consultant
Keith Symington Biodiversity Consultant
Matthew Briggs FAO Hatcheries Consultant
Joseph Sciortiono FAO Fisheries Infrastructure
Consultant
Farzad Dadgari FAO Environmental
Management Consultant
Joseph Nagy FAO Economist
Thang Duy Nguyen Social Assessment Consultant
Hai Ngoc Tran Aquaculture Consultant
Long Nguyen Fisheries Infrastructure
Consultant
.
Locations
Country First Administrative
Division
Location Planned Actual Comments
Vietnam Provincial status
Ca Mau
Soc Trang
Khanh Hoa
Phu Yen
Binh Dinh
Ha Tinh
Nghe An
Thanh Hoa
Ca Mau City
Soc Trang City
Nha Trang City
Tuy Hoa City
Qui Nhon City
Ha Tinh City
Vinh City
Thanh Hoa City
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
A. Country and Sectoral Context
1. Vietnam is considered a major development ‘success story’. With sustained high rates
of growth over the past decade, Vietnam‟s Gross National Income per capita reached US$1,010
in 2009, enabling the country to become a Middle Income Country. Over the past two decades,
Vietnam‟s poverty rate has fallen dramatically from 58% in 1990 to an estimated 29% in 2000,
and to around 14.5% in 2008. Despite these impressive gains, a large number of Vietnamese
households remain vulnerable to livelihood disruption or consumption variability due to natural
hazards, macro-economic instability, and/or growing pressures on the country‟s natural resource
base.
2. This co-existence of rapid growth and (increasingly) high vulnerability applies, per
force, to Vietnam’s fisheries sector, including both marine fisheries and aquaculture. The
sector has experienced very rapid growth1 over the past two decades. Vietnam ranks third in
world aquaculture production (behind China and India) and sixth in terms of aquatic product
exports. Domestic consumption is also growing rapidly, with the Vietnamese now obtaining
nearly 50% of their dietary protein from aquatic products.2 Despite such growth and increased
socio-economic importance, the Vietnamese fisheries sector is at risk, due to a depleting resource
base for marine fisheries, increasing environmental and disease problems in aquaculture,
associated financial difficulties experienced by large numbers of sectoral participants, and a less
than favorable international reputation.
3. There are evident signs that the past growth of the country’s marine capture
fisheries is non-sustainable. Volume growth has nearly halted in recent years, except with
respect to lesser value fish species. Productivity is declining3 and the share of „trash fish‟ and
small-sized fish in the landed catch is increasing.4 Overfishing is especially evident in the near-
shore areas, which are the fishing grounds for some 85% of country‟s fleet and the primary
source of livelihood for most poor or near poor coastal communities. The near-shore fisheries is
experiencing a classic „tragedy of the commons‟ phenomenon, as too many fishers are now
competing over an insufficient and dwindling “open access” resource, while also contributing to
marine habitat destruction. The short-term incentives for individual fishers are incompatible with
1 Between 2000 and 2010, the sector‟s average annual growth was 13.6% in volume terms and 10.4% in value terms. Fisheries
production in 2010 was estimated at 5.2 million tons, including 2.5 million tons from capture fisheries and 2.7 million tons from
aquaculture. The sector now accounts for about 4% of GDP and 8% of Vietnam‟s merchandise exports. Its share of GDP is
similar to that of the garments/textile industry. Its share of net foreign exchange earnings is much higher given that some
important export sectors (e.g., garments, footwear, and wood products) feature high import content. The sector is very labor
intensive: nearly eight million people now rely on fisheries-related activities for a major source of income and employment.
2 While Vietnam‟s aquatic product exports have grown exponentially and now exceed 1.3 million tons ($5 billion per annum),
more than two-thirds of the volume of fish caught or produced is consumed domestically.
3 Over the 1990-2008 period, there was a sevenfold increase in the horsepower capacity of the fishing fleet, compared with a
threefold increase in production. While marine capture productivity has been falling for an extended period, the situation appears
to have gotten considerably worse in recent years.
4 “Trash fish” or “by-catch” now accounts for an estimated 60% of the total marine catch. Most of this is consumed locally or
used in the production of fish sauce or fish feed, used in aquaculture. Excessive „trash fish‟ harvests are removing the seed and
fingerlings of many valuable species, thus contributing to the depletion of coastal resources.
2
the longer term interests of the coastal communities and the needs for sustainable resource
management.
4. It is increasingly challenging to sustain aquaculture production due to increased
risks of disease and environmental pollution. The sub-sector‟s growth has been phenomenal,
especially over the past decade. In 2008, Vietnam accounted for almost 5% of global aquaculture
output - more than triple its share from a decade earlier. Disease is now the major production
risk; there are also potential problems in sourcing high quality seed and broodstock. The
expansion of aquaculture has also contributed to environmental damage and water pollution. In
recent years, many small aquaculture producers have had to abandon their operations due to
disease and/or financial problems.
B. Sectoral Technical and Institutional Issues
5. There is a need to move from (fragmented) sectoral planning to inter-sectoral
spatial planning for coastal resources. Responsibilities for coastal zone planning cut across
different Ministries. Planners and policy-makers operate on the basis of limited data, including
estimates of available fish stocks, patterns of fish catches, and even the number of fishing boats
operating in different locations. Provinces compete with each other, rather than collaborate,
which often leads to duplicative investments (e. g., landing sites, protective harbors) and
inconsistent (or conflicting) plans/approaches. Anticipated private investments are often not
reflected in government plans. While some donor-supported initiatives on integrated coastal zone
management have been piloted in several coastal provinces, this approach has not yet been
institutionalized or widely adopted. With the introduction of inter-sectoral planning in all eight
project provinces, it would help address one of the key governance issues of provincial
competition which was raised in the Vietnam Development report (VDR) 2010. In addition,
there is an urgent need to strengthen the fisheries database system5 to improve the management
and governance of the sector, which will be made available and accessible to the public.
6. Co-management could help enforce regulations and improve sustainability of near-
shore fisheries. A combination of over capacity and destructive fishing practices is taking a
heavy toll on biodiversity, the quality of resources, and the viability of livelihoods of many
coastal communities6. Fisheries co-management pilots have so far been implemented in closed
systems (e.g., lagoons, reservoirs), but have not been tried in open access areas, e.g., coastal
areas. Decree No. 33 issued by the government in 2010 explicitly assigns open access coastal
areas to local authorities and fishing communities to implement a partnership of co-management
models. To translate this into action, local fishing communities, as well as local authorities,
would need support to strengthen their capacity to carry out their new responsibilities.
5 Fisheries exports from Vietnam to the European Union (EU) have declined since 2010 as the present systems for fisheries
information and statistics are weak and do not support compliance with the EU‟s current regulations regarding „illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing‟.
6 More than 100,000 small fishing vessels are operating in near shore areas (six miles from the coastline) and the vast majority of
these have a horsepower of below 50 CV. Most fishing gear in use violates current mesh size regulations, resulting in a high
proportion of trash and juvenile fish in the daily catch. In some cases dynamite or chemicals are used, resulting in damage to
coral reefs and losses of rearing and nursery grounds. Most surveyed fishermen anecdotally reported a rapid decline in their
catches in terms of fish size and volume. A number of aquatic species are reportedly being threatened with extinction.
3
7. Improving hygienic conditions and operational efficiency of fishing ports and
landing sites can immediately provide a high return to the sector. There are over 80 small
fishing ports and hundreds of traditional landing sites in the country; however, most of them lack
facilities to provide necessary support services to fishermen (e.g., clean ice, net and boat repair).
Under hot weather conditions, the quality of fish is severely damaged before reaching processing
facilities or wholesale markets. Losses in the value of the catch are estimated at between 20%
and 30%, resulting in considerable economic losses for fishing households, severe under-
utilization of fish processing capacity, and serious localized pollution around landing sites and
fishing ports.
8. Good aquaculture practices (GAP) are likely to be the key solution to manage
disease and environmental risks. Each year diseases affect some 30% to 70% of the total
grown area, reducing yields and leading many growers to fail entirely. In shrimp farming,
diseases are mainly caused by low quality and infected seed; there is currently no system in place
to certify sources of quality seed and to ensure that adequate bio-security measures are taken at
the farm level. Current public veterinary services for aquaculture disease surveillance,
containment and response are weak. Farmers often apply antibiotics and chemicals to overcome
disease risks, which affects the reputation of Vietnam‟s seafood in international markets. To
facilitate the wide adoption of GAP among producers, a range of public services – including
those related to bio-security, veterinary measures and environmental monitoring – need to be
strengthened.
9. Addressing the risks and shortcomings of the sector will require a collective and
long term effort. A complex set of challenges has emerged from more than two decades of rapid
(and largely uncontrolled) growth in the sector. Important advances can be made within the value
chain for aquatic products, yet these need to be complemented by an improved and enforced
regulatory framework, and pursued within a strategic orientation which emphasizes sustainability
and quality. Addressing the sector‟s challenges, and putting it on an assured sustainable path will
likely take a decade or more, yet the opportunities for socio-economic and environmental
benefits are enormous and significant gains can be made in the coming years.
10. The sector’s new master plan should shift the prevailing orientation from meeting
(ever increasing) production and catch volume targets to emphasizing improved
management of coastal resources, improved risk management, and improved product
quality and value addition. The Master Plan for fisheries development to 2010 expired last
year and the government is in the process of preparing a new Master Plan for fisheries
development to 2020. Studies are needed to support Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MARD) and coastal provinces in this important planning exercise.
C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes
11. Vietnam‟s Fisheries Development Strategy through 2020 approved by the Prime Minister
on September 16, 2010 (Decision No. 1690/2100/QD-TTG) re-orients the development of the
fisheries sector to focus more on product quality and sustainable growth. The Coastal Resources
for Sustainable Development Project (CRSD) will support MARD in implementing its new
Development Strategy. The proposed project is consistent with the Bank‟s Vietnam Country
Partnership Strategy (CPS) for 2011 – 2015, presented to the Board on December 15, 2011.
4
Specifically, it supports Pillar 2, Sustainability, to achieve the outcome of Improved Natural
Resource Management. By contributing to improved product quality and reduced physical
losses, it will also contribute to the CPS‟ agenda for competitiveness (Pillar I). By assisting
vulnerable fisher households, the project will make a modest contribution to the CPS‟ agenda on
poverty reduction and economic opportunity (Pillar III). In addition, the project is consistent
with the cross-cutting CPS themes of: (a) strengthening governance; and (b) supporting gender
equity.
12. The project also addresses the Government‟s development priorities of improving the
resilience of coastal zones to climate change, enhancing the sustainability of coastal
infrastructure investments, and promoting the competitiveness of the coastal areas‟ resource-
based economy. CRSD will serve to complement other Bank instruments, including the Specific
Investment Loans (SILs) focusing on water resources management and disaster risk
management, and the climate change Development Policy Lending.
13. The CPS recognizes that projects can serve as useful entry points for improving
governance more generally. CRSD addresses two key governance challenges that have been
identified in earlier World Bank Analytical Advisory Activities (AAA). Vietnam Development
Report 2010--Modern Institutions highlights the problems that are generated when provinces
engage in atomistic competition with each other: duplicative and poorly coordinated
infrastructure, and insufficient consideration of spillover effects between provinces, and calls for
a greater focus on regional planning. CRSD provides an example of how to address this
governance challenge by introducing inter-sectoral planning across the eight provinces of the
project, in conjunction with the central level authority (MARD). The VDR 2010 also
highlighted the need to ease the formation of collective action organizations to strengthen
dialogue between policy makers and affected citizens and groups. CRSD introduces fishing
community associations to co-manage fishery resources. This approach will strengthen
ownership by the affected communities and improve the likelihood of effective implementation.
It will also serve as an example of how good governance practices such as participatory
management of public resources can improve development outcomes.
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES (PDO)
A. PDO
14. The project development objective is to improve the sustainable management of coastal
fisheries in the Project Provinces.
B. Project Beneficiaries
15. The principal beneficiaries of the project will be 50,000 smallholder aquaculture farm
and fisher folk households in the project area, whose lives are dependent on the sustainable use
of coastal resources. Ethnic minorities, including the Khmer living in Soc Trang province, will
also benefit. Other beneficiaries will be people employed in other segments of the
aquaculture/fisheries value chains.
5
C. PDO Level Results Indicators
16. The key PDO level result indicators would be:
Indicator 1: Increase in the proportion of farms meeting national standards for
water effluent following the adoption of Good Aquaculture Practices.
Indicator 2: Reduction in shrimp disease losses in the production areas applying
Good Aquaculture Practices.
Indicator 3: Increase in the proportion of areas in which sustainable Near-Shore
fisheries resource management systems are applied.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Components
17. The project comprises the following four components: (A) institutional capacity
strengthening for sustainable fisheries management; (B) good practices for sustainable
aquaculture; and (C) sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries; and (D) project
management, monitoring and evaluation.
18. Component A: Institutional capacity strengthening for sustainable fisheries
management (est. US$5.3 million, of which IDA would finance 100%). This component
would support three activities: (a) inter-sectoral spatial planning for coastal areas; (b) upgrading
of Vietnam fisheries database; and (c) conducting selected policy research.
Inter-sectoral Planning for Coastal Areas: provision of support for MARD and the Project
Provinces to carry out inter-sectoral planning and strategic environmental assessments in
the Project Provinces for sustainable fisheries management.
Upgrading of Vietnam Fisheries Database (Vnfishbase) System: provision of support to
review and upgrade the Vnfishbase system, including: (a) provision of additional
information and linkage with other fisheries databases ; (b) development of a knowledge
management system; (c) provision of essential infrastructure; and (d) development of
human resources.
Conducting Selected Policy Research: provision of support to carry out selected research
to contribute to the development and implementation of the Fisheries Master Plan to
2020.
19. Component B: Good practices for sustainable aquaculture (est. US$48.1 million, of
which IDA would finance around US$39.9 million; the remainder would be financed by
government and smallholder beneficiaries). This component would support good aquaculture
practices through: (a) improved bio-security management; (b) improved seed quality
management; and (c) improved environmental management.
Improved Bio-Security Management: provision of support to improve bio-security
management, including: (a) upgrading of rural infrastructure schemes in selected major
farming communities; (b) provision of technical training for farmers on GAP application,
including establishment of on-farm GAP demonstration sites; (c) provision of technical
6
equipment, training, and operating costs for disease diagnostics, surveillance, early
reporting, and outbreak containments for selected provincial and District extension
centers and sub-departments of animal health/aquaculture; (d) provision of technical
assistance for GAP certification, capacity building, and technical monitoring; and (e)
diversification of culture species and farming systems.
Improved Seed Quality Management: provision of support to improve seed quality
management, including: (a) upgrading of public bio-security infrastructure for selected
hatchery areas; (b) introduction and implementation of a hatchery standardization
program; (c) studies on hatchery planning; (d) establishment of dedicated and bio-secure
shrimp hatchery areas which are designated to use only domesticated and Specific
Pathogen Free (“SPF”) broodstock; and (e) provision of support for MARD research
institutes to carry out an initial research program on domestication and breeding
improvement.
Improved Environmental Management: provision of support to improve environmental
management, including: (a) strengthening the capacity of the Department of Natural
Resources and Environment (“DONRE”) in the Project Provinces to conduct regular risk-
based water quality monitoring programs, including provision of additional technical
equipment, training, and financing of operating costs; and (b) disseminating data and
results from the monitoring activities to local authorities and the public.
20. Component C: Sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries (est.
US$52.2 million, of which US$44.8 million would be financed by IDA; the remainder by
government). This component would support: (a) co-management of near-shore capture
fisheries7; and (b) rehabilitation of fishing ports and landing sites.
Co-Management of Near-Shore Capture Fisheries: provision of support to implement co-
management of Near-Shore capture fisheries among governmental authorities and fishing
communities in selected Districts and Communes, including: (a) provision of support for
local fishing communities to prepare and implement co-management plans; (b)
strengthening of the monitoring, control, and surveillance systems of MARD and the
Project Provinces; and (c) provision of support in developing selected basic infrastructure
for local ethnic minority and/or poor fishing communities to improve their livelihoods.
Rehabilitation of Fishing Ports and Landing Sites: provision of support to improve
hygienic conditions and operational efficiency in selected fishing ports and landing sites,
including: (a) rehabilitation and/or upgrading of fishing ports and landing sites; and (b)
training, capacity building, and development of management plans to improve the
operational efficiency of the rehabilitated and/or upgraded sites.
21. Component D: Project management, Monitoring and Evaluation (est. US$12.3
million, of which IDA would finance around US$10.0 million; the remainder by
7 This component will include the application of protected area planning, zoning and prescription of management measures aimed
at reducing impacts from fishing and protecting key habitats in selected co-management areas with overlap of high biodiversity
and fisheries values (see Annex 6). Inter-sectoral planning tools developed under Component A will inform the protected area
planning process. It is anticipated that the preferred designation will be fisheries refugia areas, with an emphasis on the
protection of areas critical for the life cycle of economically important species as well as the protection of other key habitats.
7
government). This component would support: (a) project management; and (b) monitoring and
evaluation.
Project Management: provision of support for the Project Central Unit (“PCU”),
Provincial Project Management Units (“PPMUs”) and other implementing agencies for
effective Project management, implementation, and supervision.
Monitoring and Evaluation: provision of support for the establishment and
implementation of an effective monitoring and evaluation system.
B. Project Financing
22. Lending Instrument. The lending instrument used would be a SIL financed by an IDA
Credit of approximately US$100 million equivalent.
23. Table 1 below summarizes the project cost and financing plan8.
Table 1: Project Cost and Financing
(US$ million)
Project Components Project cost IDA Financing % IDA
Financing
Component A:
Component B:
Component C:
Component D
5.3
48.1
52.2
12.3
5.3
39.9
44.8
10.0
100.0
82.9
85.7
81.8
Total Project Costs 117.9 100.0 84.8
C. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design
24. Project design reflects a number of lessons from the implementation of Bank and donor-
supported projects in the fisheries sector in Vietnam and experience from other countries.
25. Co-management. One of the important lessons learned from fisheries resource
management is that devolution of resource management to local fishing communities will give
them a direct incentive to manage the resources. The Bank-financed Pilot Fisheries Development
Projects in Morocco (ICR 20933) and in Albania (ICR 0000634) show that a close cooperation
between the Government and the local fishing communities through co-management
arrangements is essential to achieve sustainable fisheries management. However, to allow
fisheries co-management to operate successfully, it is necessary to establish fishing community
associations and provide them with necessary support to ensure their survival and sustainable
operation. If fishers and fishing communities are adequately involved in developing regulations,
8 The project would continue seeking co-financing grants from the Global Environment Facility (GFF) for financing Components
A(1) and C(1). If GEF funds are obtained during project implementation, the IDA savings could be used to finance additional
infrastructure activities in the reserve list.
8
co-management can build ownership and lead to effective implementation. The introduction of
such participatory approaches provides an example of good governance over common resources
that can be replicated elsewhere in Vietnam.
26. Good aquaculture practices. High incidence of disease and adverse environmental
impacts associated with rapid expansion and intensification of aquaculture can be managed by
the application of GAP. Shrimp health management is strongly linked with other aspects of
shrimp farming sustainability and the application of better management practices or GAP.
Enhancement of seed quality and improved stocking practices, pond management and bio-
security during production are also important.
27. Integrated spatial planning. Integrated spatial planning has been used increasingly over
the past few years as a practical tool to manage both conflicts and compatibilities in the use of
marine and coastal resources. This concept was first introduced by UNESCO in 2006, and is
similar to the coastal zone management concept that has been piloted in many places in Vietnam
through donor supported projects.
28. Other lessons from Vietnam projects. Past experience from Bank operations in
Vietnam shows that decentralization to the provincial level in implementation and procedural
approval enhances ownership at local levels (province, district and commune) and improves
project implementation and the pace of disbursement. In addition, to avoid slow project start-up
in the initial years, technical designs and bidding documents for the first year works packages
should be completed prior to Credit negotiations.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements
29. The project will be implemented in eight provinces: Ca Mau and Soc Trang (Mekong
Delta Cluster); Khanh Hoa, Phu Yen, and Binh Dinh (South Central Cluster); and Ha Tinh, Nghe
An, and Thanh Hoa (North Central Cluster). The project implementing agencies will be MARD
and the Provincial People‟s Committees (PPCs) of the eight project provinces.
30. Central Level. MARD is the central Line Agency responsible for overall project
implementation. A Central Steering Committee (CSC), chaired by a leader of MARD, will be
established under MARD to provide technical and policy guidance for the project.
31. The Project Central Unit, established within MARD, is the key implementing agency at
the central level, responsible for: (a) providing guidance and support to PPMUs in project
implementation and management; (b) developing and maintaining a sound Project accounting
system; (c) handling international competitive bidding (ICB) packages, selection of international
consultants, and other procurement matters as the case may be; and (d) monitoring the quality of
project implementation, safeguards compliance, and impact for reporting to MARD and IDA.
32. Provincial Level. The Provincial People‟s Committee (PPC) is the provincial Line
Agency responsible for project implementation at the provincial and local levels. A Provincial
9
Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the Vice Chair of the PPC, will be established to provide
technical and policy guidance to the PPMU on project implementation in the Province.
33. The Provincial Project Management Unit, established under the Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) of the project province, is the key project
implementing agency at the provincial level, responsible for: (a) preparing project plans and
reports; (b) handling procurement activities; (c) preparing and submitting evaluation reports for
approval; (d) maintaining a sound accounting system for the project, satisfactory to IDA; (e)
monitoring the quality of project implementation and safeguards compliance; and (f)
coordinating with selected Districts and Communes to carry out planned activities.
34. The organizational structure for implementation is presented in Figure 1. Detailed project
implementation arrangements are presented in Annex 3.
Table 2: Implementation Arrangements for Each Component
Component/Activity Primary
Responsibility
Supporting
Agencies
A. Institutional capacity strengthening for sustainable
fisheries resources management:
Inter-sectoral planning for coastal areas
Upgrading Vietnam fisheries database
Studies to support provincial master planning
PCU/PPMU
PCU/PPMU
PCU/PPMU
DARD,
DONRE,
PCU, VASI,
MARD
technical
departments.
B. Good practices for sustainable aquaculture:
Upgrading bio-security conditions for selected
farming areas
Improving seed quality through promoting SPF
seed
Supporting seed domestication and breeding
programs
Strengthening aquatic animal health management
networks
Water quality monitoring
PPMU/PCU
PPMU/PCU
PCU
PPMU/PCU
PPMU/PCU
PCU, RIAs,
DARD,
DONRE,
MARD
technical
departments.
C. Support for sustainable near-shore capture fisheries:
Establishing co-management models in pilot
districts
Monitoring, control, and surveillance
Upgrading fisheries infrastructure
PPMU/PCU
PPMU/PCU
PPMU/PCU
DARD, MARD
technical
departments,
local
governments.
Notes: PCU and PPMUs are responsible for making decisions for project implementation; supporting agencies will
provide technical advice when necessary, but will not possess any approval powers for project implementation.
10
Figure 1: Implementation arrangements
Technical Collaborators
(DOA, DAH,
DECAFIREP, VASI, RIAs)
Central
Provincial
Local
Line Ministry
(MARD)
Central Steering Committee/
Directorate of Fisheries
MARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
ICD: International Cooperation Department
DOA: Department of Aquaculture
DAH: Department of Animal Health
DECAFIREP: Dept. of Capture Fisheries & Resources Protection
VASI: Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands RIAs Research Institutes for Aquaculture
APMB: Agricultural Projects Management Boards
PCU: Project Central Unit
PPC: Provincial Peoples‟ Committee
PSC: Provincial Steering Committee
DARD: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
PPMU: Provincial Project Management Unit
DONRE: Department of Natural Resources and Environment
Sub-DOA: Sub-Department of Aquaculture Sub-DAH: Sub-Department of Animal Health
Sub-DECAFIREP: Sub-Dept. of Capture Fisheries & Resources
Protection
Coordination Support
(ICD)
Project Owner
(APMB)
IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
(PCU)
Provincial Line Agency: (PPC)
Provincial Steering Committee (PSC)
Project Owner
(DARD)
IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
(PPMU)
Technical Collaborators
(DONRE, Sub-DOA,
Sub-DAH, Sub-DECAFIREP)
Governmental Support
(District & commune
governments) Project Beneficiaries
(Farmer Organizations
Fisher Organizations)
11
B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation
35. Intended results, results indicators and arrangements for results monitoring are specified
in the Results Framework and Monitoring (Annex 1). Baseline surveys have been undertaken
during project preparation. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities are envisaged across the
various sub-components and are designed to provide the information necessary to manage the
project effectively and to assess project impact. Monitoring arrangements for the project would
be established in line with the Aligned Monitoring Tool (AMT) established by the Ministry of
Planning and Investment (MPI).
36. At least one M&E staff would be appointed in the PCU and in each of the PPMUs to
consolidate information from the components and prepare quarterly reports that would be
disseminated and discussed among key stakeholders at the provincial level and would be made
publicly available. M&E consultants would also be recruited to assist the PPMUs in setting up
and handling M&E activities in accordance with Decision 803/2007/QD-BKH dated July 30,
2007 of MPI.
C. Sustainability
37. The project will assist government (and the sector) to move from a quantity orientation to
a quality and risk management orientation. It will improve the efficiency of existing public and
private investments and also help address environmental problems to improve sustainability. At
the sector level, the project will help improve sustainability by: implementing inter-sectoral
planning for coastal areas; contributing to the sector‟s Master Plan to 2020; and introducing and
promoting GAP in coastal aquaculture; and introducing and promoting co-management
arrangements for near-shore capture fisheries. The project would offer good models for scaling
up by the public and private sectors which could be replicated in other areas in Vietnam.
V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Risk Ratings Summary
Stakeholder S Design S
Capacity S Social and Environmental S
Governance S Program and Donor L
Overall Risk S Implementation and Sustainability S
B. Description
38. The overall project risk is „Substantial‟, with all risk categories, except Program and
Donor, rated substantial. The key risks identified in the Operational Risk Assessment Framework
(ORAF) mainly relate to the inadequate experience of the implementing agencies, the
governance risk associated with project decentralization, and the compliance risks in handling
procurement, financial management, and safeguards. Mitigation measures have been identified
during project preparation and are incorporated in the project design. The main strategy and
12
approach for implementation support (Annex 5) to reduce the identified risks include capacity
building for implementing agencies, enhancement of project governance, and diligent project
monitoring and supervision, especially in the initial period of project implementation.
VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
A. Economic and Financial Analyses
39. Economic Rate of Return and Sensitivity Analysis. The base economic rate of return
(ERR) for the project, estimated under conservative assumptions, is 44%, with a net present
value (NPV) of US$275.5 million at a discount rate of 12%. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the
ERR remains robust at 35%, even when the net benefits of Component B and activities C1 and
C2 are reduced by 25%.
40. Both participating aquaculture and near-shore fisher households gain financially from
being part of the project, as do other users of the fishing ports/landing sites. Benefits include
those derived from: (a) introducing GAP standards to 10,808 target hectares in the eight project
provinces, thus reducing production risk, increasing productivity, and increasing farm household
incomes; (b) introducing co-management of coastal resources in fishing communes that will
regenerate coastal capture fisheries, increasing fish stock, the value of the catch, and fisher
household incomes; and (c) the rehabilitation of 16 ports and landing sites in the eight provinces
that will lead to a higher level of hygienic handling conditions and improved food safety, as well
as higher fisher household and port/landing site incomes.
Table 3: Estimation of Economic Rate of Return
41. Non-quantifiable benefits. The cost benefit analysis does not include the substantial
benefits from an improved environment as a result of better waste and wastewater management
and better resource use by aquaculture and fisher families, as these are not quantifiable. The
contribution of the project to food safety through better sanitary conditions at ports/landing sites
is also not quantifiable. Benefits from the building of typhoon shelters that could prevent the
loss of human lives have also not been quantified. The benefits of the demonstration effect of
(US$ '000) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Y 6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 to Y20
I. Total Project Incremental Net Benefits
A. Component B: Aquaculture GAP - 5,117 10,234 20,469 30,703 40,937 51,171 51,171 51,171 51,171 51,171
B. Component C: Capture Fishing Co-Management - 2,578 5,157 10,314 18,049 20,627 20,627 20,627 20,627 20,627 25,784
C. Component C: Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation - 1,750 3,500 6,999 12,248 13,998 13,998 13,998 13,998 13,998 17,498
Total Incremental Benefits (Financial) - 9,445 18,891 37,781 61,000 75,563 85,797 85,797 85,797 85,797 94,453
Total Incremental Benefits (Economic) a/ - 8,501 17,002 34,003 54,900 68,006 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217
II. Total Project Costs
Financial Costs 31,898 52,225 18,539 8,356 6,871
Financial Costs + 8% Contingencies 34,450 56,403 20,022 9,025 7,421
Economic Costs a/ 31,005 50,763 18,020 8,122 6,679
III. Project Net Benefits (31,005) (42,262) (1,018) 25,881 48,221 68,006 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217
Net Present Value (12%) 275,463$
ERR 43.2%
a/CostsfromCOSTAB.Intheabsenceofinformationontaxesandforeign/localcontentsofprojectinvestmentcostsandonincrementalnetbenefits,
economicvaluesarederivedforthenetbenefitsandtheprojectfinancialinvestmentcostsbyapplyingaconversionratioof0.9.
13
improved governance through inter-sectoral planning and participatory co-management of
fishery resources by farmer associations is also not quantifiable.
42. Fiscal impact. The estimated impact on the project provinces‟ budgets is presented in
Table 6 of Annex 9. On average, the required counterpart funds for project implementation and
the estimated costs for operation and maintenance are estimated at 0.1 percent of the provinces‟
total revenue. As IDA funds for the project will be passed on to the project provinces as grants
from the central budget, the provinces will not have any debt servicing responsibility.
Consequently, the project‟s impact on the project provinces‟ budget is not significant.
43. Financial impact on smallholders. Small holders would benefit from the establishment
of about 400 demonstration models on GAP (under Component B), with the Government
financing up to 25% of the demonstration costs9. Smallholder farmers would contribute a part of
the costs of the demonstration model, but would receive the incremental benefits; these are
expected to be in excess of their contribution.
B. Technical
44. The focus of this operation is on institutional strengthening at all levels of the sector (i.e.,
ministry, provincial, and local) to facilitate technology transfer of GAP and near-shore
participatory fisheries co-management in the project areas. These practices have been piloted in
Vietnam extensively over the past decade, including in the project provinces, and successful
local experiences are available for scaling up. Technologies for infrastructure upgrading under
Component C (i.e., fishing ports and landing sites) are well proven and do not raise any
significant challenges. MARD has worked closely with FAO and Bank technical specialists to
incorporate lessons learned from past experience into project design. MARD will continue its
close cooperation with FAO and the Bank on all technical aspects of project implementation. A
technical assistance team recruited under Component D would assist the PCU and the PPMUs in
managing day-to-day project implementation, in particular on technical aspects.
C. Financial Management
45. An assessment of the project‟s financial management arrangements concluded that
although the Agricultural Projects Management Board (APMB) of MARD and all project
provinces have had experience in implementing Bank-financed projects, this is their first
operation in the fisheries sector. Most of the implementing agencies are the newly established. In
order to meet minimum Bank financial management requirements, as stipulated in OP/BP 10.02,
a financial management (FM) action plan has been agreed with Government for implementation
by the PCU and the PPMUs.
46. The principal FM actions include: (a) appointment of accounting staff with qualification
and experience acceptable to the Bank at the PCU and the PPMUs; (b) developing and adopting
9 On average, each model is below 3 ha and has a maximum cost of US$25,000. The project would not finance more than
US$6,500 per demonstration site; the remainder would be financed by the participating farmers. Several farmers could jointly
host one demonstration site. Progressive farmers meeting the set criteria (i.e., technical and financial capacity in meeting GAP
standards) would be selected, on a voluntary basis, to host and run demonstrate models.
14
a FM Manual for the project; (c) selecting and upgrading the most suitable accounting software
currently being used at APMB to meet project accounting and reporting requirements; (d)
preparing an internal audit terms of reference (TOR), acceptable to the Bank, to build the
capacity of APMB‟s internal audit function, as well as provincial internal audit agencies; and (e)
training PCU and PPMU FM staff on Bank FM and disbursement requirements and procedures.
The FM requirements in (a) and (b) were completed by Project Negotiations.
D. Procurement
47. Procurement for CRSD will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank‟s
“Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated May
2004 revised in October 2006, and May 2010; “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and
IDA Credits” dated May 2004 revised in October 2006, and May 2010; as well as the provisions
under the Financing Agreement.
48. A Procurement Capacity and Risk Assessment (PCRA) of the PCU and the PPMUs
(referred as “PIAs”) was carried out in November 2011. The major procurement risks identified
for the project include: (a) possible irregularities and non-compliance in the procurement process
because of the PIAs and higher approval authorities‟ preference to follow the national public
procurement procedures rather than the Bank's Guidelines when there is difference between
them; and (b) possible delays at all stages of procurement cycle due to inadequate procurement
capacity and internal bureaucratic approval procedures on the borrower side.
49. In order to mitigate the risks, necessary capacity building and support measures will be
undertaken, which include: (a) preparing and adopting a Project Operational Manual (OM)
which will include a procurement chapter; (b) intensive training on procurement and contract
administration; (c) recruiting qualified procurement consultants; and (d) regular implementation
support and procurement post reviews by the Bank procurement staff. More detailed findings of
the PCRA, the proposed procurement arrangements, and measures to address the identified risks
are presented in Annex 3.
50. The Procurement Plan for the first 18 months of project implementation, available as a
separate project document, was prepared by the PIAs and approved by MARD before project
negotiations. The agreed Procurement Plan and all subsequent updates will be published in the
Bank‟s external website and the Borrower‟s appropriate publications.
E. Social
51. The social assessment indicates that the project will generate an overall positive impact
on fishing communities and smallholder aquaculture farmers, including ethnic minority peoples,
in the project area. Negative social impacts include limited land acquisition for small-scale civil
works associated with the upgrading of fishing ports, landing sites, and bio-security facilities for
local farming communities. Khmer ethnic minority groups in the coastal areas of Soc Trang
province may also be affected by the project‟s land acquisition. Bank OP 4.12 (Involuntary
Resettlement) and OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) are therefore triggered by the project.
15
52. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) for the
project has been prepared by MARD in compliance with Bank OP 4.12 and with relevant
Vietnamese laws. The RPF specifies the steps to be taken for preparation, review, and clearance
of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) for sub-projects that will be identified during project
implementation. For sub-projects identified for the first-year, no land acquisition is needed as
construction will only take place on existing structures. The RPF has been disclosed locally in
Vietnamese and through the Bank‟s InfoShop prior to appraisal.
53. Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10). Activities supported by the project are expected to have a
positive impact on ethnic minority communities by improving their access to sustainable farming
technologies, reducing aquaculture disease risks, and improving management of coastal
resources, thereby sustaining their livelihoods. Free, prior and informed consultations with
potentially affected ethnic minority peoples (through the social assessment during project
preparation) indicated that there is broad support for the project. An Ethnic Minority Policy
Framework (EMPF) for the project has been prepared by MARD in accordance with Bank OP
4.10. The EMPF will guide the preparation of Ethnic Minority Development Plans (EMDPs)
during project implementation. The EMPF has been disclosed locally in Vietnamese and through
the Bank InfoShop prior to appraisal.
54. Fisheries co-management. The project‟s support for the establishment of participatory
fisheries co-management in about 140 selected communes in the project area is expected to
introduce secure fishing rights for local fishers as incentives for the users to sustainably manage
the fisheries resources. There are a number of different forms that the rights for the near-shore
capture fisheries could take, such as group rights, rights of individuals to access resources, rights
to a certain portion of the catches, traditional rights, etc. Overall, co-management is expected to
result in positive impacts on local livelihoods and the environment. However, it could also have
adverse short term impact on the poor or ethnic minorities through their being prevented from
fishing freely.
55. In order to address this issue, a co-management consultation framework has been
prepared (on the basis of consultations during the social assessment), which sets out a
consultation framework to enable affected fishing communities to take part in designing the rules
for co-management, determining measures necessary to prevent being adversely affected as a
result of co-management, and in implementing and monitoring project activities that may affect
their livelihoods. This consultation framework is a part of the project Operational Manual. It is
expected that lessons learned from implementation of CRSD would help MARD and other
provinces replicate successful co-management approaches in other coastal areas of the country.
F. Environment
56. The project‟s overall environmental impacts are assessed to be positive. Negative impacts
are assessed to be limited, localized, manageable and reversible, and can be avoided or
minimized through proper design and application of mitigation measures. The main
environmental issues associated with the project include: (a) improper use and management of
chemicals and antibiotics in aquaculture; (b) ineffective management and improper treatment of
solid wastes and wastewater resulting from aquaculture; and (c) civil works impacts (i.e.,
increased localized dust, noise, disturbance to traffic and community, safety risks, and water
16
pollution risks) during the construction of new infrastructure or rehabilitation of existing
facilities (i.e., upgrading of fishing ports and landing sites).
57. Natural habitats. Impacts on natural habitats will be positive. The project will not have
direct impacts on critical habitats, but under Component C, fisheries co-management
arrangements may involve the management of some spawning grounds of aquatic species.
58. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). An ESMF has been
prepared to guide the project in screening, assessing and mitigating project environmental and
social impacts. The ESMF is in accordance with Bank safeguard policies, as well as with
Vietnamese laws. The framework provides guidelines for: (a) safeguard screening, including a
negative list of sub-projects which will be excluded from the menu of eligible sub-projects; (b)
impact assessment and development of mitigation measures, including the Environmental Codes
of Practice (ECOP) for small scale construction and dredging; (c) safeguard documentation
preparation and clearance; (d) safeguard implementation, supervision, monitoring, and reporting;
(e) institutional strengthening and capacity building programs for the PCU and PPMU staff, as
well for relevant DONRE; and (f) institutional arrangements and budget.
59. The ESMF requires that for each type of infrastructure activity, the implementing
agencies will prepare standard mitigation measures in the form of Environmental Management
Plan (EMP, for complicated sub-projects) or ECOP (for simple small scale sub-projects) to
mitigate construction and operation related impacts. The EMP and/or ECOP will be included in
the bidding and contract documents, and will be monitored by the supervision engineers. The
ESMF has been disclosed, both locally (at the project site, the PCU, and the Vietnam
Development Information Center) in Vietnamese, and at the Bank‟s InfoShop in English prior to
appraisal.
G. Mainstreaming Governance and Gender
60. Governance. The Bank‟s CPS (2011) has identified governance to be a priority cutting
across the three CPS pillars. In Vietnam, the following have been identified to be the key
constraints to improved governance: (a) weaknesses in institutional capacity and public sector
management (capacity building at the local levels has not kept pace with decentralization); (b)
weak delivery capacity in disadvantaged provinces; (c) the accountability system still relies
primarily on upward accountability through the hierarchy, resulting in a system that encourages
excessive risk aversion; (d) within the system of hierarchical accountability, the official channels
face their own challenges; (e) despite progress in improving transparency, challenges remain;
and (f) high risk of corruption. In addition, grievance redress mechanisms are underdeveloped.
61. The Project has given priority to governance issues and has mainstreamed them in the
design of project components and activities: (a) strengthening institutional capacity at the local
levels and public services delivery for planning, aquaculture and fisheries management, with
special attention being given to poor fishers and ethnic minority communities; (b) adopting
participatory processes for inter-sectoral planning and co-management with the involvement of
local fishing communities; (c) obtaining feedback through beneficiary surveys and installing
grievance redress mechanisms; (d) adopting a Project Operational Manual with a clear
17
responsibility matrix and TOR for each agency involved; and (e) adopting a Governance,
Transparency, and Accountability Plan (GTAP) as part of the project Operational Manual to
guide project staff to handle governance issues.
62. Gender. Vietnam has made substantial progress on gender equality; however, important
challenges remain across sectors, especially in health, education, employment, and participation.
Gender analysis will be carried out on the basis of the social assessment findings. It will explore
opportunities and constraints to the participation of women in project activities. The project will
also explore opportunities for collaboration with other donors, governmental agencies such as
Ministry of Labour Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA), and non-governmental organizations
to maximize the participation of women.
18
Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
Project Development Objective: The PDO is to improve the sustainable management of coastal fisheries in the Project Provinces.
PDO Level Results Indicators* C
ore
In
dic
. Unit of
Measure Baseline
Cumulative Target Values**
YR 1 YR 2 YR3 YR 4 YR5 Frequency
Data Source/
Methodology
Responsibility
for Data
Collection
Description
(indicator
definition
etc.)
Indicator One: Increase in the
proportion of farms meeting national
standards for water effluent following
the adoption of Good Aquaculture
Practices.
- % 0 5 10 20 40 50 Annual Yearly survey
reports
PCU and
PPMUs
Calculated
Cumulatively
Indicator Two: Reduction in shrimp
disease losses in the production areas
applying Good Aquaculture
Practices.
- % 0 0 5 10 15 20 Annual Yearly survey
reports PCU, PPMUs,
extension
officers
Calculated
cumulatively
Indicator Three: Increase in the
proportion of areas in which
sustainable Near-Shore fisheries
resource management systems are
applied.
- % 0 0 10 20 40 50 Annual Yearly survey
reports
PCU, PPMUs,
DECAFIREP
Calculated
cumulatively
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS
Intermediate Results (Component A): Institutional capacity strengthening for sustainable fisheries management
1. Percent of Project Provinces and
their respective Districts and
Communes receiving training in
inter-sectoral planning.
- % 0 20 40 60 80 100 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports
PCU and
PPMUs
Cumulative
2. Number of Project Provinces
having provincial inter-sectoral
planning teams established.
- Number of
provinces
0 2 4 8 8 8 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports
PCU and
PPMUs
Cumulative
19
PDO Level Results Indicators*
Co
re I
nd
ic.
Unit of
Measure Baseline
Cumulative Target Values**
YR 1 YR 2 YR3 YR 4 YR5 Frequency
Data Source/
Methodology
Responsibility
for Data
Collection
Description
(indicator
definition
etc.)
3. Number of studies carried out at
national and provincial levels in
support of the Fisheries Master Plan
to 2020.
- Number of
studies
0 2 4 8 12 12 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports
PCU and
PPMUs
Cumulative
4. Number of Project Provinces
having the fisheries database system
upgraded and fully operational.
- Number of
provinces
0 0 2 4 6 8 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports
PCU and
PPMUs
Cumulative
Intermediate Results (Component B): Good practices for sustainable aquaculture
1. Number of farmers receiving
training in Good Aquaculture
Practices.
- Number of
farmers
0 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports PCU, PPMUs,
extension
officers
Cumulative
2. Number of hatcheries operating at
bio-security standards.
- Number of
hatcheries
0 0 0 10 15 20 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports PCU, PPMUs,
extension
officers
Cumulative
3. Percentage of farms in targeted
areas using certified and/or quality
seeds.
- % 25 25
30 35 40 50 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports PCU, PPMUs,
extension
officers
Calculated
cumulatively
4. Number of provincial agencies in
charge of aquatic animal disease
management strengthened in disease
diagnostic, surveillance, and early
reporting.
- Number of
agencies
0 0 0 4 6 8 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports PCU, PPMUs,
extension
officers
Cumulative
5. Percentage of farms in targeted
areas accessing and/or using
appropriate water and/or waste
management systems.
- % < 10 0 10 20 40 50 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports PCU, PPMUs,
extension
officers
Calculated
cumulatively
Intermediate Results (Component C): Sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries
1. Number of Districts having co-
management for Near-Shore capture
fisheries successfully adopted and
carried out.
- Number of
districts
0 0 2 4 8 16 Annual Yearly survey
reports
PCU, PPMUs,
DECAFIREP
Cumulative
20
PDO Level Results Indicators*
Co
re I
nd
ic.
Unit of
Measure Baseline
Cumulative Target Values**
YR 1 YR 2 YR3 YR 4 YR5 Frequency
Data Source/
Methodology
Responsibility
for Data
Collection
Description
(indicator
definition
etc.)
2. Number of hectares of high bio-
diversity areas and important natural
habitats in which co-management
successfully carried out.
- Ha 0 0
0
10,000 20,000 30,000 Annual Yearly survey
reports
PCU, PPMUs,
DECAFIREP
Cumulative
3. Number of District monitoring,
control and surveillance field stations
established, adequately staffed, and
fully operational.
- Number of
stations
0 0 2 4 8 16 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports
PCU, PPMUs,
DECAFIREP
Calculated
cumulatively
4. Number of fishing ports and
landing sites operating with improved
hygiene conditions and handling
practices.
- Number of
ports/landing
sites
0 0 1 3 6 16 Annual Consolidated
yearly reports
PCU, PPMUs, Cumulative
Intermediate Results (Component D): Project management, monitoring and evaluation
1. Number of Project Provinces
having satisfactory performance in
Project management and monitoring
& evaluation.
- Number of
provinces
0 1 4 5 6 6 Annual Yearly survey
reports
PCU, PPMUs, Cumulative
21
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
1. The project comprises the following four components: (a) institutional capacity
strengthening for sustainable fisheries management; (b) good practices for sustainable
aquaculture; (c) sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries; and (d) project
management, monitoring and evaluation.
Institutional Capacity Strengthening for Sustainable Fisheries Management (est. US$5.3
million, of which IDA would finance 100%)
2. This component would support: (a) inter-sectoral planning for coastal areas; (b)
upgrading of Vietnam fisheries database; and (c) conducting selected policy research.
Activity A1: Inter-sectoral planning for coastal areas (est. US$1.5 million)
3. Inter-sectoral planning will be carried out in the coastal areas of the project provinces as a
participatory and multi-sectoral planning tool to solve and prevent conflicts among resource
users through balancing ecological, economic, and social goals toward sustainable development.
In parallel with the inter-sectoral planning, the project provinces would also carry out Strategic
Environmental Assessments (SEA) for the fisheries sector. Results from the inter-sectoral
planning and the SEAs would provide the basis for fine-tuning the Sector Master Plan to 2020
and will help enable the mainstreaming of marine spatial planning, biodiversity conservation,
and sustainable use in the management of marine and coastal areas.
4. The project will provide necessary resources (about US$250,000 per province) to allow
the PPMUs to carry out the inter-sectoral planning and the SEA in their provinces effectively,
including, but not limited to, staff training, field surveys, resource and biodiversity assessments,
workshops, and report preparation. Outputs of the inter-sectoral planning will help improve
fisheries management by anticipating future demands, and balancing the demands for
development with the need to protect marine ecosystems and to achieve social and economic
objectives in a transparent and planned way.
Activity A2: Upgrading of Vietnam fisheries database (est. US$1.4 million)
5. The current software for Vnfishbase will be reviewed and upgraded to include additional
information and to link it with other databases of MARD (i.e., aquaculture). The project would
also provide essential missing infrastructure (i.e., computers, servers, internet lines, Local Area
Networks, etc.,) and develop human resources (i.e., additional staff, training in data collection,
analysis, reporting, etc.). Funds to be provided are estimated at around US$1 million for MARD
and US$100,000 for each province. This activity is expected to result in the smooth operation of
the new fisheries database system to meet European Union (EU) regulations. A knowledge
management system will also be developed as part of the upgraded database system to promote
information exchange in fisheries management among provinces and regions.
22
Activity A3: Conducting selected policy research (est. US$2.4 million)
6. The project would assist MARD and the project provinces to carry out selected research
to contribute to the development and implementation of the new Master Plan to 2020. Funds to
be provided are estimated at around US$0.6 million for MARD and US$50,000 for each
province. Research themes for the first three year period have been identified (for both central
and provincial levels), which include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) hatchery
development strategy for coastal aquaculture to 2020; (b) sustainable planning for shrimp
industry to 2020; and (c) research on alternative livelihoods for near-shore fishers. Additional
research topics for the remaining years will be determined based on identified development
needs and lessons from project implementation during the initial years.
Good Practices for Sustainable Aquaculture (est. US$48.1 million, of which IDA would
finance around US$39.9 million; the remainder would be financed by government and
smallholder beneficiaries)
7. This component would support good aquaculture practices through: (a) improved bio-
security management; (b) improved seed quality management; and (c) improved environmental
management.
Activity B1: Improved bio-security management (est. US33.4 million, of which IDA would
finance around US$25.7 million; the remainder would be financed by government and
smallholder beneficiaries)
8. The project would provide funds for upgrading about 45 public rural infrastructure
schemes (<US$300,000 per scheme) to improve bio-security conditions (i.e., water supply,
discharge systems, solid waste, and wastewater treatment systems) in major farming
communities located in some 40 project districts; establishing around 400 on-farm GAP
demonstration sites10
(around US$25,000 each) to provide technical training for about 10,000
farmers on GAP application; and strengthening some 40 provincial and district extension centers
and 43 sub-departments of animal health/aquaculture in disease diagnostics, surveillance, early
reporting, and outbreak containments through the provision of technical equipment and training.
It will also finance necessary technical assistance to MARD and the PPMUs to carry out GAP
certification11
and technical monitoring. In addition to technical assistance and training to assist
shrimp farmers in adopting GAP to reduce disease risks, efforts will be made to encourage
greater diversification of culture species and farming systems to reduce environmental risks in
the project area.
10 The project would follow the government‟s policy and regulations for aquaculture extension, which could finance up to 40-
60% of the demonstration costs, giving priority to bio-security and wastewater facilities that help farmers meet GAP standards.
Smallholder aquaculture farmers who want to host a demonstration pond supported by the project would be expected to
contribute part of the costs of the demonstration model. Farmers would own their farm output when harvesting. Their financial
contribution to the model will be less than their usual production costs.
11 The project aims at supporting smallholder farmers in meeting the national standards of VietGAP issued by MARD in July
2011. VietGAP standards are largely similar to GLOBALGAP standards, with the aim of improving food safety, aquatic animal
health management, and socio-economic and environment aspects.
23
Activity B2: Improved seed quality management (est. US$10.1 million, of which IDA would
finance around US$9.6 million; the remainder would be financed by government)
9. The project would provide funds to upgrade public goods and bio-security infrastructure
(i.e., wastewater treatment, clean water supply, etc.) to assist some 100 existing small scale
shrimp hatcheries in the project area to enable them to produce and/or nurse high quality seed. A
hatchery standardization program will be introduced to regulate the import of domesticated
brood stock, certification of wild brood stock, and SPF seed. The project would also finance
studies on hatchery planning for interested provinces. In Nha Trang (and where feasible) the
project would support the establishment of a dedicated, bio-secure shrimp hatchery area which is
designed to use only domesticated and SPF broodstock. It will provide the basic infrastructure
for the new hatchery area in Ninh Van, Nha Trang (around US$3-4 million) and the province
will call for private sector investments in hatcheries and operations. To develop national capacity
in domestication and breeding improvement, the project will finance an initial (small) research
breeding program carried out by the Research Institutes for Aquaculture No.1, 2, and 3
(estimated cost of US$1-2 million). The key output of this activity would be the gradual
replacement of poor quality seed by certified seed, thereby preventing diseases from entering
production systems through infected seed produced from poorly managed hatcheries or poor
quality broodstock.
Activity B3: Improved environmental management (est. US$4.6 million, of which IDA would
finance 100%)
10. The project would strengthen the capacity of DONREs to conduct regular risk-based
water quality monitoring programs with a priority focus on GAP areas supported by the project.
It would also provide them with necessary resources, including incremental operating costs,
additional technical equipment, and training for improved environmental monitoring and
management in the project area (about US$200,000 per DONRE). Data and results from the
monitoring activities will be disseminated to local authorities, concerned agencies, and farmers
through DONREs‟ and DARDs‟ regular monitoring reports and websites. PPMUs will take
appropriate action to mitigate the negative impacts of aquaculture activities based on the project
ESMF.
Sustainable Management of Near-Shore Capture Fisheries (est. US$52.2 million, of which
US$44.8 million would be financed by IDA; the remainder by government)
11. This component would support two key activities: (a) co-management of near-shore
capture fisheries; and (b) rehabilitation of fishing ports and landing sites.
Activity C1: Co-management of near-shore capture fisheries (est. US$13.1 million, of which
US$12.9 million would be financed by IDA; the remainder by government)
12. The project would facilitate the development and implementation of participatory
fisheries co-management in about 140 selected communes by building on local experience of
existing co-management arrangements. It will introduce secure fishing rights12
for local fishers
12 There are a number of different forms that rights could take for the near-shore capture fisheries: group rights; rights of
individuals to access the resources; rights of individuals to a certain portion of the catch, traditional rights, etc.
24
as incentives to sustainably manage fisheries resources13
. The project would pay special attention
to capacity building for local fishing communities (i.e., establishing fisher organizations, etc.) to
assume new collective rights and responsibilities, and to apply these in ways that sustain their
long term livelihoods. Funds will be allocated to support fisher organizations in implementing
co-management plans14
(about US$50,000 per community or US$100,000 per ethnic
minority/poor fishing community). The project would also explore possibilities to involve fisher
organizations in service sector areas to generate income to sustain their operations. In Soc
Trang‟s coastal areas where most Khmer fishers live, the province will allocate public land to
landless/poor fishers. In a few selected areas, the project would provide complimentary support
in developing basic infrastructure to support agriculture production to generate additional
income. Spouses and children would be offered opportunities for skill enhancement training on a
demand-driven basis to link them to the new jobs emerging at landing sites/fishing ports or other
public works supported by the project. This is an important entry point for gender mainstreaming
under the project15
. The project would also promote knowledge exchange in fisheries con-
management with other countries and regions, e.g., Japan and West Africa.
13. Consistent with streamlining participatory co-management arrangements for fishing
communities, the implementation schedule will allow time for assisting the communities in the
preparation of co-management plans. Stakeholder analysis would be carried out to define the
type of support for participation, and help project beneficiaries get organized. Consultations
would guide activities to be supported, and create opportunities to improve the incomes of
vulnerable groups. Co-management consultation guidelines have been prepared as part of the
Project Operational Manual to support project implementation.
14. Activities under this component will also include protecting areas of high importance for
both fisheries resources (e.g., spawning and staging areas) and biodiversity (including protection
of threatened or endangered marine species). It is expected that at least three co-management
areas with high biodiversity and fisheries values will benefit from the project, representing
coverage of at least 30,000 ha of important natural habitats. The preferred designation will likely
be fisheries refugia areas, with an emphasis on the protection of areas critical for the life cycle of
economically important species, as well as the protection of other key habitats.
15. The project would also support strengthening of the monitoring, control, and surveillance
systems (MCS) of MARD and the Project Provinces. About 30 MCS field stations would be
established and adequately staffed and equipped to work with fisher organizations, and assist
them in enforcing co-management regulations, particularly at the regional level. About 16 patrol
boats (two boats per province) with communication equipment would be procured for the
13 The project does not plan to establish any new marine protected areas.
14 A participatory co-management plan will be developed by local fisher communities to address their needs for sustainable
management of near-shore fisheries resources in the area assigned to them. The funds could be used to finance technical
assistance, training, communication equipment, surveillance, and operating costs for the co-management organizations.
15 The project would continue exploring with partners in the project area (including the efforts of MOLISA) to assist poor fishing
communities. Though investments for alternative livelihoods have been kept modest to reduce complexity in implementation, the
project would support monitoring the dynamics of livelihoods in the focal coastal communities, and at the project's mid-term,
revisit the need for additional interventions.
25
provincial Department of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection (DECAFIREP), as well as
some speed boats for field MCS stations to strengthen their surveillance in coastal areas. Boat
registration and licensing systems would also be strengthened with the involvement of local
governments to limit the entry of new small boats, especially those below 50 CV.
Activity C2: Rehabilitation of fishing ports and landing sites (est. US$39.1 million, of which
US$31.9 million would be financed by IDA; the remainder by government)
16. The project would upgrade about 16 fishing ports and landing sites in the project area
(US$2-4 million per scheme, with the upgrading phased into 2-3 periods). Upgrading would
focus on improving concrete landing facilities, ensuring clean water supply, and rehabilitating
solid waste and waste water treatment systems, etc. These investments will serve to reduce
environmental pollution, reduce physical product losses, and maintain product quality and
market presentation. The project would also assist in the preparation of management plans, and
support training and development of human resources and management skills for the upgraded
sites to improve their operational efficiency. After upgrading of basic facilities, different options
will be explored to encourage private sector investment in logistics facilities, as well as the active
participation of fisher organizations in providing support services.
17. In the first year, only the simplest works packages have been selected for implementation
(e.g., schemes that have negligible or neutral environmental impact and do not require
acquisition of private land and/or other assets). Training will be organized for safeguards staff,
and technical assistance consultants will be recruited to assist the PCU and the PPMUs, prior to
proceeding with the implementation of more complicated works in subsequent years.
Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (est. US$12.3 million, of which IDA
would finance around US$10.0 million; the remaining by government).
18. This component would support: (a) project management; and (b) monitoring and
evaluation.
Activity D1: Project management (est. US$11.7 million, of which IDA would finance around
US$9.4 million; the remaining by government)
19. The project would provide necessary training, equipment, facilities, and operating costs
for the PCU and the PMUs to ensure that the project is implemented in accordance with the
Project Operational Manual, including safeguards, financial management and audits, reporting
and supervision.
Activity D2: Monitoring and evaluation (est. US$0.6 million, of which IDA would finance
100%)
20. The project would provide necessary training, facilities, and operating costs to establish
an M&E system for the project in line with the AMT established by MPI. M&E consultant(s)
would be recruited to assist the PCU and the PPMUs in setting up and handling M&E activities.
Independent monitoring and evaluation consultants will also be recruited to assess the
effectiveness of activities implemented under each component.
26
Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements
Implementing Agencies
1. The project implementing agencies will be MARD and the eight project provinces, namely
Ca Mau and Soc Trang (Mekong Delta Cluster), Khanh Hoa, Phu Yen, and Binh Dinh (South
Central Cluster), and Ha Tinh, Nghe An, and Thanh Hoa (North Central Cluster).
2. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is the central Line Agency
responsible for overall project implementation. MARD is responsible for: (a) approving the
general investment plan of the entire project, and delegating to the Project Provinces to approve
annual work plans and budgets for their provinces; (b) reporting to the government on
implementation progress and effectiveness; and (c) coordinating with concerned ministries, such
as the Ministries of Finance and Planning and Investment, and the State Bank of Vietnam to
process necessary legal amendments or project restructuring to facilitate project implementation,
enhance disbursement, and improve the efficiency of the use of IDA funds.
3. The Central Steering Committee will be established, consisting of representatives from
concerned ministries to provide overall guidance to the project implementing agencies. The CSC
will be chaired by a leader of MARD or the Directorate of Fisheries (DOF). The CSC will hold
meetings at least twice a year to assist the implementing agencies in solving problems or
constraints faced during project implementation. The CSC will report to the MARD Minister or
Vice Minister.
4. The Project Central Unit, established within MARD, is the key project agency at the
central level, responsible for the implementation of all project activities at the central level and
across provinces, including procurement and financial management, and project supervision, as
well as results monitoring and evaluation. Specific responsibilities of the PCU include, but are
not limited to, the following: (a) providing guidance and support to the PPMUs in project
implementation and management, including preparing and implementing annual work plans,
procurement plans, disbursement plans, M&E, EMP, EMDPs, RAPs, etc.; (b) developing and
maintaining a sound project accounting system in accordance with the procedures required by
government and IDA; (c) handling all ICB packages and the selection of international
consultants, as well as all other procurement matters for which central management is more
efficient compared to provincial level management; (d) monitoring the quality of
implementation, safeguards compliance, and project impact to report to MARD and IDA; and (e)
preparing proposals for project restructuring and legal amendments, when necessary, for
submission to government and IDA.
5. The Provincial People’s Committee is responsible for project implementation in the
respective provinces. The PCC is responsible for: (a) approving the annual work plans and
budgets for the province; (b) reporting to the government/MARD on implementation progress
and effectiveness; and (c) providing necessary support to the PPMU to facilitate project
implementation, enhance disbursement, and improve efficiency in the use of IDA funds.
27
6. The Provincial Steering Committee will be established under the PPC, chaired by a
Vice Chair of the PPC, to provide overall guidance to the PPMU. The PSC will hold meetings at
least twice a year to assist the PPMU in resolving important implementation problems. The PSC
will report to the PPC Chair or Vice Chair.
7. The Provincial Project Management Unit, established under DARD and headed by a
Director/Vice Director or a senior officer of DARD, is the key project implementing agency at
the provincial level, responsible for implementation of all project activities in the province,
including procurement and financial management, project supervision, as well as results
monitoring and evaluation. Specific responsibilities of the PPMU include, but are not limited to,
the following: (a) preparing annual work plans, financial plans, procurement plans,
disbursement plans, and other project reports required by government and IDA; (b) handling
procurement activities that have been decentralized to the province and preparing evaluation
reports for submission to concerned agencies for approval; (c) preparing and submitting
evaluation reports for approval; (d) maintaining a sound project accounting system in accordance
with the procedures required by the government and IDA; (e) monitoring the quality of
implementation and safeguards compliance in the province; and (f) coordinating with Project
Districts and Communes to carry out planned activities.
Technical, Advisory and Supporting Agencies
8. The following agencies will be available to assist the PCU in implementing technical
matters.
9. The Directorate of Fisheries under MARD is responsible for the overall management of
the fisheries sector in the country. It will provide overall guidance to the PCU to ensure that
project activities are consistent with government policies and are complementary to government
programs.
10. The International Cooperation Department (ICD) in MARD will assist in
coordinating with other Government ministries and with donors and report to the MARD
Minister or Vice Minister on important matters (e.g., legal amendments).
11. The Departments of Aquaculture (DOA), Animal Health (DAH), Capture Fisheries
and Resources Protection (DECAFIREP), and other technical agencies of MARD will be
available to assist the PCU in implementing technical matters related to sustainable aquaculture
and capture fisheries according to their technical and management mandate assigned by MARD.
12. Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands (VASI) of MONRE will be available to
assist the PCU in implementing activities related to inter-sectoral planning and SEA according to
their technical and management mandate assigned by MONRE.
13. The Agricultural Projects Management Board is one of the project owners to which
the PCU will directly report. At present CRSD is mapped to APMB. MARD is considering the
establishment of a new Management Board for fisheries projects and CRSD could be re-mapped
to the Fisheries Projects Management Board (or equivalent).
28
14. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is the project owner to which
the PPMU will directly report.
15. Sub-Departments of Aquaculture, Animal Health, Capture Fisheries and Resources
Protection, and other technical agencies of DARD will be available to assist the PPMU in
implementing technical matters according to their technical and management mandate assigned
by DARD.
16. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment will be available to assist the
PPMU in implementing activities related to environmental planning, monitoring, supervision,
and management according to their technical and management mandate assigned by the PPC.
17. The Research Institutes for Aquaculture No. 1, 2, and 3 (RIAs), under the
management and coordination of the PCU, will implement a joint research program on
domestication and improved breeding of shrimp and fish.
18. Local governments, consisting of District and Commune People’s Committees of the
Project Districts and Communes, will be available to assist the PPMU in implementing and
monitoring project activities in their locations according to their administrative and management
functions.
19. Fish Farmer Organizations/Fisher Organizations will be established on a voluntary
basis through the facilitation of the project to implement GAP under Component B and
participatory co-management arrangements under Component C.
20. Co-management organizations consisting of members from among local fishers and
local government (i.e., Commune People‟s Committee) will be assisted to prepare and
implement a participatory co-management plan for the coastal waters assigned to them.
Financial Management, Disbursements and Procurement
Financial Management
21. The FM Assessment identified the following key risks: (a) the proposed project
implementing agencies (with staff mainly coming from Sub-DOAs or Sub-DECAFIREPs) are
not familiar with Bank FM requirements; and (b) project design gives greater flexibility and
autonomy to the project provinces, which would require greater capacity and accountability on
the part of the provinces in monitoring fund flows and in meeting the financial reporting
requirements. These issues require good management and coordination between MARD and the
DARDs. The FM risk is rated „substantial‟.
22. The principal risk mitigation measures include: (a) acceptable FM staffing to be
appointed at all implementing agencies, and provided with training on Bank FM requirements
and disbursement procedures; (b) a Project FM Manual to be developed as part of the Project
Operational Manual, describing in detail the roles and responsibilities of the concerned parties,
as well as specifying the project FM procedures and regulations; (c) an upgraded accounting
software to be installed for the project and training to be provided to all accounting staff; and (d)
29
an internal audit TOR, acceptable to the Bank, to build the capacity of Project internal audit
agencies.
23. Budgeting and counterpart funding arrangement. Central and provincial levels will
provide commitments to ensure that counterpart funds are available for project implementation
and subsequent operation. Budgeting procedures, including the roles and responsibilities of each
concerned party within MARD and the DARDs, will be described in the FM Manual.
24. Accounting software. The PCU would evaluate and select the most suitable
computerized accounting software that is being used by other agricultural projects under APMB
to modify (or upgrade) and use for CRSD. The same software would be installed at all
implementing agencies to ensure consistency in project accounting and reporting, and allow the
PCU to consolidate the Project‟s financial reports more easily.
25. Accounting system. A consistent accounting system, based on the accounting policies
and procedures under the Accounting System for Investment Owner (Decision 214 of the
Ministry of Finance) will be applied. The chart of account will be modified when necessary to
meet Bank FM requirements. Accounting records will be maintained in a computerized
accounting system (see above).
26. Financial reporting. The PCU will consolidate the Interim Financial Reports (IFRs)
prepared by the PCU and the PPMUs. IFRs will be based on the AMT, which is regulated under
Decision 803 of MPI, and will be sent to the Bank within 45 days of the end of the quarter. The
PCU will prepare consolidated annual financial statements covering all project components and
activities.
27. Internal Controls and Internal Auditing. Internal control procedures will be
established in the Project FM Manual. Internal audit function within APMB and an appointed
internal audit agency at the provincial level will be responsible for the internal audit of the PCU
and the PPMU. An internal audit consultant will be recruited by the PCU to build the capacity of
the assigned internal auditors at both central and provincial levels. The internal audit consultant
will be engaged no later than six months after project effectiveness, based on terms of reference
acceptable to the Bank.
28. External Audit. The PCU will appoint independent auditors acceptable to the Bank. The
Project financial statements will be audited annually in accordance with International Standards
on Auditing and terms of reference acceptable to the Bank. The auditors‟ reports will be made
available to the Bank within six months of the close of the fiscal year.
Disbursement
29. Nine Segregated Designated Accounts - one for the PCU and for each of the eight
PPMUs - will be opened in US Dollars (US$) at commercial banks under terms and conditions
satisfactory to IDA. The Designated Accounts will have a Fixed Ceiling of US$ 500,000 each.
30. Funds Flow Arrangements. The Project will use the following disbursement methods as
stipulated in the Disbursement Letter: advance, reimbursement, special commitment and direct
payment. The PCU and the PPMUs will report to the Bank on the operation of the DAs on a
30
monthly basis. Reporting on the use of Advances and requests Reimbursement would be
documented based on the Statements of Expenditures (SOEs) and a List of payments against
contracts that are subject to the Bank‟s prior review, together with Records. The Minimum
Application Size will be US$ 100,000 equivalent. The Project will have a Disbursement
Deadline Date (final date on which the Bank will accept applications for withdrawal from the
borrower or documentation on the use of credit proceeds already advanced by the Bank) four
months after the Closing Date. This "Grace Period" is granted in order to permit the orderly
project completion and closure of the Credit Account via the submission of applications and
supporting documentation for expenditures incurred on or before the Closing Date.
Expenditures incurred between the Closing Date and the Disbursement Deadline Date are not
eligible for disbursement, except as otherwise agreed with the Bank. Table 1 below provides the
allocations and disbursement percentages for the different disbursement categories.
Table 1: Allocation of the IDA Credit
Category Amount of the Financing
Allocated (expressed in
USD)
Amount of the Financing
Allocated (expressed in
SDR)
(1) Goods (including
vehicles) and Works
$73,600,000
47,550,000
(2). Non-consulting services,
Consultants‟ services,
Incremental operating costs,
and Training and Workshops
26,400,000
17,050,000
TOTAL AMOUNT 100,000,000 64,600,000
Procurement
31. Procurement Capacity and Risk Assessment. A PCRA of the project implementing
agencies - the PCU and PPMUs - was undertaken by the Bank in November 2011. Most PPMUs
have extensive experience in implementing procurement for civil works contracts under national
procurement procedures. However, most have relied heavily on consultants to prepare bidding
documents and to conduct bid evaluation. They do not have much experience in procurement of
large goods contracts, as well as consulting contracts. In addition, most PPMUs are not familiar
with Bank procurement procedures.
32. Risks identified by the PCRA are:
(i) Preference to follow Vietnam Public Procurement Law and regulations rather than
Bank Guidelines, when there are conflicts between them.
(ii) Lack of practical guidance on procurement process for staff.
(iii) Lack of familiarity with Bank procurement guidelines, Bank procurement documents
and lack of experience in administering Bank financed contracts.
(iv) Weak procurement planning.
31
(v) Inadequate capacity for contract administration.
(vi) Possible collusion, misrepresentation of qualifications etc.
33. The following measures will be taken to address the above risks:
Actions Responsibility Time frame
1 Assign procurement staff having qualifications and
experience acceptable to the Bank.
PIAs Completed
2 Recruit competent procurement consultants to oversee
and assist the PCU and the PPMUs.
PIAs Early stage of
implementation
3 Prepare, finalize, and adopt a project OM, including a
detailed procurement section.
PIAs Completed
4 Provide initial procurement training to all procurement
staff.
Bank Completed
5 Provide in-depth procurement and contract
administration training to the PPMUs.
Bank/PIAs Early stage of
implementation
6 Carry out regular implementation support missions and
annual procurement post review.
Bank/PIAs Implementation
7 Prepare Procurement Plans with appropriate packaging
and realistic scheduling.
PIAs Preparation and
Implementation
8 Prepare and adopt an Action Plan to Improve Fairness
and Transparency in Procurement (as part of the OM).
PIAs Completed
9 Establish an effective complaint handling mechanism. PIAs Implementation
34. Given the complexity of the procurement under the project, the high risks inherent in the
country‟s public procurement system (as confirmed by the Country Procurement Risk
Assessment conducted in 2002 and the Public Expenditure Review and the Integrated Fiduciary
Assessment in 2005), past performance of projects in the sector, and the findings of the PCRA as
presented above, the procurement risk for the proposed project is rated “high” and the residual
risk, after the above measures are implemented, is rated “substantial”.
35. Applicable Procurement Procedures. For contracts financed in whole or in part by the
IDA Credit under the Project, procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the World
Bank‟s “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated May 2004 revised
in October 2006, and May 2010 (the Procurement Guidelines); “Guidelines: Selection and
Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated May 2004 revised in October
2006, and May 2010 (the Consultant Guidelines); and the provisions stipulated in the Financing
Agreement. For contracts procured through National Competitive Bidding (NCB), additional
provisions listed in the Attachment to Schedule 2 of the Financing Agreement will be applicable.
36. Procurement under the Project will include all categories: works, goods, non-consulting
services and consulting services. Procurement activities under Component A will comprise of,
but not limited to: (a) selection of individual consultants and consulting firms to provide various
consulting services; and (b) procurement of goods such as necessary equipment including
computers, servers, internet lines, etc., for upgrading of Vnfishbase system and non-consulting
services such as surveys, data collections, and awareness raising activities. For Component B,
procurement activities mainly include: (a) selection of individuals and firms to provide various
32
consulting and technical assistance services; and (b) procurement of goods, works and non-
consulting services for improving bio-security conditions for selected farming communities and
hatcheries in the project area; establishing on-farm GAP demonstration sites; and strengthening
different related organizations (e.g., provincial and district extension centers, departments of
animal health/aquaculture, Research Institutes of Aquaculture, Verification and Testing Center
for Aquaculture, DONREs) for the purposes of improved bio-security management, improved
seed quality management, and improved environmental management. In the case of Component
C, procurement activities will mostly involve: (a) selection of individuals and firms to provide
consulting and technical assistance services; and (b) procurement of goods, works and non-
consulting services for implementing co-management plans, strengthening the monitoring,
control and surveillance systems of MARD and Project Provinces, rehabilitating fishing ports,
and landing sites, and developing selected basic infrastructure for local ethnic minority and poor
fishing communities to improve their livelihoods. Under Component D, procurement activities
will include: (a) selection of individuals and firms to provide consulting services, and (b)
procurement of goods and works for purposes of project management, supervision, monitoring
and evaluation.
37. Procurement activities under the project will be undertaken by the project implementing
agencies, including the PCU and the eight PPMUs. The PCU will carry out procurement
activities at the central level, all ICB goods/works packages and consulting services that may
need international consultants. Procurement activities decentralized to the project provinces will
be implemented by the PPMUs. The PCU will have responsibility to provide guidance and
support to the PPMUs in handling the procurement activities in the provinces. For the items such
as patrol boats that need strong involvement of both the PCU and the respective PPMU, they will
work closely together to ensure that the procurement process is carried out properly and
smoothly.
38. Procurement thresholds. The thresholds for procurement methods and Bank prior
review are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Bank Prior Review
Expenditure
Category
Contract Value
(US$) Procurement Method Bank Prior Review
Goods
>=500,000 ICB All the ICB contracts
<500,000 NCB First contract under PCU and
each PPMU; and all contracts >=
US$ 400,000
<100,000 Shopping First contract under PCU and
each PPMU
NA DC All DC contracts
Works
>=5,000,000 ICB All the ICB contracts
<5,000,000 NCB First contract under PCU and
each PPMU; and all contracts >=
US$ 3,000,000
<100,000 Shopping First contract under PCU and
each PPMU
NA DC All DC contracts
33
Consultant
Services
>=200,000 QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS All contracts >= US$ 200,000
for firms; all contracts >= US$
50,000 for individuals; and all
SSS contracts.
<200,000 QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS
and CQS
NA SSS
NA IC
Notes: ICB – International Competitive Bidding
NCB – National Competitive Bidding
DC – Direct Contracting
QCBS – Quality and Cost Based Selection
QBS – Quality Based Selection
FBS – Fixed Budget Selection
LCS – Least Cost Selection
CQS – Selection Based on Consultants‟ Qualification
SSS – Single (or Sole) Source Selection
IC – Individual Consultant selection procedure
NA – Not Applicable
39. Procurement Plan. The draft Procurement Plan for the first 18 months of
implementation, available as a separate project documents, has been prepared by the PIAs and
had been approved by MARD before negotiations. The Procurement Plans will be updated
annually or as needed by the PIAs to: (a) reflect project implementation; (b) accommodate
changes that should be made; and (c) add new packages necessary for the project. Each update
will be subject to Bank prior review. Procurement Plans will be published in the World Bank
website.
40. Procurement Supervision and Post-review. Contracts not subject to prior review will
be subject to post-review as per procedures set forth in paragraph 5 of Appendix 1 of the
Procurement Guidelines and Consultant Guidelines. The rate of post review will initially be
20 percent. This rate will be adjusted periodically based on procurement performance. The PCU
and the PPMUs will send to the Bank, on a bi-annual basis, a list of all awarded contracts for
goods, works and consultants‟ services that are subject to post-review.
Environment (including safeguards)
41. The project is assigned an Environment Category B as its negative environmental and
social impacts are assessed to be limited, localized and manageable. MARD has prepared an
ESMF as part of the feasibility study in accordance with the country‟s environmental regulations
and the World Bank OP/BP 4.01. The key potential negative socio-environmental impacts
include: (a) improper use and management of chemicals and antibiotics in aquaculture; (b)
ineffective management and improper treatment of solid wastes and wastewater from
aquaculture; and (c) civil works impacts (i.e., increased localized level of dust, noise, disturbance
to traffic and community, safety risks, water pollution risks) during the construction of new
infrastructure or rehabilitation and upgrading of existing infrastructure (i.e., upgrading of fishing
ports and landing sites). These impacts are assessed to be temporary and localized in nature and
can be avoided or minimized by proper mitigation measures.
34
42. Natural habitats. Impacts on natural habitats will be positive. The project will not have
direct impacts on critical habitats, but under Component B, fisheries co-management
arrangements may involve the management of some spawning grounds of aquatic species.
43. The ESMF ensures that activities financed under the Project would not create adverse
impacts on the local environment and local communities, and the residual and/or unavoidable
impacts will be adequately mitigated. The framework provides guidelines for: (a) safeguard
screening, including a negative list of sub-projects that would be excluded from the menu of
eligible sub-projects; (b) impact assessment and development of mitigation measures, including
ECOP for small scale civil works and dredging operation; (c) safeguard documentation
preparation and clearance; (d) safeguard implementation, supervision, monitoring, and reporting;
(e) institutional strengthening and capacity building programs; and (f) institutional arrangements
and budget.
44. The ESMF requires that for each type of infrastructure activity, the implementing
agencies (PPMUs) will prepare standard mitigation measures in the form of ECOP or EMP to
mitigate construction and operation related impacts in accordance with the ESMF. The sub-
project ECOP or EMP will be included in the bidding and contract documents and will be closely
monitored by supervision engineers. ECOP documents have been prepared by the project
provinces for the first year infrastructure sub-projects.
45. The PCU and the PPMUs, which are responsible for overall supervision, monitoring, and
implementation of the ESMF, the EMPs, and the ECOPs, will each appoint an Environmental
and Social Safeguard Officer. The project will provide adequate resources to allow the PCU and
the PPMUs to cooperate effectively with the DONREs and the local governments in carrying out
environmental monitoring and management activities as stipulated in the EMPs/ECOPs. The
project will also provide training to build capacity of the PCU, the PPMUs and the DONREs on
implementation of the ESMF and related monitoring activities. A technical assistance team will
also be recruited to assist the PCU in managing project implementation, including environmental
and social safeguards. An independent agency will be recruited to monitor compliance
throughout project implementation.
46. During project implementation, the following steps will be taken: (a) environmental
screening to determine eligibility (by the PPMU); (b) determining whether an environmental
impact assessment including EMP or an environmental protection commitment (EPC) including
ECOP is required for the sub-project (by the PPMU); (c) preparation of the required safeguards
documents (by the PPMU) and their approval (by DONRE for EMPs or by District People‟s
Committee for EPC/ECOP) followed by public disclosure (by the PPMU); (d) incorporating
mitigation measures into bidding documents, construction and supervision contracts (by the
PPMU); and (e) monitoring of implementation of the EMP or ECOP (by the PPMU and
construction supervision consultants).
Social (including safeguards)
47. Two Bank social safeguards policies (OP. 4.10 and OP 4.12) are triggered under this
project. The project‟s negative social impact is limited to small-scale acquisition of land for
35
upgrading of existing small-scale infrastructure financed by the project (i.e., access roads,
landing sites and fishing ports). In some specific areas where ethnic minorities (EM) are present
(i.e., coastal areas of Soc Trang province), the project‟s land acquisition for infrastructure
upgrading may affect local ethnic minority households.
48. During project preparation, the PPMUs have evaluated and excluded all investment
proposals that may cause large-scale (or irreversible) social and environment impacts. MARD
has also prepared the RPF and EMPF in accordance with Bank safeguard requirements to guide
project staff on management of social impacts during implementation. Voluntary land donation
is not encouraged and not expected under CRSD. For the infrastructure sub-projects to be
implemented in the first year, the implementing agencies have carried out screening and have
confirmed that these sub-projects will not require land acquisition.
49. Participatory fisheries co-management will be promoted under CRSD to prevent and
resolve conflicts among resource users and to give voice to the poor in the decision-making
process. However, it also may result in short term impacts on the poor and/or ethnic minorities in
the area. To anticipate and mitigate such impacts, necessary resources will be provided to each
co-management group to prepare and implement an appropriate mitigation plan as part of the
commune co-management plan. In some provinces (e.g., Soc Trang), public land will be
allocated to the poor and landless fishers to develop other income generating activities. The
project will coordinate with the government‟s other initiatives to ensure that a comprehensive
approach for ethnic minorities will be adopted to generate additional income for the poor and the
ethnic minorities. The project has also developed a set of guidelines covering core principles to
be applied for the co-management approach supported under the project. A co-management
framework (part of the project‟s Operational Manual) has been prepared by MARD, consistent
with the core principles of the process framework described under Bank OP 4.12. This
framework has been subjected to public consultations and it will be utilized to guide the
preparation of commune specific co-management plans.
50. The PCU is responsible for the overall implementation of all social safeguards policies
under the project. However, most of the work related to social safeguards will take place at local
levels and will be handled by the PPMUs. The main role of the PCU during project
implementation will be to provide necessary training and technical assistance to the PPMUs and
ensure that the PPMUs are aware of the required social safeguards and know how to implement
them appropriately. Institutional arrangements, including staffing, consultant support, training,
independent monitoring, and Bank mission support have been discussed under the earlier section
on Environment.
51. Public Consultation and Disclosure. Extensive consultations were carried out with the
affected communities during the social assessment and the preparation of the project‟s
environmental and social safeguard frameworks. The ESMF, the RPF, and the EMPF are
acceptable to the Bank, and were disclosed locally in the project provinces (in Vietnamese) on
January 4, 2012 and through the Bank‟s Infoshop on December 28, 2011.
Monitoring and Evaluation
36
52. Aligned Monitoring Tool. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the project
would be established in line with the AMT established by MPI.
53. At local levels, data on progress of Component A (Institutional capacity strengthening for
sustainable fisheries management) would be collected from DARD progress reports. For
Component B (Good practices for sustainable aquaculture), data would be collected through
existing networks of district and commune extension officers and from farmer organizations to
be established and facilitated under the project. For Component C (Sustainable management of
near-shore capture fisheries), data would be collected through existing networks of
DECAFIREP, fishing ports, landing sites, and additional field surveys. Costs of establishing and
implementing the project M&E have been estimated and are included in project costs.
54. Capacity Building for M&E. In the PCU and in each of the PPMUs, at least one M&E
staff would be appointed to consolidate information from the components and prepare quarterly
reports that would be disseminated and discussed among key stakeholders at the provincial level.
M&E consultants would also be recruited to assist the PPMUs in setting up and handling M&E
activities in accordance with Decision 803/2007/QD-BKH of MPI, dated July 30, 2007. The
project would also provide necessary training for the PCU and the PPMUs‟ M&E staff to ensure
that data collection, analysis, and reporting will be carried out in accordance with the Results
Framework and Monitoring in Annex 1.
55. Reports and Reviews. The M&E reports will be prepared, updated and submitted to the
Bank semi-annually as part of the semi- and annual progress reports. During implementation, the
project‟s result indicators will be monitored, reviewed, and fine-tuned, if necessary through
project restructuring. A mid-Term Review mission will assess progress in achieving the PDO.
An Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICRR) will be prepared by the government
and by the Bank team within six months after the project closes to assess the project‟s
achievements.
Governance and Anti-Corruption
56. The project has developed a Governance and Transparency Action Plan (GTAP) that
addresses the general governance environment in Vietnam, as well as the risks associated with
the fisheries sector. The GTAP conforms to the overall priorities of the country‟s governance
agenda and delineates the measures to be implemented and monitored throughout the project
cycle. The GTAP draws on: (a) anti-corruption measures developed under previous World Bank-
financed projects; and (b) the findings of the 2009 review of progress in implementing the
Government‟s Anti-Corruption Law in the construction sector in Vietnam. It also reflects local
capacity for implementation.
57. The GTAP, which is presented in the OM, consists principally of two parts: (a) awareness
raising and capacity building; and (b) transparency and disclosure measures. Specific activities
include the preparation of a governance and transparency training manual; the implementation of
corresponding training sessions; and periodic disclosure of key project related information in
relevant public media.
37
58. Other governance and corruption mitigation measures adhere to the specific principles
and actions already set out in relevant World Bank policies and guidelines for procurement,
financial management and disclosure, as appropriate.
38
Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework
Vietnam: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project (P118979)
Stakeholder Risk Rating Substantial
Description:
Although consultations with local beneficiaries during project preparation indicated a broad support for the project, local farmers and fishers may be reluctant to adopt GAP and participatory fisheries co-management; provincial and local agencies are reluctant to adopt inter-sectoral planning.
Risk Management: During implementation (especially in the first two years) consultations will be continued and information campaigns will be launched in all project communes through village and commune meetings. Training will be provided to local communities to raise their awareness of GAP and participatory fisheries co-management. Resp: PCU/PPMUs | Stage: Preparation & implementation | Due Date: N/A | Status: In progress
Implementing Agency (IA) Risks (including Fiduciary Risks)
Capacity Rating Substantial
Description:
Project provinces lack financial capacity to provide counterpart funds.
Risk Management: Implementing agencies will provide commitment letters confirming that counterpart funds will be provided in a timely manner. Provinces that fail to provide counterpart funds may have their IDA allocation moved to other provinces which have adequate counterpart funds. Resp: MARD/Provinces | Stage: Preparation & implementation | Due Date : 4/15/2012 | Status: Completed
PCU and PPMUs have little prior experience with Bank funded projects and Bank policies and procedures. Their capacity in financial management and procurement is weak, especially at the provincial level.
Risk Management: A Project FM Manual and a Procurement Implementation Manual acceptable to the Bank (which could be part of the Project Operational Manual), will provide practical step-by-step guidance on FM and procurement procedures. Appropriate accounting software will be selected for accounting records and reporting purposes. Training will be provided on Bank procurement, financial and disbursement procedures, including preparation of bid evaluation reports and financial reports. Qualified procurement and accounting staff acceptable to the Bank, as well as qualified procurement advisers/procurement consultants, acceptable to the Bank, will be appointed. Resp: MARD & Bank | Stage: Preparation & implementation | Due Date: 4/15/2012 | Status: Completed
Governance Rating Substantial
Description:
The project involves a large number of stakeholders. Overlapping mandates of the different agencies may result in coordination issues and delays in implementation.
Risk Management: The project Operational Manual includes a responsibility matrix and describes the TOR of each agency. The FM Manual will include a similar matrix on fund flow and disbursement arrangements. MARD and Bank missions will monitor implementation of the OM and the FM Manual. Resp: MARD & Bank | Stage: Preparation & implementation | Due Date: 4/15/2012 | Status: Completed
Risk Management: A Governance, Transparency and Anti-corruption Action Plan (GTAP), acceptable to the Bank and to be part of Operational Manual, will be adopted and implemented by project agencies. Bank missions will monitor implementation of the GTAP.
39
Resp: MARD & Bank. | Stage: Preparation & implementation | Due Date: 4/15/2012 | Status: Completed Risk Management: Close monitoring of procurement, FM and GTAP during implementation. Procurement: appropriate prior review thresholds, enhanced PMU procurement and financial management training and hiring of consultants to assist in the procurement and financial management processes, and for construction supervision. Enhanced enforcement of procurement complaint-handing and disclosure requirements. Financial management: Interim Financial Reports (IFR) to be prepared and submitted by the PMUs. Project financial statements to be audited by both internal auditor and independent auditor accepted by the Bank. Claims for expenditures to be verified by the State Treasury. Resp: MARD & Bank. | Stage: implementation | Due Date: N/A | Status: Not Yet Due
Project Risks
Design Rating Substantial
Description:
The project involves several technical components and covers a large geographical area in different regions.
The project involves a large number of implementing agencies as well as many technical departments.
Risk Management: A technical assistance team will assist the PPMUs in project implementation and management. Training and capacity building support will be provided throughout the project implementation period. Bank missions will provide technical guidance as required. Resp: PCU & Bank | Stage: Implementation | Due Date: 3/31/2013 | Status: Not Yet Due Risk Management: See Governance, above. Resp: MARD | Stage: Preparation & implementation | Due Date: 06/01/2012 | Status: Not yet Due
The five year project period may be inadequate. Risk Management: A Mid-Term Review will be carried out in Year 3 to review progress and to restructure the project, if required.
Resp: MPI/MARD & Bank
Stage: Implementation Due Date: 7/02/2014 Status: Not Yet Due
Social and Environmental Rating Substantial
Description:
Project agencies are too weak to implement the environment and social safeguards effectively.
Risk Management: Project safeguard documents will provide clear guidance to the implementing agencies. Training will be provided to the PPMUs, especially in the first two years, and maintained thereafter during project implementation. Bank missions will monitor implementation and provide guidance. Resp: MARD & Bank | Stage: Preparation & Implementation | Due Date: 09/01/2012 | Status: Not yet Due
Co-management may lead to marginalization of poor fishers, including ethnic minorities.
Risk Management: An Operational Manual will define the approaches and consultation processes to allow affected communities to participate in designing the rules and measures to prevent them from being adversely affected. Bank missions will monitor implementation of the consultation processes and provide guidance on remedial action, if required.
Resp: MARD & Bank. Stage: Implementation Due Date: 4/15/2012 Status: Completed
Program and Donor Rating Low
40
Description:
The project is free standing and no other donors are involved.
Risk Management: Not relevant
Resp: N/A Stage: N/A Due Date: N/A Status: N/A
Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Rating Substantial
Description:
Consultant services and civil works contracts are not managed well.
Risk Management: Training will be organized for PCU and PPMU staff in project management, and monitoring and evaluation, especially in the first two years and maintained throughout the project implementation period. Bank missions will monitor implementation on a regular basis. Resp: PCU & Bank | Stage: Preparation & Implementation | Due Date: 9/1//2012 | Status: Not yet Due
Government may not be committed to the project’s approach and activities on project completion.
Risk Management: On-going dialogue with MARD on mainstreaming CRSD approaches and activities, as well as on possible follow-on projects.
Resp: Bank Stage: Implementation Due Date: 7/02/2017 Status: Not Yet Due
Overall Risk Rating: Substantial
Description:
The project involves a large number of implementing agencies as well as government technical departments. It has several technical components and implementation will be carried out in a large geographical area in three different regions. Risk management measures implemented during project preparation, and those to be carried out during project implementation (including intensive implementation support from the Bank during the first two years) will address the risks identified.
41
Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
Strategy and Approach for Implementation Support
1. A risk-based approach has been used to develop the implementation support plan for the
project. The key risks identified in the ORAF mainly relate to the inadequate experience of the
implementing agencies, the governance risk associated with project decentralization, and the
compliance risks in handling the project‟s procurement, financial management, and safeguards.
Mitigation measures have been agreed with the government and the project agencies at appraisal
and are incorporated into project design. The main strategy and approach for implementation
support to manage the identified risks include capacity building for implementing agencies,
enhancement of project governance, and diligent project monitoring and supervision, especially
during the initial period of project implementation.
2. Building capacity of implementing agencies. Most of the project implementing
agencies have little experience with the Bank-funded projects and are also not familiar with Bank
procedures. Local authorities may insist on following government procedures or implement
“dual procedures”. The project includes training and capacity building activities for the
implementing and oversight agencies. Technical assistance during project implementation will
provide timely guidance and advice to the PCU and the PPMUs, especially when there are
technically complex implementation issues or there are differences between national regulations
and Bank procedures.
3. Enhancement of project governance. Decentralization in project implementation and
management would create incentives for local levels; however, capacity at the local levels is
generally low. The responsibilities of each implementing agency have been clearly defined in the
Operational Manual. The project GTAP will be implemented; the GTAP includes protocols for
increased transparency, as well as grievance redress mechanisms. In addition, an enhanced
internal audit system will be applied for each implementing agency.
4. Intensive monitoring and supervision, especially in the initial period. There are risks
of non-compliance in procurement, financial management, and safeguards during project
implementation. The project, therefore, requires intensive monitoring and supervision in the
initial period to identify issues in a timely manner and to address them before they become major
problems. The review and supervision would follow a risk-based approach which will focus on
poor performing implementing agencies and on high risk areas. Intensive monitoring and
supervision would be maintained until the capacity of the implementing agencies has been
improved or the project‟s technical assistance team has been recruited and is functioning
effectively.
Implementation Support Plan
5. The Bank team will provide intensive implementation support in the initial period,
focusing on the implementation of the various agreed risk management measures on technical
issues, as well as on fiduciary, safeguards, and governance aspects. It will address identified
42
issues promptly and provide extra support to those agencies and provinces where implementation
is either lagging or not in compliance with agreed policies and procedures. In addition to full
implementation support missions (generally two a year), one or two interim missions will also be
fielded depending on project needs. After the first year of implementation, the PCU would
organize an implementation review workshop to assess project performance, draw lessons, and
recommend necessary adjustments.
6. A Mid-Term Review will be conducted in Year 3 to review implementation progress and
assess the likelihood of achieving the PDO, as well as to identify any changes needed to the
project; some of these may require formal restructuring, based on government request, including
amendment to the Financing Agreement. About six months before project close, an
implementation completion and results review (ICRR) mission will be fielded to carry out a
comprehensive assessment of the project and to draft the Bank ICRR, as well as to guide MARD
and the project provinces in preparing the government‟s own ICRR.
7. A balanced skills mix will be retained for every full mission. The majority of the Bank
team is based in Hanoi and will be available to support project agencies on a frequent basis.
International technical experts in aquaculture and fisheries will be part of implementation
support missions to provide specialized technical expertise.
8. The focus of implementation support in different implementation periods is presented
below.
Table 1: Implementation support
Time Focus Skills Needed Resource
Estimate (per year)
First 18
months Procurement: training and
supervision Procurement specialist 4 Staff
Weeks (SW)
FM and disbursement: training and
supervision FM specialist 4 SW
Social safeguards: training and
supervision Social safeguards specialist 3 SW
Environmental safeguards: training
and supervision Environmental safeguards specialist 3 SW
Aquaculture: training and
supervision Aquaculture specialist (TTL) 8 SW
Hatchery technologies: training and
supervision Hatcheries specialist 2 SW
Fisheries co-management: training
and supervision Capture fisheries specialist 2 SW
Infrastructure: technical review Fisheries infrastructure specialist 2 SW
M&E: training and supervision M&E specialist 2 SW
18-48
months Procurement: training and
supervision Procurement specialist 4 SW
FM and disbursement: training and
supervision FM specialist 3 SW
43
Social safeguards: training and
supervision Social safeguards specialist 4 SW
Environmental safeguards: training
and supervision Environmental safeguards specialist 4 SW
Aquaculture: training and
supervision Aquaculture specialist (TTL) 8 SW
Hatchery technologies: training and
supervision Hatcheries specialist 2 SW
Fisheries co-management: training
and supervision Capture fisheries specialist 4 SW
Infrastructure: technical review
Fisheries infrastructure specialist 4 SW
M&E: training and supervision M&E specialist 4 SW
48-60
months Procurement: training and
supervision Procurement specialist 2 SW
FM and disbursement: training and
supervision FM specialist 2 SW
Social safeguards: training and
supervision Social safeguards specialist 2 SW
Environmental safeguards: training
and supervision Environmental safeguards specialist 2 SW
Aquaculture: training and
supervision Aquaculture specialist (TTL) 6-8 SW
Hatchery technologies: training and
supervision Hatcheries specialist 1-2 SW
Fisheries co-management: training
and supervision Capture fisheries specialist 1-2 SW
Infrastructure: technical review
Fisheries infrastructure specialist 1-2 SW
M&E: training and supervision M&E specialist 1-2 SW
Table 2: Skills mix required for implementation support
Skills Needed No. SW (per year)
No. Trips (per year)
Comments
Project management/Aquaculture (TTL) 8 2-4 Bank staff Procurement 3-4 2 Bank staff FM 3-4 2 Bank staff Social safeguards 3-4 2 Bank staff Environmental safeguards 3-4 2 Bank staff Hatchery 1-2 1-2 FAO consultant Fisheries co-management 2-4 1-2 Bank staff and local
consultant Infrastructure 2-4 1-2 FAO consultant M&E 2-4 1-2 Bank staff
44
Annex 6: Mainstreaming Marine Spatial Planning, Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
1. Vietnam‟s coastline is over 3,200 kilometers long and includes more than 20 distinct
ecosystem types, including coral reefs, sea grasses, mangroves, inland marshes, estuaries, coastal
lagoons, dunes, and beaches. Many of these ecosystems are regionally unique in their
oceanographic properties. At the species and habitat level, Vietnam is a reservoir of diversity,
home to over 11,000 known species. Marine and coastal resources derived from this biodiversity
base provide some of Vietnam‟s most important renewable natural assets. And, for Vietnam‟s
coastal provinces, marine fisheries and aquaculture jointly accounts for the largest share of
income and employment.
2. The current level of protection for Vietnam‟s marine and coastal areas is insufficient to
capture this biological importance and ensure the sustainable use of marine biological diversity -
especially given the increasing pressures from development and associated declines in species
abundance and richness, and the incremental degradation or loss of marine habitats. Approaches
to marine biodiversity conservation interventions in Vietnam have tended to be opportunistic and
ad hoc rather than strategic and coordinated. Conservation and sustainability tools, including
tools for mainstreaming sustainable use of biodiversity in fisheries management, have been of
limited scope, underutilized and/or poorly implemented.
3. For example, while Vietnam has developed a marine protected areas (MPAs) network
plan and has established a few individual MPAs, to date there has been relatively less attention
paid to their application in biodiversity conservation or sustainable fisheries management.
Indeed, even if these are appropriately applied and well-managed, the total proposed MPA
network represents less than 1% of Vietnam‟s coastal region. The application of fisheries
refugia areas in Vietnam – a tool that can also be applied for integrating fisheries management
goals with habitat protection - has likewise been limited, despite being increasingly advocated as
a practical means of sustaining fisheries resources at critical stages of their life cycle for
protection, enhancement and sustainable use (and widely viewed as being politically and socially
easier to establish compared to traditional MPAs).
4. Mainstreaming the application of marine spatial planning strategies, biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use requires significantly increasing the representation of
effectively conserved coastal and marine ecosystems, protecting threatened species, integrating
biodiversity conservation in marine resource management, and rebuilding or protecting fish
stocks. The baseline scenario is that continued limited applicability and/or under-utilization of
integrated marine spatial management and marine species protection, and lack of mainstreaming
of biological conservation and sustainable use in marine fisheries, will lead to continued
degradation of biological diversity and continued unsustainable use, thus seriously hampering the
ability of the broader CRSD framework to meet its targets.
5. CRSD therefore includes activities supporting participatory co-management where local
fishing communities will cooperate with local governments to play a key role in the management
of sustainable ecosystems and the resources they support, including protecting areas of high
45
importance for both fisheries resources (e.g., spawning and staging areas) and biodiversity
(including protection of threatened or endangered marine species). This approach is expected to
be more cost-effective and sustainable compared to the traditional establishment of MPAs in
integrating fisheries management with habitat protection and biodiversity conservation.
6. Under CRSD, a preliminary list of co-management areas, with high biodiversity or
endangered species requiring protection via prescriptive management and functional zoning, will
be identified through consultations with experts, review of scientific literature, and application of
screening and ground-truthing methods. These sites will be studied further to develop
appropriate co-management plans including protected area planning, zoning and prescription of
management measures to reduce impacts from fishing, protect key habitats, and promote the
concept of sustainable use. Local fishing communities will be consulted on these plans to ensure
their strong ownership in implementing the plans with initial funding from the project. The
spatial planning outputs (i.e., Component A) will also help inform the prioritization of future
sites for integrating co-management with biodiversity protection and sustainable use, thus
providing a staged sequencing for sustainable longer-term outcomes related to the integration of
biodiversity conservation with sustainable resource use.
7. It is expected that at least three co-management areas in the eight provinces, with both of
high biodiversity and fisheries values, will benefit from the project, and will cover at least 50,000
ha of important natural habitats. It is anticipated that the preferred designation will be fisheries
refugia areas, with an emphasis on the protection of areas critical for the life cycle of
economically important species, as well as the protection (and/or recovery) of key habitats.
Identification and assessment of candidate fisheries refugia areas will utilize the fisheries refugia
site selection criteria developed previously under the UNEP-GEF South China Sea project.
Other types of designations will also be explored, including local regulations for zoning and
management of fishing and other activities established at the Provincial or lower level. At least
one species protection plan will also be developed as part of the co-management planning for
these sites.
8. The project will not seek to establish new MPAs under Vietnam‟s national MPA network
plan. While the MPA network process in Vietnam remains an important element of protecting
marine ecosystems and promoting sustainable use, CRSD will focus on promoting a
participatory approach to sustainably manage fisheries ecosystems, and avoid establishing a
bulky administrative system and heavy investments in civil works, as is normally the case in
many MPA projects.
46
Annex 7. Key Guiding Principles for Participatory Co-management
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
1. Fisheries co-management helps to regulate the use of coastal resources through the
establishment of rules and institutional arrangements for fishery co-management schemes, where
fishing communities (with the facilitation of local governments) agree on a collective plan for
sustainable use of coastal resources that are depleting due to overuse. Co-management
contributes to improving the sustainability of near-shore fisheries through a participatory process
that enables local fishing communities to resolve problems related to depleting fishing stocks. In
Vietnam, co-management has been piloted in closed systems such as lagoons and reservoirs.
However, co-management has not been practiced in coastal areas, which are considered to be
„open-access‟. Decree No. 33 of 2010 allows the allocation of open-access coastal areas to local
governments and local fishing communities to practice participatory co-management for the
sustainable use of coastal resources.
2. CRSD would facilitate the establishment of fishery co-managements in about 140
selected communes. The project will benefit from local experience of existing co-management
schemes in the project area. Co-management could be established at the community level, or at
the level of communes or districts, depending on the availability and distribution of resources,
local government regulations, and fishing practices. Fishing communities will be empowered and
provided necessary resources to make decisions to sustainably use and protect the coastal
resources that have been assigned to them through the development of a feasible, collective, and
concrete plan of action. Although co-management is expected to yield long-term positive impact
on the livelihoods of fishermen and the coastal resources, it may result in short-term adverse
impacts on the poor and vulnerable fishing groups in the co-management area.
Key Guiding Principles
3. Fishing communities participating in a CRSD co-management scheme will be provided
necessary financial resources to minimize and mitigate the unintended adverse impacts. The
project will also ensure that they are involved in the consultation processes to enable them to
take part in designing the rules for co-management, determining measures necessary to prevent
being adversely affected as a result of co-management, and in implementing and monitoring
project activities that may affect their livelihoods.
4. International experience. International experience in fisheries co-management
highlights the following:
Balance between conservation and development. Sustainable management of coastal
resources depends both upon effective resource conservation and economic benefits for
local communities.
Ecosystem sustainability. Sustainable management of local coastal resources must be
nested within and effectively linked with the sustainable management of the larger
ecosystems of which they are a part.
47
Economic and social sustainability. Management of coastal resources must be
economically and socially sustainable over the long term, both technically and
institutionally.
Empowerment of local communities. Local fishing communities should be empowered
to make decisions with respect to the utilization and maintenance of local coastal
resources within an appropriate legal framework that recognizes the interest of all
stakeholders.
Facilitating role of the government and local agencies. Central and provincial
government departments and agencies should be facilitators, regulators, and advisers,
rather than being responsible for the direct management of local coastal resources.
Transparency and accountability. Public decisions and actions concerning the
management of coastal resources should be transparent. All stakeholders should be
accountable to those that they serve - community leaders to their communities, and public
officials to the people at large.
5. Vietnamese experience.16
Vietnamese experience in fisheries co-management brings
out the following lessons:
Establishment of co-management should be demand driven, involving both local
governments and local fishers.
Co-management should be based on resource surveys and the local fishing demand.
Co-management should be established with clear area boundaries and should avoid
overlap with neighbors.
Restrictions on fishing should be selective and should be trialed for a defined period of
time, on the basis of consensus among all resource users within a co-management.
Each intervention (e.g., change of fishing gear, fishing pattern/methods, registration of
licenses, etc.) should be carefully studied by concerned agencies. Close coordination
should be maintained between national, provincial, district and communal levels to
ensure that activities/interventions are in accordance with national and international
fishing regulations/practices.
Each province should develop its own plan that fits local socio-economic and cultural
conditions. When interventions require regional or national commitments, the central
level should undertake the coordination role.
6. Consultations with affected groups. The key principles guiding consultations with
affected groups include:
Encouraging all stakeholders to take an active part in analyzing: (a) the need for co-
management; and (b) the potential impact of such co-management on their fishing
activities, their income, and their livelihoods.
16 Based on consultations with a range of representative potentially affected households.
48
Encouraging stakeholders to play an active role in designing the rules/institutional
arrangements for the proposed co-management.
Participation of stakeholders in designing, implementing, and monitoring the
implementation of mitigation measures to effectively manage potential adverse impacts
on incomes, and/or conflicts during the implementation of co-management.
A facilitation role for local governments as well as fisheries authorities and fisheries
associations in the design of rules/institutional arrangements and their adoption on a trial
basis to allow adjustment of rules.
Implementation steps
7. The following steps should be undertaken when planning for fisheries co-management:
Stakeholder analysis to understand the socio-economic profiles of all members within a
co-management scheme. At a minimum, the following factors need to be understood: (a)
the level of dependence on coastal resources on the part of the members of the proposed
co-management scheme; (b) their well-being; and (c) the culture and traditions, including
the potential roles of local governments and fisheries authorities in facilitating the
establishment of the proposed co-management scheme.
Identifying potentially affected households based on a stakeholder analysis, and
including them in the mitigation plan.
Grievance redress mechanisms established at two levels: (a) potential conflicts
identified through a participatory approach, e. g., community consultation, to seek
preventive measures; and (b) involvement of relevant parties in charge of conflict
settlement in resolving conflicts to the satisfaction of affected members in a co-
management.
Responsibilities of implementing agencies
8. Provincial Project Management Unit. The PPMU will be responsible for co-operating
with the PCU, the local governments, and stakeholders to prepare and implement co-
management for selected coastal communities in the province. It will also be responsible for
monitoring implementation and advising the PPC on handling conflicts and grievances.
9. District People Committee (DPC). The DPC will be responsible for implementing
project activities in the district. The DPC may assign the District Resettlement Committee (DRC)
to take additional responsibilities in handling conflicts and grievances from affected
people/communities.
10. Commune Co-management Committee (CCC). The CCC will comprise
representatives from the local fisher organizations and the local government. It will co-operate
with the DPC and the DRCs to guide implementation of the co-management plan mainly by the
fishers and their organization. The CCC will be responsible for verifying conflicts and
grievances and advise the Commune People‟s Committee on conflict resolution.
49
Annex 8: Guiding Principles on Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
1. Co-management of near-shore capture fisheries under CRSD would include two key
activities: (a) provision of support for local fishing communities to prepare and implement co-
management plans; and (b) strengthening of the monitoring, control, and surveillance systems of
MARD and the Project Provinces.
2. Co-management plans. The project would facilitate the development and
implementation of participatory fisheries co-management in about 140 selected communes in the
project area. The co-management approach supported by the project is expected to introduce
secure fishing rights for local fishers as incentives for the users to sustainably manage the
fisheries resources and close “open access” in the near-shore capture fisheries. There are a
number of different forms that rights could take for the near-shore capture fisheries, such as
group rights, rights of individuals to access resources, the rights of individuals to a certain
portion of the catches, traditional rights, etc. A commune-specific co-management plan will be
prepared through participatory and consultative processes, based on local social and natural
conditions. A co-management framework – consistent with the core principles of the process
framework described under OP 4.12 – has been prepared as part of the Project Operational
Manual to guide the preparation and implementation of commune-specific plans during
implementation. The project would pay special attention to capacity building for local fishing
communities (i.e., establishing fisher organizations, etc.) to assume new collective rights and
responsibilities, and to apply these in ways that sustain their long-term livelihoods. Fisher
organizations involved in co-management are expected to be the key partner participating in
monitoring, control, and surveillance activities supported by the project.
3. Monitoring. The main purpose of monitoring activities is to collect information, data,
and other evidence pertaining to fishing activities especially those which are illegal or non-
compliant with the fisheries law and/or government regulations. The present approach of
monitoring in most coastal provinces is ineffective because it relies solely on the monitoring
units of DECAFIREP, which are understaffed, under-equipped, and under-financed. Under
CRSD, a new monitoring approach will be adopted for monitoring near-shore capture fisheries,
which would involve local fishers (to detect violations happening in coastal areas within or
around six miles from the coastline, that have been assigned to them under co-management),
local governments (to monitor the number of unregistered/unlicensed boats), and Sub-
departments and Divisions of Capture Fisheries and Fisheries Resources Protection and Fisheries
Inspection (within the DARDs) to take appropriate action according to their administrative
mandates. The project would support them all to strengthen their capacity in monitoring and
reporting mainly through provision of training on the fisheries law and regulations as well as
basic communications equipment (i.e., cameras, walkie-talkie, loudspeakers, etc.) and other
resources (i.e., incremental operating costs) to carry out their monitoring tasks. Local fishers are
expected to report violations in their areas to local commune authorities (i.e., Commune People‟s
Committee using photos, catch logbooks, hotlines, etc.) and then they will be reported/forwarded
to the district and provincial DECAFIREP. After verifying the information provided,
DECAFIREP will report and/or cooperate with the Division of Fisheries Inspection to take
appropriate action.
50
4. Control. According to Decree 31/2010/ND-CP on Administrative Process for Fisheries
Violation and Decree 32/2010/ND-CP on the management of fishery activities of foreign ships in
Vietnam's sea areas, issued by Prime Minister on March 29 and 30, 2010, respectively, fisheries
offences are normally treated by administrative processes (not criminal procedures), which
normally includes the implementation of fines ranging from the equivalent of US$ 20 to 1000. If
the violation involves serious consequences, the violator‟s fishing facilities, equipment, and even
fishing license may be taken away by the government. Under CRSD, the project is not
supporting or involved in the execution of a fine on violators. Instead, efforts will focus on
educational and awareness campaigns as well as training for local fishers, local governments,
DARD staff, and other stakeholders on the context of Degree 31 and other relevant regulations to
improve their awareness and understanding of the fisheries legislation and the potential adverse
environmental and/or other consequences of poor fisheries practices.
5. Surveillance. The main purpose of surveillance activities is to detect violations on site.
Under CRSD, surveillance will be done mainly through the involvement of local fishers to detect
fishing violations in near-shore areas (within six miles from the coastline). The project will not
support or involve any monitoring, control, and surveillance activities for or related to off-shore
fisheries (i.e., tracking of vessels by radar or satellite, aerial patrols, etc.). The project will also
not involve activities related to military, police, and naval vessels. Under CRSD, to strengthen
surveillance activities in near-shore coastal areas, the project will strengthen some 30 field
stations of sub-DECAFIREPs (in selected districts) to collaborate with fisher organizations in co-
management and assist them in implementing co-management plans, particularly enforcement at
the inter-commune and district levels. About 16 near-shore patrol boats (two boats per province)
with basic communications equipment would be procured for sub-DECAFIREPs, as well as
some speed boats for field stations. During project implementation, when a violation is detected
by sub-DECAFIREPs or is brought to their attention by local fishers (i.e., fishers using
destructive fishing gear), sub-DECAFIREPs will first come to remind and help the violator
change their practices. If violations persist, sub-DECAFIREPs would cooperate with provincial
fisheries inspection teams (also under DARD) to investigate (i.e., collecting solid evidence and
draw up the minutes of the violation) and to determine a fine for the case. Both sub-
DECAFIREP and Fisheries Inspection are civilian agencies under DARD so they are not allowed
to be equipped with guns and weapons and also are not allowed to arrest people. Under CRSD,
all monitoring, control, and surveillance activities/missions are restricted to fisheries
enforcement activities only and will not combine with any other tasks such as national security
and/or other non-fisheries law enforcement activities (i.e., oil and gas, illegal immigration, or
drug smuggling).
6. Enforcement of Fisheries Laws and Regulations. In order to ensure that monitoring,
control, and surveillance activities under Part C.1 of the Project are implemented in a manner
designed to achieve the objective of the Project, and unless the Association shall otherwise agree
in writing, the Recipient shall ensure that: (a) all Eligible Expenditures provided for monitoring,
control, and surveillance activities are used exclusively by civilian authorities or fishing
communities for the sole purpose of enforcing the Recipient‟s fisheries laws and regulations, and
shall not be used for any military purposes, or the enforcement of any other non-fisheries laws;
and (b) the Financing shall not be used to purchase arms or ammunition or to train any personnel
in the use of arms or ammunition.
51
7. Surveillance missions to be supported under Part C.1 of the Project shall be governed by
detailed protocols set forth in the OM and prepared in accordance with terms of reference
satisfactory to the Association, including:
(a) the mission is a fisheries-priority only mission and the mission task is duly recorded
and documented prior and subsequent to the mission, which records and documents
the Association shall have the right to inspect and to have audited by, or on behalf of,
the Association, in each case at any time;
(b) memoranda of understanding, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association,
are concluded between the agencies involved in the surveillance missions, including
government agencies, fishing communities, and any civilian contractors so involved;
(c) the accounts of the entities receiving or benefiting from the Financing are maintained
in a manner satisfactory to the Association and enabling effective and verifiable
compliance;
(d) the mission is conducted by personnel who have been properly trained in the
operation of any equipment used in the surveillance mission; and
(e) the mission is under the control of an authorized fisheries officer, but subject to the
overarching authority of the master of the vessel, in particular with respect to safety
and emergency response.
8. The Recipient shall ensure that any foreign vessel and crew at any time found in the
Near-Shore zone of the Project or the Recipient‟s exclusive economic zone will be dealt with in a
manner fully consistent with the Recipient‟s obligations under international law, including,
without limitation, its obligations pursuant to Article 73 of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary that may be contained in any of
the Recipient‟s laws, regulations, decrees, orders, or other legal instruments.
9. Vietnamese legal framework for fisheries enforcement, including the Fisheries Law
issued in 2003 and Decrees 31 and 32 issued in 2010, broadly reflects the key elements of
international law. Since the CRSD will only support monitoring, control, and surveillance
activities in coastal areas (not more than six nautical miles from the coastline), it is not expected
to see and deal with off-shore fishing vessels or foreign vessels and crews. If such cases happen,
higher levels of the government shall resolve them in accordance with international law and
neither the project nor project implementing agencies would be involved in any aspects.
52
Annex 9: Financial and Economic Analysis
VIETNAM: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project
1. An economic analysis of the quantifiable incremental benefits of Component B and
activities C1 and C2 was conducted. The incremental benefit estimates were then related to
project costs to obtain an estimate of the ERR of the project.
2. Component A – Institutional Capacity Strengthening for Sustainable Fisheries
Management – clearly also has a set of sector benefits, but these are difficult to quantify in
economic terms and a cost benefit analysis was not carried out for this component. Included
among the benefits from Component A are improved sector management capacity and
efficiency, better planning to avoid waste and resource use conflicts, improved marine habitats
and biodiversity, an increase in the quantity and quality of fisheries and aquaculture data for
better management and policy–making, and improved data recording to foster exports (IUU,
traceability). Component A contributes to the overall vision and direction of the near-shore
fishing industry as well as the aquaculture sub-sector. Component A thus contributes indirectly
to achieving the benefits of Components B and C.
Component B: Good Practices for Sustainable Aquaculture
3. Component B supports good aquaculture practices through three key activities: (a)
improved bio-security management at the farm and farming community levels; (b) improved
seed quality management; and (c) improved environmental management.
4. Aquaculture in the eight project provinces includes several species, of which the most
prominent are tiger shrimp (P. monodon), white leg shrimp (P. Vannamei), fish farming of
several species, shrimp based polyculture with fish and crab, Artemia (brine shrimp) with crab
and fish, clam, and crab. Aquaculture species also include sea snail, sea cucumber, lobster, green
muscle, and blood cockle.
5. Without Project. Aquaculture is a thriving business in many of the coastal provinces in
Vietnam. While the average of pond area is approximately one hectare, quite a few households
have operations of two to three hectares. Many farmers can produce two cycles per year in the
same pond, but one cycle is the most common largely because of disease and water problems.
There are inefficiencies throughout the aquaculture value chain with high production, processing
and marketing risks. Most farmers use too high stocking densities, water quality is often poor,
medicine and chemicals are often overused or inefficiently used, and feed is often not the best
quality and often is not provided in the proper amount. These problems generally decrease the
quality and size of the final aquaculture products, causing problems further up the processing and
marketing value chain. Although farmers can make sizeable profits from just one cycle, disease
can wipe out the entire production in a cycle, leaving the farmer to pay for the cycle expenses
without income. Farmers have been known to sell their product before maturity, to avoid the risk
of losing all to disease; this results in small sizes being marketed at lower farm gate prices.
Management of waste and waste water is often not environmentally sound.
6. With Project. The aquaculture industry can become more efficient and less risky through
the adoption of proper aquaculture management techniques (GAP standards) through extension
53
and specialized training under the project. Better management, in addition to improved water
quality (through community or individual pond water monitoring, management and treatment)
and better pond preparation between cycles, can lead to an increase in production per hectare.
Product quality can be improved through better management, leading to an increase in farm gate
prices. Production costs can be lowered through proper stocking densities and proper medication
and feeding regimes. Increased production and prices would go hand in hand with increased
investments that may include waste water treatment facilities, the purchasing of new pumping
equipment, and purchasing of aeration equipment.
7. Project activities will increase production/ha, decrease post harvest losses, increase prices
through improved quality, and possibly decrease production costs. These will lead to increased
farmer net benefits and an overall increase in economic activity in the project provinces. Other
benefits include the possibility of a more diversified aquaculture, increased export earnings, and
a better environment. In addition, processing factories would have a more assured supply of
aquaculture products and would thus be able to operate more efficiently.
8. Quantifiable Benefits from Component B. Table 1 presents the with project
incremental net benefits/ha for each species model. The net benefits of the without project
models were subtracted from the net benefits of the with project models to arrive at the
incremental net benefits/ha. The incremental net benefit from the project GAP activities is about
US$51 million per year. Individual tiger shrimp aquaculture households can increase net benefits
by about US$5,145 or 58% (Table 1). Incremental benefits for the other 19 farm models range
from a 17% increase for extensive production to over 100% for more intensive aquaculture
production systems. The incremental benefits are also sufficiently large to service farmers‟ debt
for incremental investments, e.g., water pumps and aeration and water treatment equipment.
Table 1: Aquaculture With Project Incremental Net Benefits
Target
Province/Aquaculture Species Hectares in Project
Soc Trang
1. Tiger Shrimp 400
2. White Leg Shrimp 600
3. Polyculture Shrimp-Crab-Fish 1,200
4. Artemia- Crab-Fish 720
5. Clam 200
Total 3120
Ca Mau
1. Tiger Shrimp a/ 440
2. White Leg Shrimp 320
3. Polyculture Shrimp-Crab-Fish b/ 920
4. Crab c/ 160
Total 1840
Khanh Hoa
1. Tiger Shrimp 500
2. White Leg Shrimp 500
3. Sea Snail Sea Cucumber c/ 54
4. Lobster c/ 2
Total 1056
Phu Yen
1. Tiger Shrimp 400
2. White Leg Shrimp 400
3. Sea Snail Sea Cucumber c/ 300
4. Lobster c/ 280
Total 1380
Binh Din
1. Tiger Shrimp d/ 320
2. White Leg Shrimp 480
3. Lobster Nursing c/ 60
Total 860
Thanh Hoa
1. Tiger Shrimp d/ 240
2. White Leg Shrimp 48
3. Polyculture Shrimp-Crab-Fish d/ 640
4. Clam 80
Total 1008
Nghe An
1. White Leg Shrimp 384
2. Crab-Fish c/ 48
3. Clam 192
Total 624
Ha Tinh
1. White Leg Shrimp 320
2. Polyculture Shrimp-Crab-Fish 400
3. Clam 200
Total 920
Total e/ 10808
Source: Incremental Net Benefits from one hectare aquaculture models supplied by the project provinces
a/ Includes 120 ha extensive Shrimp
b/ Includes 120 ha fish farming
c/ No model available
d/ No model available - used average of other provinces
e/ The Yearly total incremental net benefits of US$ 51.1 million is derived using 9,904 ha of the total 10,808 target ha.
With Project
% Increase in Net Benefits
5,145 2,058,095 58%
5,348 3,208,821 55%
7,059 8,470,325 81%
3,762 2,708,527 >100%
3,060 612,009 49%
-
-
5,892 2,592,480 74%
7,452 2,384,762 39%
4,601 4,232,900 98%
- -
-
-
4,333 2,166,381 >100%
6,867 3,433,624 84%
- -
- -
-
-
4,786 1,914,286 >100%
5,613 2,245,317 24%
- -
- -
-
-
5,039 1,612,457 -
4,381 2,102,857 17%
- -
-
-
5,039 1,209,343
5,583 268,000 31%
4,101 2,624,418 -
3,988 319,048 34%
-
-
4,803 1,844,480 -
- -
6,570 1,261,426 >100%
-
-
4,995 1,598,476 79%
3,616 1,446,584 81%
4,284 856,857 >100%
51,171,473
Source: Incremental Net Benefits from one hectare aquaculture models supplied by the project provinces
e/ The Yearly total incremental net benefits of US$ 51.1 million is derived using 9,904 ha of the total 10,808 target ha.
With Project
Incremental Net Benefits
(US$/hectare/year)
Incremental Net Benefits
(US$)
Yearly Total
54
Component C: Sustainable Management of Near-Shore Capture Fisheries
Activity C1: Co-management of near-shore capture fisheries
9. Without Project. Current near-shore capture fisheries are characterized by over fishing
and environmentally damaging fishing practices. These have taken a toll on bio-diversity and are
depleting fish stocks of all types, as well as degrading the near-shore fishing environment. As a
consequence, fishermen‟s livelihoods could be threatened as near-shore capture fisheries
becomes unsustainable over time. This would also impact the overall economy, as the near-shore
fishing industry is a large contributor to the economy.
10. With Project. With-project investments would be in the form of the development and
implementation of participatory fisheries co-management in selected communes. These would
lead over time to enhancing the near shore fishing environment, an increase in fishing stocks and
biodiversity, an increase in fish landings, and ultimately to increased incomes for fisher
households and processing plants, as well as a greater contribution to the overall economy from
the near-shore fishing industry.
11. Quantifiable Benefits from Activity C1. Table 2 below presents an estimate of the net
benefits with project by province, and the number of fishing vessels that would be affected by
the project. Incremental net benefits of the project are estimated at US$25.7 million per year.
No attempt was made to quantify the benefits from project support to alternative income sources
for the participating communes.
Table 2: With Project Total Incremental Net Benefits from Co-Management Activities
Activity C2: Improving conditions and operational efficiency of selected fishing ports
12. Without Project. Many of the fishing ports and traditional landing sites in the country
lack basic facilities to provide the necessary support services to fishermen, e.g., clean water and
ice in sufficient quantities, proper cold storage facilities, and net and boat/engine repair facilities
on site. Port management skills are often lacking. Because of limited infrastructure, the quality of
Province Incremental Net Benefits/Year, all Vessels a/ Number of Vessels(US$) in the Project b/
SocTrang 389,790 723CaMau 2,933,010 4,783KhanhHoa 4,281,514 6,368
PhuYen 4,767,274 7,083BinhDinh 4,510,600 7,612
HaTinh 2,341,202 3,616
ThanhHoa 4,856,550 7,501NgheAn 1,704,102 3,247
Total 25,784,043 40,933
Source:Withandwithoutprojectrevenueandcostbudgetsbyvesseltypesuppliedbytheprojectprovinces.a/Summationofincrementalbenefit/vesseltype/yearxnumberofvesselsofeachfishingtype.b/Near-shorevesselfishingtypesinclude:gillnets,pullnet,jigging,luringtrap,purseseine,pushnets,liftnets,shootingnest,trawlersandlongline.
55
the fish can severely deteriorate at the port before reaching processing plants and wholesale
markets, especially during periods of hot weather. Losses in the value of the catch are estimated
to be as high as 20% to 30%, resulting in significant loss in income for fisher households and the
ports, as well as under-utilization of fish processing plant capacity. The present state of many of
the fishing ports also raises food safety questions.
13. With Project. A minimum of 16 fishing ports/landing sites in the project area will be
upgraded under the project in a phased manner. Activity C2 also includes provision for suitable
shelter at selected port sites for refuge from typhoons. Project activities will improve solid waste
and wastewater treatment facilities, improve provision of adequate amounts of clean water and
support services (i.e., ice, and cold storage facilities through expected private sector). The project
will also assist with developing human resources and management skills so that the ports are
efficiently operated. These are expected to increase port landed capacity and the quality of
landed fish products, and reduce environmental pollution. As the components of the project are
integrated, the full realization of the expected benefits from Activity C2 is contingent on
accomplishing the activities under Component A and Activity C1.
14. Quantifiable Benefits from Activity C2. Table 3 presents an estimate of the with
project net benefits by port/landing sites; total annual benefits are estimated at US$17.5 million.
Benefits from the building of typhoon shelters and from direct environmental improvements
although important and sizable, were not quantified in this analysis.
Table 3: Estimate of Yearly Increase in Net Benefits from Port Rehabilitation
Yearly With Project Increase in Net Benefits a/
Province/Port/Landing Site (US$)
Ca Mau 1. Song Doc Port $2,985,492
2. Ho Gui Landing Site $3,050,563 Soc Trang
3.Tran De Port $1,017,143 4. Bai Gia Port Landing site $798,571 5. Mo O Landing Site $747,619 Khanh Hoa
6.Hon Ro Port $1,420,952 7. Vinh Luong Port $650,476 Phu Yen
8.Dan Phuoc Port $1,743,201 9. Dong Tac Port $1,954,366 Binh Dinh
10. De Gi Port $2,314,000 Thanh Hoa
11. Hoang Hoa Landing Site $400,000 Nghe An
12. Quynh Phuong Port $238,500 13Lach Van Port $176,960 Total All Ports $17,497,844
Source : With and without project port landings and price/ton by species supplied by provinces
a/ With project species increment in volume landed x species price summed over all species categories
56
15. Project Costs: Project costs presented in Table 4 were used to compute the economic
rate of return, as all four components contribute to the incremental benefits estimated for
component B and activities C1 and C2. In the absence of information on taxes and the
foreign/local content of project investment costs and incremental net benefits, economic values
were derived from financial investment costs by applying a conversion factor of 0.9.
Table 4: Project Costs
Economic Rate of Return and Sensitivity Analysis
16. A cost benefit analysis was carried out, relating the net benefits from Component B and
activities C1 and C2 to total project costs.17
As shown in Table 5, benefits from Component B are
assumed to come on stream in a staged manner (as it will take five years to reach the target of
10,808 hectares) at 0, 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% respectively over the first six years, and in
the seventh year will reach US$51.2 million. It is assumed that benefits from Component B will
be realized for 15 years after project completion.
17. Net benefits from capture fishing co-management are also assumed to come on stream in
a staged manner as in the case of Component B; benefits from co-management are set at 80% of
the full value for the sixth to the tenth years (as it will take time for stocks to replenish and
regenerate the in-shore environment); the full benefit of US$25.8 million is assumed from the
eleventh year onwards. Net benefits from C2 port infrastructure rehabilitation are expected to
come on stream in the same manner as C1, with the full benefit of US$17.5 million assumed
from year eleven. Benefits from both activities under Component C are assumed to be realized
for 15 years after project completion.
18. Table 5 presents the estimated ERR: the base ERR is estimated at 44%, with a NPV of
US$277.2 million. The ERR remains robust even when the net benefits of Component B and
activities C1 and C2 are reduced by 25% - the ERR remains high at 35%, with a NPV of US$
185.9 million. At a 50% reduction in project net benefits, the ERR is 25%, with a NPV of US$
94.6 million.
17 The aquaculture, near-shore capture fishing, port/landing financial models and budgets described previously use financial
product and input prices. In general, aquaculture input materials and fishing inputs operate in a relatively open market as do
agricultural product markets and the differences now in Vietnam between financial and economic prices, although they exist, are
small. Thus economic prices are assumed to be equal to financial prices for the purpose of the economic rate of return analysis.
Project Component 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
(USD '000)
1. A - Institutional Capacity Strengthening 1,987 2,304 427 277 277 5,272
2. B - Good Practices for Aquaculture 5,469 22,562 11,631 4,851 3,617 48,129
3. C - Near-Shore Capture Fisheries 21,423 24,631 4,138 1,100 940 52,232
4. D - Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation 3,019 2,728 2,343 2,128 2,037 12,257
Total Project 31,898 52,225 18,539 8,356 6,871 117,890
Source: COSTAB
57
Table 5: Estimation of Economic Rate of Return
Non-quantified Benefits
19. A number of project benefits are difficult to quantify and have not been captured in the
cost benefit analysis. These include the very positive effect on the environment as a result of the
project. Such benefits from Component A were discussed earlier. Component B will have an
effect on the optimization of the use and management of agricultural inputs (chemicals,
medicines) in aquaculture at the farm level through training and technology transfer. A positive
effect on the environment will also come through improved waste and waste water management
in aquaculture under component B and at port/landing sites under activity C2. The in-shore
fishing environment will be rehabilitated under activity C1. Other benefits include: increased
food safety from improved cold storage and sanitary conditions at the rehabilitated port/landing
sites; typhoon shelters at the port/landing sites will save lives and decrease community distress;
benefits from the demonstration effect of the project on other coastal provinces in Vietnam; and
increases in direct and indirect employment and tax generation.
Fiscal impact
20. The project requires counterpart financing of US$11.7 million from the central and
provincial governments (US$0.4 million from MARD and US$11.3 million from the 8 project
provinces), as well as US$6.2 million as contributions from beneficiaries.
21. Government funds will be used mainly for the preparation of investment documents for
civil works (including technical design), construction supervision, land acquisition and
compensation (if necessary), and government staff salaries. The estimated impact on the project
provinces‟ budgets is presented in Table 6; the impact on the provincial budgets is not
significant. All project provinces have sent a letter to MARD confirming that the necessary
counterpart funds will be available during project implementation in the required amount and in
a timely manner.
22. Smallholder aquaculture farmers who want to host a demonstration pond supported by
the project are expected to contribute to a part of the costs of the demonstration model. Farmers
who meet the selection criteria (i.e., technical and financial capacity to meet GAP standards)
(US$ '000) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Y 6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 to Y20
I. Total Project Incremental Net Benefits
A. Component B: Aquaculture GAP - 5,117 10,234 20,469 30,703 40,937 51,171 51,171 51,171 51,171 51,171
B. Component C: Capture Fishing Co-Management - 2,578 5,157 10,314 18,049 20,627 20,627 20,627 20,627 20,627 25,784
C. Component C: Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation - 1,750 3,500 6,999 12,248 13,998 13,998 13,998 13,998 13,998 17,498
Total Incremental Benefits (Financial) - 9,445 18,891 37,781 61,000 75,563 85,797 85,797 85,797 85,797 94,453
Total Incremental Benefits (Economic) a/ - 8,501 17,002 34,003 54,900 68,006 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217
II. Total Project Costs
Financial Costs 31,898 52,225 18,539 8,356 6,871
Financial Costs + 8% Contingencies 34,450 56,403 20,022 9,025 7,421
Economic Costs a/ 31,005 50,763 18,020 8,122 6,679
III. Project Net Benefits (31,005) (42,262) (1,018) 25,881 48,221 68,006 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217 77,217
Net Present Value (12%) 275,463$
ERR 43.2%
a/CostsfromCOSTAB.Intheabsenceofinformationontaxesandforeign/localcontentsofprojectinvestmentcostsandonincrementalnetbenefits,
economicvaluesarederivedforthenetbenefitsandtheprojectfinancialinvestmentcostsbyapplyingaconversionratioof0.9.
58
would be selected, on a voluntary basis, to host and run demonstrate models. In accordance with
government policy and regulations for aquaculture extension, the project would finance 25% of
the demonstration costs18
, giving priority to bio-security and wastewater facilities; farmers would
contribute the remainder. This contribution would be more than offset by the net revenues that
the farmers would receive from the model farms.
18 On average, each model is below 3 ha and has a maximum cost of US$25,000. The project would not finance more than
US$6,500 per model and the remainder would be financed by the participating farmers. Several farmers could jointly host one
demonstration model.
59
Table 6: Impact on project provinces’ budgets
Note: All project provinces except Khanh Hoa are provided additional funds from the central budget (from 40% to 60% of their annual budget).
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
CA MAU
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 412 457 508 32 0
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 150 150 150 150 150 150
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 328,571 378,571 428,571 492,857 552,143 650,714 747,857 858,857 987,857 1,135,714 1,164,286
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
SOC TRANG
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 536 398 378 248 48
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 222 222 222 222 222 222
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 239,000 262,342 288,310 317,236 349,498 385,528 425,814 470,915 521,467 578,196 641,929
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
KHANH HOA
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 230 500 500 400 94
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 400 400 400 400 400 400
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 391,000 410,550 430,100 449,650 469,200 502,044 537,187 574,790 615,025 658,077 704,143
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
PHU YEN
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 564 290.5 248 48
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 492 143 173 173 173 173
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 202,380 238,403 280,838 330,825 389,710 367,262 432,634 509,642 600,358 707,220 833,104
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BINH DINH
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 252 380 152 100 48
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 100 100 100 100 100 100
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 257,524 288,951 324,523 364,762 410,524 404,476 446,714 501,476 564,809 631,476 704,142
Impact on province's budget (%) 9.8% 13.2% 4.7% 2.7% 1.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4%
HA TINH
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 539 400 300 300 304
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 0 80 100 110 110 110 110
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 446,400 535,680 642,816 771,379 925,655 1,145,498 1,260,048 1,386,053 1,524,658 1,677,124 1,844,836
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
THANH HOA
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 230 470 400 200 174
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 100 100 100 100 100 100
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 515,500 618,600 742,320 890,784 1,068,941 940,668 1,034,735 1,138,208 1,252,029 1,377,232 1,514,955
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
NGHE AN
+ Counterpart funds ('000 USD) 482 308 108 48 48
+ O&M funds ('000 USD) 100 100 100 100 100 100
+ Total provincial revenue ('000 USD) 850,000 1,020,000 1,224,000 1,468,800 1,762,560 1,551,053 1,706,158 1,876,774 2,064,451 2,270,896 2,497,986
Impact on province's budget (%) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%