UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 2009
(1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009)

1. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title:
Demonstration of Community-based Management of Seagrass Habitats
in Trikora Beach, East Bintan, Riau Archipelago Province, Indonesia

Executing Agency:
Research Center for Oceanography (LIPI), Indonesian Institute of
Sciences, Jakarta

Project partners:
Regional Development Planning Agency (BAPPEDA); BAPPEDA
Kabupaten, Bintan Timur Sub-district Government

Geographical Scope: Indonesia

Participating
Indonesia
Countries:

GEF project ID:
3188
IMIS number*1:
GFL/2328-2730-4986
Focal Area(s):
International Waters
GEF OP #:
8
GEF Strategic
IW-1
26 June 2007
GEF approval date*:
Priority/Objective:
UNEP approval date:
26 June 2007
First Disbursement*: 14 November 2007
Actual start date2:
November 2007
Planned duration:
36 months
Intended completion
August 2010
Actual or Expected
October 2010
date*:
completion date:
Project Type:
Medium-sized Project
GEF Allocation*:
$397,800
PDF GEF cost*:
Nil
PDF co-financing*:
Nil
Expected MSP/FSP
$391,950
$789,750
Total Cost*:
Co-financing*:
Mid-term review/eval. 2009.10
Terminal Evaluation

(planned date):
(actual date):
Mid-term review/eval.
Nil
No. of revisions*:
(actual date):
Date of last Steering

Date of last
N/A
Committee meeting:
Revision*:
Disbursement as of
$ 185,723
Date of financial
N/A
30 June 2009*:
closure*:
N/A
Actual expenditures
$ 76,106
Date of Completion3*:
reported as of 30
June 20094:
Total co-financing

Actual expenditures
$ 76,106
realized as of 30
entered in IMIS as of
June 20095:
30 June 2009*:

1 Fields with an * sign (in yellow) should be filled by the Fund Management Officer
2 Only if different from first disbursement date, e.g., in cases were a long time elapsed between first
disbursement and recruitment of project manager.
3 If there was a "Completion Revision" please use the date of the revision.
4 Information to be provided by Executing Agency/Project Manager
5 Projects which completed mid-term reviews/evaluations or terminal evaluations should attach the completed
co-financing table as per GEF format.

1

Leveraged

financing:6

Project summary7
This project is proposed as one of the demonstration projects developed
under the framework of the UNEP/GEF project entitled "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand (hereafter the SCS Project)." The SCS Project addresses, in
one of its project components, habitat degradation and loss, in particular
mangrove, coral reef, seagrass, and wetlands habitats. Seagrass
habitat in Trikora Beach, East Bintan, Riau Archipelago Province,
Indonesia was proposed by the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee and endorsed as one of the priority seagrass sites which
require immediate intervention during the 3rd intergovernmental Steering
Committee Meeting of the SCS Project convened in Manila, February
2004. The decision was made based on the result of prioritisation of 26
potential seagrass demonstration sites nominated by seven countries
participating to the SCS Project.

Bintan Island is located in Kepulauan Riau Province, Indonesia. East
Bintan is rich in ecological diversity but also under development
pressure. There are ten species of seagrass found in the area, while
twelve species are found in Indonesia and 18 species are found in the
South China Sea region, respectively. Seagrass beds in the proposed
demonstration site provide breeding, nursery and feeding grounds for
economically important fish and endangered species including dugong
and marine turtles. Of particular importance is Redbelly yellowtail
fusilier, Caesio cuning, Leopard coralgrouper, Plectropomus leopardus,
and spotted coralgrouper, Plectropomus maculatus, which are
associated with this site and has been identified as fishes of
transboundary and regional importance.

Due to the geographical location, which is close to Jakarta, Tanjung
Pinang, Batam City and even closer to Singapore, East Bintan and other
parts of Bintan Island are under heavy development pressure and
resource exploitation. The Provincial and local authorities face the
challenge of simultaneously conserving the seagrass and associated
habitats and strengthening local economic development. Observed
problems in the site include degradation of the seagrass bed and a
decrease in fish resources. These are the direct and indirect results of i)
physical changes of seabed, such as erosion, sedimentation and
siltation, which reduce the area and density of cover in the seagrass
beds; ii) turbidity, which adversely affects the photosynthetic capacity
and growth of seagrass; and iii) degradation of coastal water quality,
such as organic pollution and eutrophication that causes algal blooms.
Anthropogenic causes of these threats can be summarized as
uncontrolled soil/sand mining on land and seabed, as well as increasing
and inappropriately treated waste water discharge from both domestic
and emerging tourism sources. Further direct threats to the seagrass
habitats include destructive fishing methods such as trawling and over-
fishing. Without effective and integrated interventions, the degradation
trends in this regionally significant seagrass habitat and associated
biodiversity will accelerate.

6 See above note on co-financing and Glossary (Annex 1)
7 As in project document

2

The objective of the project is to demonstrate a set of stress reduction
measures effective at a regionally significant sea grass habitat in Bintan.
As a result, the project will achieve three major outcomes: (i) Improved
management of the area through the establishment of appropriate
institutional arrangements to ensure a wide range of relevant
stakeholder participating in decision making; (ii) Awareness and support
for the importance of seagrass habitats and associated ecosystems
increased and capacity for seagrass habitats management improved;
and (iii) Environmental sustainability of local economic activities
increased: through the creation of an environment for sustainable
economic activities such as sustainable tourism and other types of
alternative income generation options.

As a demonstration project derived from the Strategic Action Programme
and the SCS Project, it will be implemented in close collaboration with
other demonstration projects developed under the SCS Project; and
lessons learnt from each project will be exchanged and disseminated
nationally and regionally utilizing the SCS Project framework for
information and experience exchange .

Project status FY088
1. The First & the Second Workshop on Preparation of Project
Implementation were conducted in 13th November and 17th
December 2007, Jakarta
2. Project Implementing Unit established (Demosite Manager and
Field Facilitator were Selected)
3. Guidelines for Project implementation were adopted and distributed to
PIU
4. The TRISMADES project was officially launched by The Head
Regency of Bintan in the Event of Clean Beach Program, in Tanjung
Pinang.
5. East Bintan Collaborative Management Board (EBCoMBo)
established through Head of Regency Decree
6. EBCoMBo meetings were conducted on 29th July and 23rd
December 2008
7. Research on ecological and socio-economic aspect was carried out
In May 2008.

Project status FY099
1. Initial Draft of EBCRMP (East Bintan Coastal Resource Management
Plan) including the zoning plan was prepared.
2. Focus group discussion (FGD) with local communities of four villages
was conducted in May 2009. The topic of discussion was focused on
the development of community based seagrass sanctuary in each
village.
3. The facilitators have advocated the community to establish
community management group and prepare village profile.
4. Socio-economic research in general was completed.
5. Additional Ecological research was done on May 2009.
6. General legal review was completed. However, if the new regulations
related to EBCRMP issued, the legal review will be updated.
7. Design of CITC (community information and Training Center) was
completed. The fund and materials were transferred and sent to

8 Please include additional lines to keep prior year implementation status (if any)
9 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous reporting
period)

3

demo-site manager
8. A second awareness level survey was conducted in February 2009
and the report was completed and printed in August. It was presented
at the end of July and in the third EBCoMBo meeting (14th August
2009)

Planned contribution It was stated by the BAPPEDA that the whole area of seagrass in East
to strategic
Bintan (about 2700 hectares) was declared as a marine conservation
priorities/targets10
area and this is significant with Coastal Law no 14 year 2007. Regarding
to the statement, it is recommended that seagrass sanctuary should be
chosen representing each Seagrass Demosite Villages. Based on the
last Focus Group Discussion meetings in Malang Rapat and Berakit
villages dated 15th August 2009, it is agreed to decide about 2 hectares
of seagrass area from each villages to be the future location of seagrass
sanctuaries. It was also agreed to obey the rules of seagrass sanctuary
as it was already discussed in the second meetings. These would be the
first seagrass sanctuaries in Indonesia. The next plan is to set the marks
(buoys) on each location as boundaries for the seagrass sanctuary. This
activity would be carried out in the early of October 2009.

2. PROJECT
OBJECTIVE

State the global environmental objective(s) of the project11
The overall goal of the South China Sea project, that this demonstration project shares, is to reduce
environmental stress on the transboundary waterbody of the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand,
through further elaboration of the draft Strategic Action Programme and the implementation of a
network of demonstration activities at sites of regional and global significance.

In accordance with the overall goal said above, the objective of the project is to demonstrate a set
of stress reduction measures effective at a regionally significant sea grass habitat in Bintan.

More specifically, the project aims to establish an integrated management system for a total of
1,500 ha of the coastal and marine environment including seagrass and associated habitats,
through ensuring a cross-sectoral and participatory approach to addressing the threats, and the
root-causes of current and future habitat degradation. Through such an approach, this
demonstration project aims at achieving the following benefits:

·
Ecosystem benefits: protection of seagrass and associated ecosystems; and
·
Benefits for fishes of and other marine animals of transboundary significance: conservation of
spawning and nursery ground function for fishes and other marine animals of transboundary
importance;
·
Local benefits: improved livelihood of the local population.

Please provide a narrative of progress made towards meeting the project objective(s). Describe any
significant environmental or other changes attributable to project implementation. Also, please
discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not more than
300 words)

·
The target to establish an integrated management system for a total of 1,500 ha of the coastal
and marine environment including seagrass and associated habitats has already achieved
since it was stated in the last EBCoMBo meeting that the whole seagrass area in East Bintan

10 For Full Size Projects this information is found in the front page of the project Executive Summary; for
Medium-Sized Projects the information appears in the MSP brief cover page.
11 Or immediate project objective

4

according to Coastal Law no 14 Year 2007 is maintained as marine conservation area and 3
seagrass sanctuaries of each Demosite Villages has been decided.
·
Cross-sectoral and participatory approach to addressing the threats and the root-causes of
current and future habitat degradation of seagrass has already manifested through the three
meetings of EBCoMBo (East Bintan Collaborative Management Board) and Three Focused
Group Discussion with local communities.
·
EBCRMP (East Bintan Coastal Resource and Management Plan) was prepared and has
already discussed during EBCoMBo meetings. This plan is particularly prioritized on the
production of several types of thematic maps which will be used as basis for designing the
zoning plan. Initial draft of zoning was also prepared in June 2009.

Please provide a narrative of progress towards the stated GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets if
identified in project document 12(not more than 200 words)

The explanations to choose East Bintan and surroundings water as a demonstration site for
seagrass management relevant towards GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets are because:

· It is located close to the Indonesian border with other country i.e. Singapore, and Malaysia
or situated in the international waters (South China Sea).
· Threatened by oil spill, solid and water waste from the international ship traffic.
· The existence transboundary significant of animals' migration route.
· High biodiversity of economically important fish and high diversity of seagrass.
· When this proposal was submitted there are serious threat of sea reclamation and sand
mining both in the land and the sea.

Regarding to the above mentioned, this project is planned to addressing ominous threats to
regionally prioritized seagrass habitats in East Bintan, Indonesia through ensuring a cross-sectoral
and participatory approach. The aim is to demonstrate a set of interventions to establish and
maintain integrated management of a regionally significant of seagrass habitat within the South
China Sea. Hopefully, with such intervention, the coastal ecosystems in the East Bintan will
sustainably preserved and this will contribute on the increase of benefit of the fishery in surrounding
waters and conserve the biodiversity. So that, the project meets these specifications of OP-8 and
International Waters Strategic Objective 1. It will also contribute to the implementation of the
Strategic Programme One. However, the progress or result of this effort could be measured only
after the EBCRMP have already been adopted; seagrass sanctuaries implemented and local
people have been trained and agree to apply alternative income generation. It could also be clearly
identified if we already have baseline data of several key indicators. The substantial achievements
could only be analyzed after the main activities finalized.

12 Projects that did not include these in original design are encouraged to the extent possible to retrofit
specific targets.

5

3. RATING PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RISK
Based on inputs by the Project Manager, the UNEP Task Manager13 will make an overall assessment and provide ratings of:
(i)
Progress towards achieving the project objective(s)- see section 3.1
(ii)
Implementation progress see section 3.2

Section 3.3 on Risk should be first completed by the Project Manager. The UNEP Task Manager will subsequently enter his/her own ratings in
the appropriate column.

3.1
Progress towards achieving the project objective (s)

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009 Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Objective18 To
An effective
No seagrass

Seagrass
Cross-sectoral and
S
demonstrate a set management of a
sanctuary
sanctuaries from
participatory approach to
of stress
total of 1500 ha
each village were addressing the threats
reduction
(75% of seagrass
declared and
and the root-causes of
measures
areas in East part
monitored by
current and future habitat
degradation of seagrass
effective at a
of Bintan Island)
local people
has already manifested
regionally
established; and
through proper
through the three
significant
the coverage and
and sound
meetings of EBCoMBo
seagrass habitat
the number of
mechanism.
(East Bintan
in Bintan
seagrass species
Collaborative
in the targeted area
Management Board) and
remain in tact.
Three Focused Group
Discussion with local
communities.
Seagrass sanctuary was
decided and waiting for
formal adoption through
Village Decree

13 For joint projects and where applicable ratings should also be discussed with the Task Manager of co-implementing agency.
14 Add rows if your project has more that 3 key indicators per objective or outcome.
15 Depending on selected indicator, quantitative or qualitative baseline levels and targets could be used (see Glossary included as Annex 1).
16 Many projects did not identify Mid-term targets at the design stage therefore this column should only be filled if relevant.
17 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory
(MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). See Annex 2 which contains GEF definitions.
18 Add rows if your project has more than 4 objective-level indicators. Same applies for the number of outcome-level indicators.

6

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009 Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Outcome 1:
1.An integrated
The
EBCoMBo
based
EBCRMP (East Bintan
S
Management of the
management plan
Management
on the research
Coastal Resource and
area is improved
discussed through
Plan refers only
data could
Management Plan)
a cross-sectoral
from (Spatial
produce East
was prepared and has
and participatory
Zoning Plan of
Bintan Coastal
already discussed
manner and
Bintan Regency)
Resource
during EBCoMBo
agreed among
This Spatial
Management
meetings. This plan is
relevant
Planning
Plan that will be
particularly prioritized
stakeholders
excludes coastal
adopted to
on the production of
(within 18 months)
waters
support the
several types of
existing Spatial
thematic maps which
Zone provide
will be used as basis
more detail of
for designing the
zoning plan
zoning plan. Initial draft
especially in the
of zoning was also
sea area (within
prepared in June 2009.
24 months)
2. The area of
The uncontrol ed

The area of
The sand mining on
MS
uncontrolled
soil/sand mining
uncontrolled
seabed has already
soil/sand mining on on land and
soil/sand mining
prohibited, however
land and seabed
seabed still exist
on land and
the land base soil
reduced by 50 %
but no
seabed reduced
mining still is permitted
(within 36 months)
quantitative data
by 50 % (within
only for traditional
available on
36 months)
mining and to fulfill
these activities.
demand of sand
material for
development of infra
structure in Bintan
Island.

7

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009 Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
3. The amount of
Since the

The amount of
· Clean
Beach
MS
solid waste littered
resource is not
solid waste
program has been
on the beach
only from Bintan
littered on the
launched and the
reduced by 20 %
Island the
beach reduced
regular activities
(within 36 months)
baseline data of
by 20 % (within
will be done
solid waste litter
36 months)
especially by local
is very difficult to
community group
be measured
and resort owners.
because the
· Training
for
organic
volume is varied
waste recycling
time to time
(composting) will be
depends on the
executed on
wind season
October 2009
4. Number of
Quantitative data

MS
destructive fishing
for these
reduced at least by activities is not
50 % (within 36
accurate, since
month)
poisoning is
more difficult to
identified
compare to
bomb fishing.
Moreover
resources of data
often overlap.

8

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009 Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
5. At least one
No Seagrass
At
least
one
Three proposed
S
community-based
sanctuaries in
community-based seagrass sanctuaries
seagrass sanctuary East Bintan
seagrass
from each village was
established by
sanctuary
decided through 3
each of three
established by
focus group
selected villages
each of three
discussions and
(within 24 months)
selected villages
waiting for formal
(within 24
adoption through
months)
Village Decree.
One additional
Seagrass sanctuary
was asked by local
community from
Pengudang village
which is located near
Berakit village and has
very significant
coverage and
biodiversity of
Seagrass.
Outcome 2:
1.At least one staff
No staff was

At least one staff
The training is planned MS
Awareness and
in each of relevant
trained
in each of
be done in November
support for the
government
relevant
2009
importance of
agencies trained
government
seagrass habitats
and familiarised in
agencies trained
and associated
coastal resource
and familiarised
ecosystems are
increased; and
management
in coastal
capacity for seagrass
(within 18 months)
resource
and associated
management
habitats management
(within 20
is improved.
months)

9

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009 Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
2.At least 20
No baseline data At
least
20
The training is planned MS
households of low-
yet.
households of
be done in December
income fishermen
low income
2009
in each of selected
fishermen in each
villages adopted
of selected
sustainable and
villages adopted
alternative income
sustainable and
generation options
alternative
(within 18 months)
income
and maintained
generation
(after 30 months)
options (within 18
months) and
maintained (after
30 months)

Overall rating of project progress towards meeting project objective(s) (To be provided by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please include columns to
reflect all prior year ratings)

FY2008.
FY2009 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or
rating
negative) since previous reporting periods
NA
MS
Whereas a management mechanism (EBCoMBo) was established at the local level to ensure effective project
implementation, and the Field Facilitators (FFs) were appointed to bridge communication and information
between the Project and the community, as well as activities have been carried out as reported, referring to the
list of Objectively Verifiable Indicators identified in the ProDoc, many planned activities/targets need to be
implemented/achieved and reported in a timely basis.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager)

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?
Mid-term review will be carried out to
UNEP/DGEF in consultation with the EA
October/November 2009
comprehensively analyse the causes of delay
in implementation.
Prepare a plan to establish and/or stimulate
EA September/October
2009
active involvement of the PSC.
Develop realistic timetable to implement the
EA, with UNEP agreement
September 2009

11

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?
scheduled activities for the rest of project
duration, to be agreed upon at the PSC
meeting.
A more stringent coordination among national
EA/EBCoMBo October
2009
and local levels should be established.

This section should be completed if project progress towards meeting objectives was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project
Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in
Action(s) taken
By whom
When
previous PIR

3.2
Project implementation progress

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation status as of 30 June
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion date 20 2009 (%)
Describe any problems in
rating22
delivering outputs
Output 1: Improving the
June 2008
· The First and Second Workshop on
The third EBCoMBo meeting
S
Management of Seagrass and
Preparation of the Project
was postponed due to delay of
associated Habitats
Implementation were convened.
second semester fund for about
· The Third Workshop for dissemination 5 months
of project guidelines was conducted in
Tanjung Pinang.
· TOR and project/operational
guidelines (6 packages) were
prepared and distributed to the Project
Implementation Unit.

19 Outputs and activities as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision.
20 As per latest workplan (latest project revision)
21 Variance refers to the difference between the expected and actual progress at the time of reporting.
22 To be provided by the UNEP Task Manager

12

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation status as of 30 June
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion date 20 2009 (%)
Describe any problems in
rating22
delivering outputs
Activity 1: Establishment of
June 2008
· EBCoMBo was established through

S
East Bintan Collaborative
Head of Bintan Disrtict Decree
Management Board
N.229/V/2008.
(EBCoMBo) for cross-sectoral
· Two EBCoMBo meetings were
and participatory management
convened in 27th July 2008 and 23rd
December 2008

Activity 2: Preparation and
December 2009
Draft of EBCRMP has already been
The work was delayed due to 5
S
adoption of East Bintan
discussed and approved in The second
month delay of the second
Coastal Resource
EBCoMBo meeting. This management
semester fund. However the
Management Plan (EBCRMP)
plan was synchronized relevant with the
work for preparing the draft of
and other specific plans; and
District Spatial Planning 2008 and
management plan has been
update/enforcement of relevant
expectedly could be adopted at the end
finished. This task will be
regulations.
of 2009.
completed as soon as possible
at least before the end of 2009.
Activity 3: Establishment of
June 2008
· Trikora
Seagrass
Management
The selected field facilitators
MS
community-based seagrass
Demosites (TRISMADES) was
were trained before they were
management programme
formally launched together with
deployed in the field. Three
Clean Beach Program in Eastern
community groups of each
Coast of Bintan Island on 23rd
village will be established in the
August 2008
end of July 2009
· Demo-site Manager assisted by 3
field facilitators representing 3
villages was selected and
contracted.
Activity 4: Implementation of
June 2008-2009
· The 1st phase of field work for

S
ecological, socio-economic
ecological research at seagrass bed of
research and legal review for
Pengudang, Berakit, Malang Rapat
increasing baseline information
and Teluk Bakau has been done in
for improved area
medio of May 2008. This work was to
management; and
provide map on the spatial distribution
establishment of effective
of diversity, coverage, density and
environmental monitoring
biomass. The results has already
mechanism
been analyzed and reported.

13

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation status as of 30 June
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion date 20 2009 (%)
Describe any problems in
rating22
delivering outputs
· National and Local Legal instrument
was reviewed and the result was
published dated
· The socio economic survey was also
been conducted during the 1st phase
of field work.
· The 2nd phase was conducted in May
2009 and it was focused on choosing
the best seagrass site which wil be
nominated or proposed to the local
community as seagrass sanctuary
Output 2: Awareness Raising

MS
and Capacity Building
Activity 5: Establishment and
August 2009
Design of CITC has been completed.
The CITC will be placed in the
S
maintenance of Community
The fund and materials have been sent
small area/room of the Village
Information and Training
and transferred to demo-site manager
Community Building (Balai
Centre (CITC) for costal
Desa) at each village as
resource management to
permitted and agreed by Village
support awareness raising and
Heads. However the buildings
capacity building activities in
need minor renovation. It is
the project site
expected that the CITC will be
established within a month or
less.
Activity 6: Preparation and

· Second awareness level surveys have Dissemination through TV
S
dissemination of awareness
been conducted in February 2009 and media has not been conducted
raising materials; and
the report has been completed and
due to lack of fund to hire TV
implementation of awareness
will be printed in August2009. The
Media. The project is being
raising campaigns
result will be presented in third
negotiated with Ministry of
EBCoMBo meeting (August)
Marine Affair and Fisheries to
· Distribution and dissemination of
conduct National Workshop on
awareness materials (newsletters,
Seagrass Conservation and
posters, stickers, booklets and caps)
Management in Bintan next
to stakeholders, NGOs, academia and November 2009. This coming
students and others have been done.
event will give good opportunity

14

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation status as of 30 June
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion date 20 2009 (%)
Describe any problems in
rating22
delivering outputs
· Newsletter Vol. II/No 1 was printed.
for the promotion of the project,
· Clean beach activity at Trikora IV
such as inviting TV Media to
Beach have been convened together
cover that event including the
with project launching on 23rd August
project activities and
2008
achievements.
Activity 7: Development and

The training syllabus and training

MS
implementation of training and
modules are being prepared
capacity building workshops
Activity 8: Implementation of

The bilingual Trismades WEBSITE was

S
national and regional
designed follow that of IW:LEARN

exchange of information and
format. Website address is

experience on seagrass and
www.trismades.org. The content of this

associated habitats
website mainly informs about the basic

management
information of seagrass ecosystems, the
report on implementation of the program
and other topic related to coastal

ecosystems This work was not financed
by GEF in the first year of the project

period, but voluntarily conducted by Mr.

Rahmat (IT staff of RCO-LIPI) during his
leisure time, not in the office time

Training on "Marine resources economic Attended by Mr. Bambang S.
valuation of goods and services" in
Soedibjo.
Bangkok Thailand 24th-28th March 2008

Training on Seagrass and Coral Reef
Attended by Mr Supriyono
Management in Bolinao, Philippines, in
(Demosite Manager)
February 2009.

Activity 9: Participation in
Attended
Event:
Name of Indonesian Participants S
regional meetings and/or
"The Technical and Partnership
Mr. Tri Edi Kuriandewa
IW:LEARN related activities
Workshop of Implementing the Strategic
Dr. Hutomo Malikusworo
Action Program "

15

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation status as of 30 June
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion date 20 2009 (%)
Describe any problems in
rating22
delivering outputs
Siem Reap,CaMBodia

13th -14th and 16th 17th October

2008
Mr. Tri Edi Kuriandewa
"World Ocean Conference 2009"
Dr. Hutomo Malikusworo
11--15 May 2009
Manado, Indonesia
Output 3: Promoting

MS
Environmentally Sustainable
Economic Activities
Activity 9 Preparation and

· Preparation and adoption of East

MS
adoption of plans and
Bintan Plan for Sustainable Tourism
guidelines for sustainable
(EBP-ST) and Spatial Plan (EBP-ST-
tourism
SP) with relevant regulation/guidelines
The TOR will be prepared based on
the adopted Sustainable Tourism Plan
and Spatial Plan
· The activity is expected to be
completed in the end of 2009 after the
completion of TOR and proposal.
· Master Plan of Tourism Development
for Bintan District is become the
formal reference for this work.
· The work is estimated to be
implemented in early 2010, after the
Sustainable Tourism Plan and Spatial
Plan adopted
Activity 10: Development and

Workshop and training on AIG will be

MS
implementation of pilot projects
conducted on September 2009
on Alternative Income

Generation (AIG) targeting
Training topics:
low-income fishermen involved
- coastal resource management
in destructive and over fishing
- community based seagrass
management
- coastal environment monitoring

16

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation status as of 30 June
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion date 20 2009 (%)
Describe any problems in
rating22
delivering outputs

Trainings were planned to be conducted
from October until the end of the year.
Trainings materials related to
implementation of AIG (composting,
dragon fruit planting and handicraft)
were planned to be printed in September
2009.

Overall project implementation progress 23 (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please include columns to reflect prior years' ratings):

FY08 rating
FY09 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the rating for this FY and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
NA
MS
Progress has been made during the past period, but with delay in implementing a number of planned activities,
which may due to misunderstanding of budget plan and/or disbursement problems.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating. (To be completed by UNEP Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager24)

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?
Mid-term review will be carried out to
UNEP/DGEF in consultation with the EA
October/November 2009
comprehensively analyse the causes of delay
in implementation.
Develop realistic timetable to implement the
EA, with UNEP agreement
September 2009
scheduled activities for the rest of project
duration, to be agreed upon at the PSC
meeting.
Prepare a plan to establish and/or stimulate
EA September/October
2009
active involvement of the PSC.

23 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory
(MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
24 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.

17

This section should be completed if project progress was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by
the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in
Action(s) taken
By whom
When
previous PIR

3.3. Risk
There are two tables to assess and address risk: the first "risk factor table" to describe and rate risk factors; the second "top risk mitigation plan"
should indicate what measures/action will be taken with respect to risks rated Substantial or High and who is responsible to for it.

RISK FACTOR TABLE
Project Managers will use this table to summarize risks identified in the Project Document and reflect also any new risks identified in the course of project
implementation. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific project, as relevant. The
"Notes" column has one section for the Project Manager (PM) and one for the UNEP Task Manager (TM). If the generic risk factors and indicators in the table are
not relevant to the project rows should be added. The UNEP Task Manager should provide ratings in the right hand column reflecting his/her own assessment of
project risks.

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
d

d

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
rmine
rmine

c
able

c
able
u
m
u
m
Low
Medi
Substantial
High
Not Appli
To be dete
Low
Medi
Substantial
High
Not Appli
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Management
Stable with roles
Individuals
Unclear
x PM

x
structure
and
understand their
responsibilities
responsibilities
own role but are
or overlapping

18

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
e
i
ned
e
i
ned
r
m
r
m
pplicabl
pplicabl
t A
t A
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
clearly defined
unsure of
functions which
TM
and understood
responsibilities
lead to
of others
management
problems
Governance
Steering
Body(ies) meets
Members lack
x
PM

x
structure
Committee
periodically but
commitment
and/or other
guidance/input
Committee/body
project bodies
provided to
does not fulfil its
meet periodically project is
TOR
TM: No report on the
and provide
inadequate. TOR
establishment of the PSC
effective
unclear
direction/inputs
Internal com-
Fluid and cordial
Communication
Lack of
x
PM

x
munications
process deficient adequate
although
communication
relationships
between team
between team
members
members are
leading to
TM: Need more communication
good
deterioration of
between PM and TM
relationships and
resentment
Work flow
Project
Some changes
Major delays or
x
PM

x
progressing
in project work
changes in work
according to
plan but without
plan or method
work plan
major effect on
of
TM: Need clear explanation
overall timetable
implementation
and consultation on required
changes.
Co-financing Co-financing
is Is secured but
A substantial
x PM

x
secured and
payments are
part of pledged

19

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
e
i
ned
e
i
ned
r
m
r
m
pplicabl
pplicabl
t A
t A
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
payments are
slow and
co-financing may
TM: Need clear indication of
received on time
bureaucratic
not materialize
causes for delay, as well as
proposed strategies to address
the problem..
Budget Activities
are
Minor budget
Reallocation
x
PM

x
progressing
reallocation
between budget
within planned
needed
lines exceeding
budget
30% of original
TM: Reallocation may not be
budget
needed
Financial
Funds are
Financial
Serious financial
x
PM

x
management
correctly
reporting slow or
reporting
managed and
deficient
problems or
transparently
indication of
TM: Expenditure reports could
accounted for
mismanagement
be sent earlier than is currently
of funds
happening
Reporting Substantive Reports are
Serious
x
PM

x
reports are
complete and
concerns about
presented in a
accurate but
quality and
timely manner
often delayed or
timeliness of
and are
lack critical
project reporting
complete and
analysis of
accurate with a
progress and
TM: Need to strengthen
good analysis of
implementation
reporting and communication
project progress
issues
process
and
implementation
issues

20

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
e
i
ned
e
i
ned
r
m
r
m
pplicabl
pplicabl
t A
t A
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Stakeholder
Stakeholder
Consultation and Symptoms of
x
PM

x
involvement
analysis done
participation
conflict with
and positive
process seems
critical
feedback from
strong but
stakeholders or
critical
misses some
evidence of
stakeholders
groups or
apathy and lack
TM: Based on the
and partners
relevant partners of interest from
Consolidated Report,
partners or other
stakeholders seem to be more
stakeholders
active at the local levels.
External com-
Evidence that
Communications Project existence x
PM

x
munications
stakeholders,
efforts are taking is not known
practitioners
place but not yet
beyond
and/or the
evidence that
implementation
general public
message is
partners or
understand
successfully
misunderstand-
TM: Need to be more active on
project and are
transmitted
ings concerning
Component 2
regularly
objectives and
updated on
activities evident
progress
Short
Project is
Project is
Longer term
x PM

x
term/long term addressing short interested in the
issues are
balance
term needs and
short term with
deliberately
achieving results little
ignored or

21

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
e
i
ned
e
i
ned
r
m
r
m
pplicabl
pplicabl
t A
t A
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
with a long term
understanding of neglected
TM: Institutional mechanisms
perspective,
or interest in the
have been established at the
particularly
long term
local level. To address
sustainability
sustainability problems, a
and replicability
national institution and/or
mechanism needs to be
established and come into
effect.
Science and
Project based on Project testing
Many scientific
x
PM

x
technological
sound science
approaches,
and /or
issues
and well
methods or
technological
established
technologies but
uncertainties
technologies
based on sound
TM
analysis of
options and risks
Political
Project decisions Signs that some
Project is subject x
PM

x
influences
and choices are
project decisions to a variety of
not particularly
are political y
political
politically driven
motivated
influences that
may jeopardize
TM: Strong support from local
project
authorities
objectives
Other, please

PM

specify. Add
rows as
TM
necessary

22

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
d

d

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
rmine
rmine

c
able

c
able
u
m
u
m
Low
Medi
Substantial
High
Not Appli
To be dete
Low
Medi
Substantial
High
Not Appli
To be dete
EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
Political
Political context
Political context
Very disruptive
x
PM

x
stability
is stable and
is unstable but
and volatile
safe
predictable and
not a threat to
TM
project
implementation
Environmental Project area is
Project area is
Project area has
x
PM

x
conditions
not affected by
subject to more
very harsh
severe weather
or less
environmental
events or major
predictable
conditions
TM: The project design focuses
environmental
disasters or
on institutional and capacity
stress factors
changes
building.
Social, cultural There are no
Social or
Project is highly
x
PM

x
and economic
evident social,
economic issues
sensitive to
factors
cultural and/or
or changes pose
economic
economic issues
challenges to
fluctuations, to
that may affect
project
social issues or
project
implementation
cultural barriers
TM: No evidence on conflicting
performance and but mitigation
interests.
results
strategies have
been developed
Capacity
Sound technical
Weaknesses
Capacity is very
x PM

x
issues
and managerial
exist but have
low at all levels
capacity of
been identified
and partners

23

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
e
i
ned
e
i
ned
r
m
r
m
pplicabl
pplicabl
t A
t A
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
No
To be dete
EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
institutions and
and actions is
require constant
TM: Need to clearly identify the
other project
taken to build the support and
nature of capacity issues, as
partners
necessary
technical
well as recommended
capacity
assistance
strategies to overcome the
problems.
Others, please

specify

If there is a significant (over 50% of risk factors) discrepancy between Project Manager and Task Manager rating, an explanation by the Task
Manager should be provided below

TOP RISK MITIGATION PLAN
Rank importance of risk
Risk Statement potential problem (condition and consequence)
Action to take action planned/taken to handle the risk
Who person(s) responsible for the action
Date date by which action needs to be or was completed

Rank
Risk Statement25
Action to Take
Who
Date

Condition
Consequence

25 Only for Substantial to High risk.

24

Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High) (Please include PIR risk ratings for all prior periods, add columns as necessary):

FY08 rating
FY09 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
NA
M
Lack of support at the national/regional level, which may affect the long-term impact of the project on seagrass
and associated habitats management.

If a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period or as a result of the Mid-Term
Review/Evaluation please report on progress or results of its implementation

25

RATING MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Based on the answers provided to the questions in 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below, the UNEP Task Manager will provide ratings for the following
aspects of project monitoring and evaluation:
(i)
Overall quality of the Monitoring &Evaluation plan
(ii)
Performance in the implementation of the M&E plan

4.1. Does the project M&E plan contain the following:
· Baseline information for each outcome-level indicator

Yes
No
· SMART indicators to track project outcomes

Yes
No
· A clear distribution of responsibilities for monitoring project progress. Yes
No

4.2. Has the project budgeted for the following M&E activities:
·
Mid-term
review/evaluation
Yes

No
·
Terminal
evaluation
Yes

No
· Any costs associated with collecting and analysing indicators'
related
information
Yes

No

Please rate the quality of the project M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): S

4.3 Has the project:
· Utilized the indicators identified in the M&E plan to track progress
in meeting the project objectives;

Yes
No
· Fulfilled the specified reporting requirements (financial, including
on co-financing and auditing, and substantive reports)

Yes
No
· Completed any scheduled MTR or MTE before or at project
implementation
mid-point;
Yes

No
· Applied adaptive management in response to M&E activities
Yes
No
· Implemented any existing risk mitigation plan (see previous section) Yes
No

Please rate the performance in implementing the M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU):MU

26

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period26

4.5. Provide information on the quality of baseline information and any effects (positive or negative) on the selection of indicators and the design of
other project monitoring activities

4.6. Provide comments on the usefulness and relevance of selected indicators and experiences in the application of the same.

4.7. Describe any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators; has the project experienced problems to cover costs associated
with the tracking of indicators?

4.8. Describe any changes in the indicators or in the project intervention logic, including an explanation of whether key assumptions27 are still valid

4.9. Describe how potential social or environmental negative effects are monitored

4.10. Please provide any other experiences or lessons relevant to the design and implementation of project monitoring and evaluation plans.

4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS

5.1. Please summarize any experiences and/or lessons related to project design and implementation. Please select relevant areas from the list
below:

· Conditions necessary to achieve global environmental benefits such as (i) institutional, social and financial sustainability; (ii) country
ownership; and (iii) stakeholder involvement, including gender issues.

26 Do not include routine project reporting. Examples of M&E activities include stakeholder surveys, field surveys, steering committee meetings to assess project
progress, peer review of documentation to ensure quality, etc.
27 Assumptions refer to elements of the "theory of change" or "intervention logic" (i.e, the problem is a result of A, therefore, if we change B, this will lead to C)
and not to pre-conditions for project implementation. It is a common mistake to include statements such as "political will" as an assumption. This is rather a
necessary condition to implement the project.

27

· Institutional arrangements, including project governance;
· Engagement
of
the
private
sector;
· Capacity
building;
· Scientific and technological issues;
· Interpretation and application of GEF guidelines;
· Factors that improve likelihood of outcome sustainability;
· Factors that encourage replication, including outreach and communications strategies;
· Financial management and co-financing.

Conditions necessary to achieve global environmental benefits such as (i) institutional, social and financial sustainability; (ii) country ownership;
and (iii) stakeholder involvement, including gender issues.

Experiences gained from two EBCoMBo meetings, verified that quarterly meeting schedule was too frequent if there is no important issues to be
discussed. We, therefore, will arrange meeting at least twice a year discussing important issues such as Draft EBCRMP, coastal zoning plan and
Sustainable Tourism and Spatial Plan. Beside that, the members of EBCoMBo have low sense of belonging on this project. The project
management have tried to overcome this problem by involving some of them in some activities i.e. awareness level survey. We plan to involve a
staff from tourism office in the coming feasibility study on sustainable tourism. Another problem was the late disbursement of fund from UNEP
which was always late that cause the delay of some activities, particularly those are related to Community Based Management.

Although the clean beach program ceremonially has been done but the clean beach program can not be implemented not only through ceremonial
activity but also should be done through real implementation. The project team is now discussing what kind of strategy can be done to address the
problem of domestic and commercial waste (liquid and solid wastes).We plan the kind of activities such as teach local community on how to make
compost from organic garbage and use the compost for fertilize their plants (backyard community dragon plantation as one proposed alternative
income). However, the community needs training and reading material on dragon fruit plantation in the neighboring village of Malang Rapat and
Teluk Bakau. These works were planned to be started in September 2009 until the end of the year.

The most important information to be underlined is that the co-financing of this project usually proposed by the Head of District annually and
should be known and approved by Board of People Representative. Some times annual budget is limited and the priority changes year by year, so
that although the local government or central government has already committed to support the project, the central or local government financial
condition and political condition lead to the delayed or postponed the co-financing. In those cases, this project could not achieve the target as
scheduled due to co-finance problem.

28