GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
PROPOSAL FOR A PDF BLOCK B GRANT
Country Papua New Guinea
Focal Area Biodiversity
Operational Programmes Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems
Project Title Community-based Coastal and Marine Conservation in Milne Bay
Funding PDF: GEF US$ 349,400
UNDP US$ 82,000
Conservation International US$ 114,000
Milne Bay Provincial Government US$ 12,000
Total US$ 557,300
Full Project: GEF US$ 5-7 million
Co-financing Matching Funds from
UNDP, CI, GoPNG, and
Requesting Agency United Nations Development Programme
Block B Block A Grant: None requested
PDF Duration Twelve Months Council Submission: December 2000
SUMMARY: PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
1. Papua New Guinea is an important repository of coastal and marine biodiversity, particularly
coral reefs, lying within a centre of diversity of reef building corals. Milne Bay Province, located on the
eastern tip of the New Guinea mainland, contains an especially rich endowment of coastal and marine
habitats. Owing to a paucity of past sampling effort, the biodiversity of these areas remains poorly
documented. Nevertheless, enough is known about the biological endowment to indicate that this is a
region of very high global significance. Inventory work continues to uncover new species of coral, fish
and other fauna, and the area is a known storehouse of many globally rare species, including the
dugong, marine turtles, giant clams, and black coral. Compared to other coastal and marine
environments in the Pacific rim, Milne Bay’s habitats remain in relatively pristine condition. However,
pressures on the environment are escalating, a trend that threatens to extinguish global conservation
2. The full project—to be developed using PDF Block B funds— will contribute towards the
conservation and sustainable use of Milne Bay’s coastal and marine biodiversity. Interventions would
occur at two levels. At the local level, the project would support demonstrations of community-based
conservation, working in three discrete sites that are representative of the region’s alpha and beta
diversity, and where prospects for successfully mitigating threats to biodiversity are good. Interventions
would establish community managed conservation areas zoned for strict protection and sustainable use
with stakeholder agreement. At the district, and provincial levels, and national level, the project would
support planning, awareness and communications, training and other ancillary activities required to
operationalise conservation management at the sites. The project would constitute the first large-scale
conservation initiative for coastal /marine environments in PNG. An overarching objective is to
develop a paradigm for such management tuned to ecological, social and economic specificities that
may then be applied on a wider scale elsewhere in Milne Bay, PNG and in other SIDS in the South
3. Milne Bay is a highly maritime Province, comprising the mountainous eastern tip of the New
Guinea mainland plus 10 relatively large1 and 150 plus small islands (see Appendix 1). The full range
of Pacific island types – continental, volcanic, atoll, raised reef, coral cay, and makatea – is represented.
Much of the mainland and many of the outlying islands are forest cloaked. There is almost as much
coral reef (13,000 sq. km; Frielink, 1983) as land (16,200 square kilometres), and a range of tropical
marine environments are found including bays, lagoons, mangrove forests, sea grass beds, mud, sand,
rubble, and rocky bottoms. The degree of terrestrial influence, water circulation, and wave exposure
shows great variance between different areas in the Province, in turn influencing the distribution of
biota. Several marine and terrestrial sites in the Province have been identified as high priorities for
conservation interventions in PNG’s Conservation Needs Assessment (Beehler 1993).
4. PNG lies within the global centre of coral reef and other tropical marine biodiversity known as
the “coral triangle”, a region that also spans much of Indonesia and the Philippines. Milne Bay contains
some 30% of PNG’s reef area (Frielink, 1983). Until recently, these reefs were thought to be slightly
less diverse than those in Indonesia and the Philippines (a perception stemming, in the main, from a
dearth of survey work). But a rapid biological assessment sponsored by Conservation International in
1997 has shown that coral reef biodiversity in Milne Bay is exceptionally rich (Werner and Allen
1998). The survey documented 362 species of reef corals (a higher diversity than that of the Great
Barrier Reef), with 420 species predicted, 1039 species of reef and shore fishes, with an estimated
1100-1150 predicted, and the second highest diversity of mollusks (637 species) collected during any
equivalent time frame in the region. During the survey, several new species were identified, possibly
representing restricted range endemics. These include one species of fish (Chrysiptera cymatilis) and as
many as 14 new reef corals. An additional two species of fishes are known only from the province: a
blenniid (Ecsenius taeniatus) and Halstead’s sand-diver (Trichonotus halstead), known only from a
single sandy slope off the province’s northeast cape. Additionally, the mangroves, sea grass, and other
shallow marine habitats in Milne Bay are among the world’s most diverse, a further indication of the
area’s global significance. Finally, the area may be a larval recruitment area for other reef communities
in the Western Pacific, though further research on larval sources and sinks is needed to confirm this
5. Some 93% of the population of 184,000 live in rural areas (1997 estimates), the majority in the
coastal zone. More than 60% live on islands (which make up only about 25% of the total land area).
The population density is low, but the “physiological density”, or number of people per unit of arable
land, is quite high, especially on the small islands. This results in a high dependence upon coastal and
marine resources. Coastal populations are increasing faster than the provincial average of 2.2% per
annum owing to in-migration from the hinterland. Milne Bay is one of the more fortunate Provinces in
PNG in terms of its level of human development. Standards of education and health care, much of
which are provided by churches, are relatively high (the literacy rate is 77%, second highest in PNG).
While in absolute terms other human development standards leave much to be desired (for example,
49% of health facilities lack electrical power and 41% are not visited by doctors on even an annual
basis) in PNG terms the human development baseline augers well for the successful attainment of
Including the islands of Normanby, Ferguson and Goodenough in the D’Entrecasteaux group, Woodlark, the
Trobriands, and larger islands in the Engineer group.
6. The formal economy is underpinned by agriculture (mainly oil palm and copra plantations),
industrial scale and small-scale forestry, and a large gold mine on Misima Island, slated to close
operations within the next few years. Commercial fisheries and mariculture, presently conducted on a
relatively small scale, have high commercial potential and have been identified by the Government as
development priorities. Prospecting for new mineral developments including alluvial gold mining and
seabed extraction continues. Subsistence activities, however, remain the backbone of the rural
economy, supplemented by artisanal fishing, and remittances from relatives employed elsewhere.
Nature-based tourism offers potential, capitalising on the Province’s superb diving, multitude of
picturesque islands and culture. Tourism development is modest at present, consisting of a few live-
aboard dive boats, cruise ship traffic and guesthouses. But the sector is considered a high priority by the
national Government. In light of this, the PNG Tourist Promotion Authority (TPA) is establishing a
regional office in Alotau, the Provincial capital, to promote the region as a tourist destination. Gurney
international airport in Alotau has recently been upgraded to accept jet aircraft, and flights have been
inaugurated to Australia.
NATIONAL POLICIES & INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
7. Responsibilities for discharging the State’s conservation responsibilities are vested at a national
level with the Office of Environment and Conservation (OEC) in Port Moresby. OEC approves all
environmental management plans, and is responsible for compliance auditing of the terms of the plans.
It is also responsible for co-ordinating policy development in the conservation arena and providing
technical assistance to Provincial authorities. The Office has a backlog of community requests to
establish Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in Milne Bay Province, which could constitute the
nucleus of new marine conservation areas.
8. The Government —as required under the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level
Government, 1995—is in the process of devolving responsibilities for planning and implementing
multi-sectoral development and conservation activities to provincial and local government authorities.
Many environmental management functions have already been decentralised. The Milne Bay Provincial
Government is now responsible for co-ordinating, regulating, and monitoring field conservation efforts
in the Province. Under the new governance structure, a small number (ca. 5) of villages forms a ward,
and each ward forms a Ward Development Committee. A collection of Wards forms a Local Level
Government Council (LLGC), each of which elects a President to serve in the Provincial Assembly.
The LLGC’s potentially present an excellent opportunity for spearheading and co-ordinating
biodiversity conservation endeavours.
9. The Provincial Government has prepared a number of sector-specific plans as well as a
comprehensive Provincial Development Plan for the period 1995-2000. The Province conducted an
Economic Summit in mid 1998 to discuss future development options, and is producing a Development
Plan for the period 2000-2005, scheduled for completion in late 1999. In 1997 GoPNG allocated K15
million to the Targeted Community Development Programme (TCDP) to support community-based
projects aimed at improving services delivery, reducing poverty, creating income opportunities, and
strengthening environmental protection. Several projects have been approved in the project area,
constituting part of the baseline for the proposed GEF initiative.
10. The National Fisheries Authority (NFA) is charged with overseeing and abetting development
of PNG’s fisheries industry, monitoring and ensuring compliance with permit conditions, monitoring
fish stocks, and negotiating access to PNG fishing waters by distant water fishing fleets. The Fisheries
Act 1994 requires the NFA to develop sustainable Management Plans for all major fisheries. In Milne
Bay a Plan has been developed for bêche-de-mer, and one is being prepared for giant clams. The
development of Management Plans has been constrained by capacity weaknesses and a focus on larger
fisheries (tuna, prawns). The NFA does not have sufficient resources to undertake stock assessments
and management decisions are generally made on the basis of harvest data supplied by exporters and
spot checks. However, the NFA commenced a 3-year habitat mapping and stock assessment program in
Milne Bay Province in November 1998 in conjunction with the Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the (Australian) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
11. In addition to government, Conservation International has sponsored a biodiversity appraisal of
Milne Bay’s coastal and marine biodiversity and has commenced the process of community
engagement with the objective of promoting community-based conservation efforts (a community
planning forum was organised on Samarai island in late 1998). These efforts are presently being
engineered on a small scale, and will need to be scaled up and expanded in order to secure conservation
values and ensure the long-term sustainability of management.
THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
12. Milne Bay’s reefs represent one of the largest remaining tracts of relatively pristine reef and
associated habitats in the coral triangle given the severe widespread degradation of reefs, mangroves,
and sea grass beds that has occurred in Indonesia and the Philippines (Wilkinson et al., 1994).
Anthropogenic threats have historically been contained by low population densities in coastal areas,
lack of local access to destructive fish harvesting technologies and equipment (i.e. dynamite), the
region’s relative isolation from economic centres, and the use of traditional management methods,
circumscribing the intensity and nature of wild resource use. Pressures are however now building, as
socio-economic and demographic fundamentals change and traditional management measures are
discarded by communities in the face of such change. A summary of threats to coastal and marine areas
in the likely centres of coral reef biodiversity is provided below (threats would be confirmed and
quantified during the process of project development 2):
i. Destructive harvesting/fishing practices that have devastated reefs in Indonesia and the
Philippines now threaten Milne Bay, due to high demand in lucrative Asian markets and the
commercial extinction of reef fisheries near these markets. The live fish trade, notorious for using
poison (cyanide) and the physical destruction of corals, is making inroads. Several trial operations have
been licensed to operate in Milne Bay, one of which has had its licences revoked due to suspected
cyanide use. Despite such measures, there is evidence that cyanide use is increasing, both by outsiders
and by local villagers. The traditional use of derris root by fishers might make the area particularly
receptive to the use of cyanide. Other destructive fishing practices include blast fishing on reefs with
dynamite, and the use of fine-meshed, non-discriminatory fishing nets.
ii. Over-fishing of sedentary resources such as giant clams, bêche-de-mer, trochus, green snail,
and pearl shell has occurred in the past whenever local fishermen have had ready access to markets, and
without effective management will worsen as these industries are further developed. The National
Fisheries Authority lacks capacity to adequately execute its regulatory and enforcement functions. Its
The nature and magnitude of threats varies significantly within the Province, correlated with human settlement
patterns, the level and type of development activity, water circulation patterns and other factors. The intensity of
many of the described threats is low in many areas. For instance, the 1997 Rapid Assessment Program (RAP)
survey found little evidence of destructive fishing in over 50 sites in the central part of the province, and
virtually no suggestions of environmental stress commonly seen in other parts of the central Indo-Pacific (e.g.,
crown-of-thorns infestations, coral pathogens, coral bleaching). Furthermore, large vertebrates such as sea
turtles, sharks and dugong, were found to be relatively abundant in comparison with most other regions where
they have been heavily exploited to the point of endangerment. The only species that appeared to be
immediately threatened were giant clams.
authority also overlaps with that of the OEC, responsible for regulating the exploitation and trade in
endangered species such as giant clams. Though undersized product is common, the rate of interception
and successful prosecution for malfeasance is low. Proposed fisheries including shark fin harvesting,
collection of aquarium fishes, and long-lining also threaten conservation values and raise questions
regarding ecological sustainability.
iii. Development of a variety of land-based activities also poses threats to Milne Bay’s coastal and
marine biodiversity. Logging may contribute to problems of sedimentation and eutrophication, and
driftwood can damage reefs. Smaller-scale logging, using portable sawmills, occurs on some of the
larger islands. Where mangroves are being cut, there is a risk that nursery habitat for juvenile marine
species may be damaged. The indiscriminate dumping of human waste in coastal areas is a problem in
some areas, and threatens wildlife. Small-scale alluvial gold mining exists on some of the larger islands,
although presently of a low intensity. Elsewhere in PNG such “artisanal” mining has caused sediment
mobilisation comparable to large mines (Hughes & Sullivan, 1992); it also raises the spectres of
mercury and other contamination of coastal waters and an increased availability of cyanide that might
be diverted for use in fishing. Mineral exploration can also contribute to sediment mobilisation. There
are current mineral exploration operations on several of the larger islands, and on the mainland.
13. A conjunction of inter-linked factors presently retard advancement of coastal/marine
biodiversity conservation, including:  a lack of a working community-based conservation model, on
an appropriate scale, geared to addressing threats;  a lack of demonstrated alternative use paradigms
for marine and coastal resources, employing new management methods and data, that enable basic
needs to be met in a manner more compatible with conservation objectives;  a lack of conservation
awareness, particularly regarding the carrying capacity of different habitats and the long-term systems
impacts of destructive resource uses;  an erosion of traditional management measures (e.g. taboos on
fishing during certain seasons or in certain areas) either in terms of their application or efficacy, as the
socio-economic landscape changes;  inadequate capacity for integrating conservation needs and
management objectives into regional and local-level development planning processes; and  the
absence of effective institutional, policy and regulatory instruments for biodiversity conservation in
coastal and marine environments (including lack of proper local surveillance and enforcement).
14. Biodiversity conservation efforts in Milne Bay are embryonic, limited in the main to awareness
raising. Coastal/marine conservation areas have not yet been established. Local communities own most
terrestrial and coastal resources in PNG under customary systems of tenure that vary from area to area.
The difficulty in alienating land for the creation of parks has foreclosed application of traditional
conservation area models employed elsewhere. Stable conservation will be contingent, in the long-
term, on community “ownership” of conservation processes, with management measures, incentives,
and sanctions developed at the community level in accordance with local customary rights. Although
legislation exists to enable customary lands to be designated as Conservation Areas in PNG, a durable
model for community-based conservation is lacking. While considerable headway has been made in
defining such a model for terrestrial areas, some of the parameters of which are applicable to coastal
areas, a paradigm specific to Milne Bay’s socio-cultural and institutional specificities is lacking.
Without such a model, founded on a compact between local communities and government, and
allowing for resource management within a matrix of uses, conservation efforts will be handicapped.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
15. The objective of the full project is to develop a process of participatory planning, management
and monitoring operations that (a) protects a representative sample of Milne Bay Province’s coastal and
marine biodiversity – of sufficient geographic size to maintain long-term ecological processes (b) is
collectively owned and driven by local and provincial stakeholders, and (c) is ecologically, financially,
and institutionally sustainable. The strategy hinges on the development of zoned conservation areas,
anchored by protected zones, with surrounding multi-use buffers. The design of the conservation areas
and management measures would be orchestrated through an organic community-driven process. The
strategy requires an emphasis to be placed on benefit sharing—ensuring an optimal and equitable
distribution of benefits from resource utilisation, and investment in capacity building and mechanisms
for stakeholder co-operation. The ownership and control of the process by customary resource owners
and other stakeholders will be stressed throughout the project, commencing with the design phase.
16. The three project sites would be selected so as to capture a representative sample of biological
diversity3. Selection would be based on several criteria including the following:
Alpha Diversity (number of species) and Beta (habitat) diversity (sites will include a broad sample
Biological distinctiveness (rare habitats, etc.)
Occurrence of rare or endangered species
There are likely to be a large number of potential candidates for sites based on biological criteria. The
feasibility of conservation, will, however, depend on socio-economic fundamentals, attributes of which
will play a pivotal role in the selection of project sites. These include:
Community commitment, as evidenced by participation levels, willingness to contribute in the
absence of immediate rewards, willingness to undertake enterprises financed by loans as opposed to
grants, and other quasi concrete indicators
Evidence of support from a broad spectrum of society, e.g. different clans/churches/language
groups (if applicable), women, youth, etc.
Manageable levels of internal community conflict
Availability of private sector investment
Commercial viability of enterprise options
Demonstration value: chances that successful outcomes can be replicated
17. Coastal and marine conservation projects require long time horizons to reach maturity, even in
developed countries (GESAMP, 1996; Nakashima, 1997). It is proposed that the full project adopt a
phased, adaptive management, approach, with an iterative sequencing of activities and the flexibility to
refine interventions based on observed ecological, social, and economic responses. Phase 1 would
include social mobilisation activities, data gathering, planning, awareness, and limited capacity building
to operationalize conservation functions—the main focus of activities under phase 2. Graduation
between phases would be based on pre-defined benchmarks, attainment of which would be
independently verified. The following section provides a description of the menu of interventions likely
required to realise conservation aims. However, it should be recognised that this is subject to change,
based on the outcomes of stakeholder consultations, and as threats are clarified and management
options reviewed. The sequencing of activities within and between phases would be finalised as part of
18. Activities at the site level would aim at establishing zoned coastal/ marine conservation areas.
Phase 1 [proposed duration: 4 years]
i. Social mobilisation activities would engage communities in a long-term dialogue on
conservation needs and strategies and contribute towards a resolution of stakeholder conflicts.
Based on the results of existing biological and social investigations, the following areas constitute the most
probable site priorities: North East Cape-Nuakata, the Conflict Group and the Engineer Group. A final decision on site
selection would be made following a provincial wide priority setting exercise.
ii. Conservation management and subsidiary zoning plans would be developed for each site.
Activities would collect data needed to define management priorities, elaborate zoning needs,
frame management objectives and activities (based on a review of different options), draft
regulations, and obtain multi-stakeholder agreement on enforcement mechanisms and sanctions
for malfeasance. In conjunction with these measures, management co-ordination mechanisms
would be constructed at the inter-community or ‘cluster’ level.
iii. Awareness raising interventions would seek to impart conservation values to communities,
alerting them not only to the negative effects of destructive and unsustainable resource use
practices but of opportunities for integrating conservation with development.
iv. Biological appraisal work would be supported as a means of tracking the biological and
ecological impacts of interventions. Social and economic impact monitoring will be conducted
in tandem to keep track of local perceptions of conservation activities. Information would feed
into on-going operational planning to facilitate adaptive management.
Phase 2 [proposed duration 6 years]
v. The capacity of community-based organisations and cluster level management forums to
implement, monitor, and evaluate conservation activities and outcomes would be developed.
vi. Operational mechanisms for biodiversity conservation would be developed. Activities would
build local capacity to sustain basic conservation functions such as policing, enforcement, and
reporting, and ensure the smooth functioning of management committees. Where appropriate,
activities would seek to revive traditional management measures, drawing on new management
techniques to bolster their efficacy under current conditions.
vii. Support for awareness raising, advocacy, monitoring and evaluation would be continued.
19. Local-level activities in the conservation areas established under the full GEF project, by
themselves, will not be sustainable unless accompanied by activities external to the
conservation areas. Certain management issues are beyond the control of communities. For
example, the prevention of reef destruction by the foreign live-fish capture industry will require
not only that community awareness, resistance and monitoring be enhanced but appropriate
regulatory policies and enforcement mechanisms be instituted at the provincial level. Thus a
broader conservation management effort will be necessary, no matter how successful the site
20. Activities at the District, Provincial, and National levels will include:
Phase 1 [proposed duration: 4 years]
i. A structure and processes for multi-level, multi-sectoral co-ordination and co-operation
(possibly, a “Milne Bay Consortium”) between different institutions with statutory
responsibilities in the arenas of coastal and marine resource management would be developed.
ii. Conservation management and monitoring capacity at the Provincial level would be enhanced
in conjunction with ongoing capacity strengthening initiatives. Activities under this component
would seek to strengthen existing legislation and regulations to give legal backing to
community-based conservation and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
Phase 2 [proposed duration: 6 years]
iii. The role of the private sector in conservation management would be strengthened by exploring
opportunities for investment in sustainable enterprises, identifying market-based instruments to
achieve conservation goals, and facilitating private-public sector partnerships.
iv. Measures for ensuring the sustainability of conservation measures following project closure
would be identified and executed. This could include the design and implementation of
economic instruments (user pays) and cost recovery mechanisms, based on an assessment of
ability/willingness to pay and fiscal and legal structures.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PDF-B ACTIVITIES BY COMPONENT
21. The principal objective of the proposed PDF-B activities is to design a project that maximises
cost-effectiveness and the probability of successful conservation outcomes – taking as given key lessons
learned both from other integrated conservation and development projects in PNG, particularly the Lak
and Bismarck-Ramu ICAD’s (e.g. Baines et al., 1998; McCallum & Sekhran, 1997), and from similar
conservation initiatives world-wide (e.g., GESAMP, 1996; Nakashima, 1996.) Two points are
particularly pertinent 1] it is essential that from the beginning of project design, all stakeholders, and
particularly resource owners, have real ownership and control of the project; and 2] it is unreasonable to
expect local communities to distinguish between the design and implementation phases of the project.
The preparatory PDF phase will in large part determine the course and probability of success of a
subsequent operational project. The proposed PDF activities incorporate these lessons by emphasising a
process of stakeholder participation. This will require some flexibility in the management and delivery
of PDF activities.
22. The Proposed PDF-B activities are:
a) Component 1. Identification of Sites: Based on existing information, potential conservation
sites would be identified using the criteria in paragraph 16. A number of activities would be sponsored.
First, information on the biological and ecological characteristics of the sites would be reviewed, with a
view to establishing their global importance and unique attributes. Second, an analysis of the threats to
biodiversity at each of the sites would be undertaken. Third, an assessment would be made of the
probability that threats and their root causes can be successfully mitigated. Fourth, existing expressions
of interest in conservation from communities will be assessed (e.g., WMA requests pending with DEC,
GEF small grant facility applications). Fifth, the outcomes of past community consultations (undertaken
by Conservation International or other players) will be appraised. Finally, in conjunction with activities
under component 2, an assessment of the social feasibility of conservation interventions at the sites
would be performed, with recommendations made on engagement activities sponsored under the full
Deliverables: Site selection. 1] Justification of biodiversity importance of each of the short-listed sites,
based on indicators of global significance (a summary of this information would be prepared as an
attachment to the project brief); 2] Threats Analysis for each of the sites, indicating root causes; 3]
Social Feasibility Study, comprising a comprehensive stakeholder assessment; and recommendations
regarding the structuring of community engagement activities.
b) Component 2. Community Dialogue: Consultations with local communities would be
initiated in the identified sites to assess their resource management needs and receptivity to
conservation, and gauge the likelihood of success in securing conservation outcomes. Community
engagement will be the primary objective of phase 1, but PDF activities would initiate engagement
The Bismarck—Ramu sub-project of the PNG Biodiversity Conservation and Resource Conservation
Programme has developed a framework for social feasibility assessment. The framework, and lessons learned
during implementation of community entry activities under the sub-project will guide implementation of this
through a carefully managed process of community entry. Based on community feedback,
interpretation materials would be designed to assist in clarifying the objectives of integrated coastal
management and conservation to communities, and define the mutual roles and responsibilities of
different stakeholder groups. A team of experienced community facilitators/ motivators, trained in
community engagement methods, would implement community entry activities. A Participation Plan
would be prepared for the full project in consultation with stakeholders, and will guide the choice of
conservation strategy and design of interventions.
Deliverables: 1] Initial indications of community commitments; 2] Participation plan, listing activities
to enable participatory processes, defining implementation responsibilities, and providing performance
indicators (a summary of this information would be prepared for the proposal).
c) Component 3. Planning and Policy Needs Assessment: An analysis of all relevant plans and
policies would be performed to determine consistency with conservation values, validity in changing
circumstances, gaps, and barriers to implementation. Activities would identify opportunities for
mainstreaming conservation considerations into planning, building on ongoing efforts.
Deliverables: 1] Policy analysis and gaps assessment and 2] recommendations for policy strengthening.
d) Component 4. Assessment of Sustainable Use Opportunities: Opportunities for spearheading
sustainable uses of wild resources would be investigated, with the objective of catalyzing a paradigm
shift from unsustainable to sustainable uses in conservation area buffers and creating positive
conservation incentives. The assessment would focus on 1] artisanal fisheries on reefs and reef slopes,
2] the live fish harvest industry, and 3] ecotourism potential. The assessment would include an
examination of the present and potential scale of use and threat to biological diversity as well as
appraisal of the biological, social, institutional and related factors that act as barriers to sustainable use.
Recommendations would be provided on a strategy and specific measures for ensuring sustainability by
removing these barriers under the full project. Measures would be subjected to a careful examination of
incremental costs for the purposes of partitioning the cost of barrier removal activities between the GEF
and other financiers.
Deliverables: Sustainable use options study
e) Component 5. GEF Project Formulation A full proposal for GEF funding would be
prepared, based on the results of components 1-4. The project brief would be circulated to STAP for
review, and presented to the GEF Secretariat and Executive Council for approval as part of the GEF
Work Programme. Recommendations made by STAP, GEF Sec/ Executive Council and other
Implementing Agencies would be addressed. Finally, the Brief would be converted into a UNDP
project document, with detailed Terms of Reference for Technical Inputs, an Inputs Budget, Work Plan,
details of risks and mitigation measures and other information, as per standard UNDP requirements.
The process of preparing the Project Brief would require:
Consensus building regarding site selection criteria, priorities, strategy, outputs and activities of the
full project, based upon consultation with stakeholders, and a project formulation workshop to
construct a logical framework of objectives, activities, outputs, and indicators.
More detailed investigation and quantification of threats at the site level.
Determination of pre-requisites for graduation between phases 1 & 2.
Definition of institutional frameworks, stakeholders roles and responsibilities, and implementation
modalities for the full project.
An incremental cost analysis of the project to differentiate between baseline and incremental
activities. PDF funds would be used to collect information on the baseline scenario, identify and
cost incremental activities necessary to conserve biodiversity, and foster joint programming of
baseline and incremental activities.
Confirmation of co-financing for project components not eligible for GEF funding.
Deliverables. Co-financing would have been secured to secure the sustainable development baseline. A
consensus regarding the project strategy would have been obtained. The main body of the Brief would
clearly present the following information:
A summary of the global significance and unique biological and ecological attributes of each of the
project sites, and the global benefits that would accrue from conservation intervention (from
Details of the ecological, social and economic attributes of the sites (from component 1)
A description of the threats facing coral reefs and other marine habitats at the sites and their root
causes (from Component 1)
A clear strategy for mitigating threats and their underlying causes
An account of the realistic baseline (this comprises activities in the arena of coastal and marine
management, that would occur irrespective of GEF inputs, that have a bearing on the resolution of
Identification of the sustainable development baseline (comprising additional activities required
to address threats that may be justified in the domestic interest)
Identification and justification of the incremental costs of activities needed to generate global
conservation benefits, over and above the sustainable development baseline.
Details of monitoring and evaluation measures (from Component 6)
Details of execution and implementation measures, with an accompanying organigramme
The following annexes would be attached to the Brief:
Incremental Cost assessment describing global and domestic benefits, and justifying incremental
costs for each output
Logical Framework Assessment, with quantifiable indicators to measure impact, a list of sources of
verification, and an outline of the assumptions and risks that underpin the project
Details of the biodiversity values of each of the chosen sites, to supplement information provided in
the main body of the Brief (from Component 1)
Assessment of the risks affecting project implementation and outline of mitigation measures
Summary of the Stakeholder Assessment and Social Feasibility Study, defining the roles and
responsibilities of different groups in design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (from
Maps of the project area (province and sites)
List of reference materials
f) Component 6. Development of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Impact and output
indicators would be selected, and baseline data obtained as a basis for measuring project outcomes. An
M&E Plan would be developed, clearly articulating the objectives of monitoring, and specifying the
periodicity of monitoring and evaluation activities, and how they will be orchestrated.
Deliverables: 1] M&E Plan, with clear performance indicators
23. Papua New Guinea has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, and is eligible for GEF
financing under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF Instrument. The project will meet the eligibility criteria
listed under the Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems Operational Programme.
24. The GEF would finance activities relating to the business of conservation, that could not be
justified in terms of PNG’s own sustainable development interests. Co-financing would be secured to
complement gaps in the baseline to finance sustainable development activities. The GEF would finance
activities relating to the establishment of conservation set asides and limited demonstrations of ways
and means of overcoming barriers to sustainable use of biodiversity.
NATIONAL LEVEL SUPPORT
25. Conservation and sustainable use are enshrined as the fourth Goal in PNG’s constitution. Milne
Bay has been identified by OEC as a high priority area for marine conservation. This project is strongly
supported by both the National and Provincial Governments.
MAINSTREAMING INTO IA COUNTRY PROGRAMME
26. Based on extensive consultation with donors, government departments, NGOs, and
environmental research institutions, UNDP/PNG’s Environment Programming Mission, which was
completed in May 1997, identified Milne Bay as one of five priority areas for the establishment of
integrated conservation and development sites. The project comprises an important element of UNDP’s
Country Co-operation Framework (CCF). UNDP is providing co-financing for Block B activities, and
would also co-finance implementation of the full project.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PDF GRANT
27. The prospects for success of the full project rest to a large extent upon a PDF investment in
project design. Significant resources are needed to build real stakeholder participation in, and
ownership of, the GEF project design process and to establish the co-operation and co-ordination
mechanisms needed to ensure successful conservation outcomes. Successful site selection for
conservation requires careful social evaluation, a clear lesson from past efforts. A more thorough
analysis of existing policies and plans is needed to target interventions more effectively, and feasibility
studies are needed to establish development priorities and ensure project sustainability.
28. PDF activities would be implemented over a period of 12 months commencing in January
2000. Subject to approval of the Project brief, Terms of Reference for consultants and technical work
would be finalised and a detailed Work Plan prepared. The project is expected to be executed by
Conservation International under the applicable UNDP rules and regulation for project execution.
Conservation International would be jointly responsible for implementation with the Milne Bay
Provincial Government. A Project Steering Committee (SC) would be convened, with representation
from the OEC, UNDP, the Milne Bay Provincial Government, and Conservation International. The
Director of OEC would chair the SC. The Steering Committee will be responsible for driving project
design, in line with national policies, plans and conservation strategies and with GEF eligibility criteria.
UNDP-PNG would assume overall responsibility for co-ordinating project activities, convening
Steering Committee meetings as scheduled, and maintaining lines of communication with UNDP-GEF,
OEC, Milne Bay Provincial Government, Conservation International, and others as needed.
ITEMS TO BE FINANCED
29. The total project cost is US$ 558.000, broken down as follows:
UNDP GEF Prov. CI Total
PDF Activity Govt
1. Site Identification 1,216 114,676 4,000 40,600 160,492
2. Community Entry Activities 47,824 67,199 4,000 7,000 126,023
3. Planning and Policy Needs Assessment 0 14,335 0 48,000 62,335
4. Sustainable Use Assessment 30,912 23,757 0 18,400 73,069
5. Project Formulation 1,744 111,514 4,000 0 117,258
6. Monitoring & Evaluation 304 17,919 0 0 18,223
TOTAL 82,000 349,400 12,000 114,000 557,400
30. The proposed project marks the first attempt at coastal and marine biodiversity conservation in
PNG on a significant scale. The project would define the parameters of successful management in
PNG’s unique socio-cultural context, borrowing lessons from, but also supplying lessons to other
coastal and marine conservation initiatives in Pacific Island SIDS.
31. The proposal places heavy emphasis on stakeholder participation via a cyclic process of
disseminating environmental information, allowing time for communities to absorb and process the
information, and attempting to capture responses via LLGC’s; two such cycles are planned.
32. The timing of this project coincides with several significant related activities, such as
development of the Provincial Development Plan, implementation of the new organic law, and
preparation of fisheries management plans. This is thus an opportune moment for mainstreaming
conservation objectives into broader development planning and implementation efforts.
33. The time frame of the full project is longer than is normal for GEF projects. There is, however,
widespread recognition that realistic time frames must be set for major projects of this sort, a point that
has recently been acknowledged in GEF Council comments. Given the opportunity costs inherent in
committing resources for such long periods, and in order to increase accountability for project delivery,
implementation would be staggered over 2 phases. Project performance would be independently
reviewed prior to the release of funding under phase 2.
ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Recruitment, establish office
Initial scoping exercise
Mapping of project areas
Social feasibility study
Assessment of sustainable use options
Benefits sharing plan
Sustainable use options plan
ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Logical framework workshop
Stakeholder participation plan
Planning and policy needs assessment
Steering Committee meetings
Monitoring and evaluation plan
Circulation of Brief
Beehler, B.M. (Ed.) 1993. Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment. Vol. 2. A biodiversity analysis for
Papua New Guinea. The Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.
Cannon, J.B., 1997. Northeast Atlantic Regional Review. In "Review of the state of world fishery resources:
marine fisheries". Fisheries Circular C920. FAO Marine Resources Service, Fishery Resources Division.
FAO, 1997. Review of the state of world fishery resources: marine fisheries. Fisheries Circular C920. FAO
Marine Resources Service, Fishery Resources Division. 173p.
Frielink, A.B.J. 1983. Coastal Fisheries in Papua New Guinea, the Current Situation. Research Report, 83-10:
Department of Primary Industry, Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby.
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The Contributions of Science to Integrated Coastal
Management. Rep. Stud. GESAMP, 61.
Hughes, P.J. and Sullivan, M.E. 1992. The Environmental Effects of Mining and Petroleum Production in Papua
New Guinea. University of Papua New Guinea Natural Resource Series. University of New Guinea, Port
McCallum, R. and Sekhran, N. 1997. Race for the Rainforest. Evaluating Lessons from an Integrated
Conservation and Development "Experiment" in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. PNG Biodiversity
Conservation and Resource Management Programme, Waigani, Papua New Guinea
Nakashima, S. 1997. Integrated Coastal Management As Best Practice in GEF Project Development: Lessons
Learned from Selected Biodiversity Projects in Marine, Coastal, and Freshwater Ecosystems. United
Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility, New Rochelle, NY.
NFMS, 1995. Review of the use of marine fishery reserves in the U.S. Southeastern Atlantic. NOAA Technical
Piddington, K., Baines, G., Barry, G., and Huber, M. 1997. Environment Programming Mission to Papua New
Guinea. Report Prepared for the United Nations Development Programme.
Roberts, C.M. 1995. Rapid Build-up of Fish Biomass in a Caribbean Marine Reserve. Conservation Biology. Vol
9, pp 815-826.
Roberts, C.M. and Polunin, N.V.C. 1992. Effects of Marine Reserve Protection on Northern Red Sea Fish
Populations. Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, 1992 Vol. 2, pp
Russ, G.R. and Alcala, A.C. 1996. Do Marine Reserves Export Adult Fish Biomass? Evidence From Apo Islands,
Central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol. 132: 1-9.
Werner, T.B. and Allen, G.R. eds. 1998. A rapid biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of Milne Bay
Province, Papua New Guinea. CI, Washington, DC.
Wilkinson, C.R., Sudara, S., and Chou, L.M. 1994. Proceedings, Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium On Living
Coastal Resources. Vol. 1: Status Reviews. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.
Annex 1: Map of the Project Area
149° 150° 151° 152° 153° 154°
Au s tra lia
C ol li ng w oo d B ay Fergusson Island
# Nuakata Island
Engineer G roup
Confl ict G roup
Louisiade Archipela go
20 0 20 Kilo meters
149° 150° 151° 152° 153° 154°
15 (c) Co nse rvatio n Intern atio na l 19 98