01 Ind Tacr

Technical Assistance Consultant's Report
TA Number: 4965
April 2010
INDIA: Sustainable Coastal Protection and

Management
PPTA Final Report
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned,
and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. All the views expressed herein
may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
FINAL REPORT
TA 4965-IND: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management

Project
PREPARED FOR
The Asian Development Bank and the Government of India
ANZDEC LIMITED
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
ASR Marine Consulting and Research, New Zealand
April 2009
ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project i
Final Report
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(as of 17 April 2009)
Currency Unit – Indian Rupee(s) (Rs)
Rs 1.00=$0.0204
$1=Rs 49.00
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank
BED Beach Erosion Directorate
BMI Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation
CBO Community Based Organization
CED Coastal Erosion Directorate
CESS Centre for Earth Science Studies
CICEF Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fisheries
CIMU Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit
CMZ Coastal Management Zone
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CPDAC Coastal Protection and Development Advisory Committee
CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone
CWC Central Water Commission
CWPRS Central Water and Power Research Station
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DDMAP District Disaster Management Action Plan
DMF Design and Monitoring Framework
DPC District Planning Committee
EA Executing Agency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environment Protection Act
GoI Government of India
HTL High Tide Line
IA / SIA Implementing Agency / State Implementing Agency
ICMAM Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management
IDCMC Institutional Development Change Management Consultants
IITM Indian Institute of Technology Madras
INCOIS Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services
KCZMA Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority
KERS Karnataka Engineering Research Station
LSGI Local Self Government Institution
LTL Low Tide Line
MERI Maharashtra Engineering Research Institute
MMB Maharashtra Maritime Board
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoD Ministry of Defense
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MoES Ministry of Earth Sciences
MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs
MoS Ministry of Shipping
MoWR Ministry of Water Resources
MST Ministry of Science and Technology
MTDC Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation
NCPP National Coastal Protection Project
NCZMA National Coastal Zone Management Authority
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NIO National Institute of Oceanography
NIOT National Institute of Ocean Technology
NITK National Institute of Technology Karnataka
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project ii
Final Report
P&IWT Ports & Inland Water Transport

PDSC Project Design and Support Consultants
PMDC Project Management and Design Consultants
PPMS Project Performance and Management System
PPP Public Private Partnership
PPTA Project Preparation Technical Assistance
PWD Public Works Department
RFP Request for Proposal
SCR Swaminathan Committee Report
SCZMA State Coastal Zone Management Authority
SLWG State Level Working Groups
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
TA Technical Assistance
ToR Terms of Reference
WRD Water Resources Department
ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project iii
Final Report
CONTENTS
Page
I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY 1
II. THE PROPOSAL 5
III. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 5

A. Performance Indicators and Analysis 5
B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities 5
IV. THE PROPOSED PROJECT 10

A. Impact and Outcome 10
B. Outputs 10
C. Special Features 14
D. Project Investment Plan 15
E. Financing Plan 15
F. Implementation Arrangements 16
V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 21
VI. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS 21

A. Financial and Economic Analysis 21
B. Benefits of New Technologies and Skills for India 22
C. Benefits and Impacts from Planned Development 22
D. Environmental Impacts 23
E. Social and Gender Issues 23
F. Land Acquisition and Resettlement 23
G. Indigenous Peoples and Minority Groups 23
H. Risks 24
VII. RECOMMENDED ASSURANCES AND CONDITIONS 25
APPENDIXES
1. Design and Monitoring Framework 26

2. Sector Assessment, Road Map and Investment Strategy 30
3. External Assistance 40
4. Cost Estimates and Financing Plan 41
5. Summary Economic and Financial Analysis 47
6. Organizational Plan and Implementation Arrangements 50
7. Summary of Sub Projects 51
8. Long List of Provisional Development Proposals 74
9. Procurement Plan 80
10. Implementation Schedule 84
11. Summary Poverty Reduction and Social Strategy 85
12. Summary Initial Environmental Examination (SIEE) 91
13 Summary of Capacity Building and Training Program 97
14. Outline Scope of Consultancies 102
ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project iv
Final Report
SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIXES (separate volumes)
A. Analysis of the Coastal Sector

B. Planning and Design for Shoreline Protection and Management
C. Institutional Assessments
D. Mirya Sub Project Feasibility Study
E. Coco Beach Sub Project Feasibility Study
F. Colva Beach Sub Project Feasibility Study
G. Ullal Sub Project Feasibility Study
H. Long List of Provisional Development Proposals
I. Overall Project Costs
J. Economic and Financial Analyses
K. Financial Management
L. Role of the Private Sector in the Coastal Areas
M. Environmental Assessments
N. Social and Gender Assessments
O. Summary of Public Consultations
P. Procurement and Analysis of Costs
ADB TA No 4965-IND Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project 1
Final Report
I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY
Borrower India, States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka
Classification Targeting classification: General intervention

Sector: Agriculture and Natural Resources
Subsector: Water Resources and Environment
Themes: Sustainable economic growth, Environmental sustainability
Environment Assessment Initial environmental examinations have been completed for the four
subprojects proposed for Project 1.
Project Description The project area comprises 1,100 km of sea coast and a significant
number of estuaries along the three States of Maharashtra, Goa and
Karnataka. The Coastal Protection and Management Project is designed
to address the immediate coastal protection needs through the
implementation of economically viable protection works using
environmentally and socially appropriate solutions. The project will also
address the causes and potential causes of coastal erosion and coastal
instability. Investments in this part will be directed mainly at other coastal
infrastructure that is presently causing, or potentially cause damage to
the natural coastal processes. In addition the project will support
investments for natural protection measures such as the development
and planting of dunes, planting of mangrove or other trees for protection
or shelter.
The project will also support investments in the wider area of coastal
management including water quality, navigational entrances, dredging,
and training of river and drain mouths. Some financial support and
investment will also be provided to increase the economic value or
amenity value of the coast and shoreline.
In parallel to the investment program the project will develop the

institutional capacities to meet the long term needs of sustainable
coastal protection and management. Initiatives under this theme include
the development of the capacities at central, state and district level in
shoreline planning, detailed planning, modeling, and design; and
coordination and management of coastal infrastructure. The project will
also support initiatives to increase the participation of the private sector
and communities in the planning, design, financing, implementation and
maintenance of coastal protection and management projects.
The project implementation has been planned based on 3 project

phases; each phase would form a separate loan tranche under the Multi
Tranche Financing Facility. The first loan tranche referred to as Project 1
has been fully planned including the detailed designs and tender
documents for the four sub projects. The planning second and third loan
tranches are provisional with detailed planning programmed during
project.
Rationale The coastal zone forms a key part of the economy in the three states.
Rural poor communities as well as urban areas are affected by coastal
erosion and issues relating to poor coastal management.
The National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) estimates that 50% of

the total of 1,100 km of coastline in the three states is facing erosion to
some degree. Many of the coastal protection strategies employed in the
past have been ineffective. Sea level rise and increased number and
intensities of storms will result in increased hazard of erosion. While
coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon, it is in many cases initiated
and/or exacerbated by human activities.
The coastline of the three states is increasingly subject to a wide range

of economic developments; many of which create conflicts and
Final Report
pressures on the increasingly disturbed natural coastal environments;

erosion, sedimentation, water quality are a few of the issues. The
proposals in the NCPP and subsequent projects implemented in the
states are based almost entirely on the continued expansion and
rehabilitation of rock protection works. The use of rock protection largely
addresses the effects of erosion, but in many cases further contributes to
the degradation of the beach and the social environment of the coastal
zone.
The mandate for coastal erosion mitigation is typically entrusted to state

level coastal divisions with limited technical, human-resource and
financial capacities. Planning and design is assigned to National and
State technical institutes. There is however in all areas very limited
capacity and experience and exposure of modern and sustainable
coastal protection and management practices. Coordination of coastal
protection and management between the central, state and district are
largely vertical with limited horizontal interactions between departments.
Funding for protection, have declined, and have generally been
inadequate to address even urgent coastal protection works.
Furthermore, due to the shortage of funds as well as institutional
constraints maintenance work is very rarely carried out.
The coastal zone does and will continue to offer many opportunities for
economic development and for the improvement of the livelihood gaps of
disadvantaged groups; it also requires initiatives to preserve the
environment and address issues of shoreline degradation.
Whilst it is unlikely that the institutional system can be quickly changed

there is a requirement to develop effective implementation arrangements
that can work within the system. Although there is good scope to
increase capacities within the Government there will however remain a
significant requirement for private sector and community participation to
fill the gaps in the Government capacities and resources. The long term
sustainability of the erosion works in many cases requires local and
stakeholder support for management and maintenance; beach stabilizing
work involving the planting and management of the dunes is low capital
cost protection measure but requires long term management inputs.
The project will effect significant changes in philosophy and approach to

coastal protection and management; it will build up national capacities
and ensure a well planned and programmed transition process from hard
environmentally harmful protection works to a new approach of
participative planning and integrated development of environmentally
appropriate and sustainable solutions. In addition the project will ensure
the planning and designs for the proposed investment program meet the
highest standard of environmentally and socially appropriate solutions;
the program will include major initiatives to ensure the maximum transfer
of knowledge.
The project would support the development of a number of economic

initiatives in the coastal zone; where appropriate private sector
participation would be incorporated into the project strategies. All
investment projects would be implemented based on participative
planning, professional design using modern approaches.
Impact and Outcome The impact of the investment program is improved economic growth in
the three States through well protected and managed shorelines for the
benefit of all coastal communities. The project outcome is protected and
managed shorelines meeting the needs of stakeholders and the
environment.
Project Investment Plan The investment cost of the project is estimated at $417.1 million
including taxes and duties of $34.7 million.
Final Report
Financing Plan Source Total %
Asian Development Bank 300.0 71.9

Government a 87.4 20.9
Private Sector/Beneficiaries 29.7 7.1
Total 417.1 100.0
Source: PPTA Estimate - see Appendix 4 and Supplementary Appendix I for

details.
Notes: a) Funding from State governments
b) In addition, TA funding for $1.8 million is proposed to finance
Institutional Development and Change activities.
A loan of $ 58.37 million has been requested under the first PFR from
ADB’s ordinary capital resources to cover part of the cost of Project 1.
The ADB loan will have a term of 25 years, including a grace period of 8
years, with interest rate to be determined according to ADB’s LIBOR-
based lending facility, a commitment charge of 0.15% per annum, and
such other terms and conditions as agreed in the FFA, and the loan and
project agreements.
Allocation and Relending The Government of India will provide the loan proceeds in local currency
Terms to the States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka under the same terms
and conditions as received from ADB. The state Governments will bear
the foreign exchange risks on the loan.
Period of Utilization Until 31 July 2018
Estimated Project 31 March 2018

Completion Date
Implementation The responsibility to implement the project rests with the State Executing
Arrangements Agencies (SEA). Within each of the SEA a multidisciplinary project
management unit (PMU) will be established to manage the overall
investment program. Most of the programs will be outsourced to private
sector consultants as well as private sector contractors. Management
and maintenance will be implemented and managed through private
sector or community service contracts. Funding for maintenance will
require initiatives to source funding from beneficiaries including private
sector enterprises.
A separate parallel program to support the development of policy,

coordination and training will be organized through the Central Water
Commission in Delhi; a separate CWC PMU will be established. This
activity would be funded by a TA grant.
Executing Agency The State Executing Agencies (SEA) will be the Maharashtra Maritime
Board, Goa Water Resources Department and the Karnataka Public
Works Departments.
The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) through the Central Water

Commission (CWC) will be the National Coordinating Agency (NCA) and
will have the responsibility for the project to the National Government.
Final Report
Procurement Goods and works for ADB-financed financed contracts will be procured
in accordance with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (April 2007, as
amended from time to time). Depending on the value, contracts for
equipment and materials will be awarded through a combination of
international competitive bidding, limited international bidding, national
competitive bidding, direct contracting, and community participation.
Foreign contractors may bid on contracts using national competitive
bidding (NCB) procedures. A procurement plan covering goods, works
and services, including the contract value, procurement method and the
prequalification of bidders, was agreed with the Government at loan fact-
finding.
Consulting Services The project loan will contract two consultancies; (i) Project Management
and Design Consultants consisting of a total of 376 person-months (p-m)
of which 115 p-m will be international and 261 p-m national consultants;
(ii) Planning and Design Support Consultancies with a total of 313 p-m
(28 p-m international) will be provided from year 2 to undertake the
planning and detailed designs including the subprojects in Tranche 3.
A third consultancy will be funded under the TA grant funding. This

consultancy Institutional Development and Change Management
Consultants (73p-m national and 7p-m international) will support the
development of policy, coordination, central training and institutional
development.
Project Benefits and The principal benefits of the investment program will accrue from the
Beneficiaries protection of land, buildings, and public and private infrastructure against
future loss and damage caused by erosion and storms. In a limited
number of cases, where an eroded beach is restored, the program may
restore incomes and livelihoods to households and businesses. The
EIRRs for the four sub projects included in Project 1 range from 14.5% to
33.4%, reflecting a wide range of investment costs. The investment
program will enhance the protection and management of the coastal
zone and will introduce technologies and skills that are largely new to
India and that will provide more environmentally and socially beneficial
solutions to erosion issues than those that have hitherto been used.
The direct beneficiaries of the investment program will primarily be
households living along the coast in rural, urban and periurban areas,
including fishing households, the owners, operators and employees of
fishing boats, the owners and employees of fishing factories, port
operators and all the services associated with ports, the owners and
operators or hotels and other tourism related businesses and their
employees. The project will have a direct impact on poverty reduction
through coastal protection investments to be carried out in rural areas
with significant segments of disadvantaged groups such as poor fishing
communities, unemployed individuals and marginal groups. The main
direct beneficiaries will more often be the owners of boats, factories,
hotels and other businesses and government as the owner of important
coastal infrastructure. In the four subprojects included in Project 1, direct
and indirect beneficiaries exceed 330,000, but many of these will be
impacted only slightly. In addition, many tourist businesses will benefit in
the longer term from the implementation of the subprojects in Goa.
Risks and Assumptions The project involves some risks including implementation delays,
pressure to develop inappropriate solutions, effective organizations to
implement maintenance as well as sustainable sources of funding. There
is also a need for some institutional changes to ensure the long term
sustainability of some the project initiatives. Measures have been
included in the project planning to minimize these risks.
Technical Assistance The project is directed at the long term sustainability of the coastline and
protection of the coastal environment. Grant funding is presently being
sourced from the Global Environment Fund or other appropriate funding
source.
Final Report
II. THE PROPOSAL
1. Report and recommendation on (i) a proposed loan to the Government of India, States of
Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka for the Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project.
III. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A. Performance Indicators and Analysis
2. National Context of the Economy. India has seen rapid economic growth since the end of
the 1990s, and between 2003 and 2007 gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 7.5% or more in each
year. In 2007 per capita income reached $950. However, many people remain poor and in 2005
27.5% of the population was still living below the poverty line. The growth of the economy has been
associated with a declining relative role for the primary sector, which now only accounts for 18.3% of
economic activity but still provides over half of all employment, and an increasing role for the tertiary
sector, which now accounts for just over 60% of GDP. Between 2001 and 2008, growth in agriculture
and related activities averaged only 2.9% per year, while in the tertiary sector average annual growth
over the same period was 9.0%. There are wide regional variations in growth and productivity and the
growth strategy of the 11th Five Year Plan therefore endorses a multi-pronged approach that focuses
on infrastructure investment and social, agricultural and rural development in order to make the growth
process more inclusive. The need to generate employment opportunities, improve public service
delivery and maintain a balance between growth and the environment is also emphasized in the Plan.
Measures to protect coastal areas that are important for tourism, fisheries and other activities are
included within the overall objectives for infrastructure development.
3. The economies of the three states of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka have followed a similar
growth pattern to that of the national economy, exhibiting rapid growth in recent years. All three states
have seen a significant decline in the relative importance of the primary sector in recent years, with the
most dramatic change occurring in Karnataka where this sector has declined from 29% to just under
20% of the state GDP between 2000 and 2007. In the other two states, the primary sector makes up
only 14% of the respective economies. The tertiary sectors are by far the largest, making up 50% or
more of the local economies. However, Goa has a much larger secondary sector than the other two
states, at 38.6% of the economy in 2005/06, due to the relative importance of the mining sector.
GDPs per capita in these states are above the national average and in 2005/06 were Rs 70,112 for
Goa, Rs 37,081 for Maharashtra and Rs 27,101 for Karnataka. Goa has the second highest per
capita income in the Union, after Chandigarh. Although GDP per capita is above the national average
in Maharashtra, the proportion of its population below the poverty line, at 30.7%, is above the national
average. The poverty rates for Goa and Karnataka are 4.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
4. Economic activities linked to the coast are significant for all three states. Marine fisheries are
an important activity in all three states, at least for employment and incomes in coastal areas. In
2006/07, marine fish landings exceeded 460,000 tons in Maharashtra, 100,000 tons in Goa and in
Karnataka were almost 170,000 tons. In Goa, the important tourism industry is strongly linked to its
beaches and generates directly more than 10% of state GDP. In both Maharashtra and Karnataka,
tourism is more strongly linked to historical, religious and other sites and does not currently have a
strong connection to the coast.
B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities

1
5. Nature of Coastal Erosion. India has a coastline of some 7,500 km . All the coastal states
and Union Territories of India are to some extent affected by coastal erosion. About 1,500 km or 26%
of the mainland coastline faces serious erosion problems and much of the coastline is actively
retreating. Many of the coastal protection strategies employed have been ineffective in that coastal
properties and investments remain threatened by erosion, particularly during the monsoon seasons.
Furthermore, the extensive use of rock protection structures has contributed to the degradation the
beach and the social environment of the coastal zone. Sea level rise in the Indian subcontinent is
projected to be between 15 cm and 38 cm by the middle of the century. The rise in sea levels and the
likely increased frequency and intensities of storms will all further exacerbate the erosion problem. The
1
This includes 5,425 km along the nine national coastal states of the mainland and 2,100 km of the four union
territories.
Final Report
annual economic losses due to coastal erosion have been estimated to be of the order of 450 ha per
year with a value of around $127 million; potentially the impact could extend to thousands of square
kilometers and thousands of people every year. Costs of protection works and mitigation measures
are therefore extremely high.
6. Effects of Human Activities. While coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon, the result of
coastal processes and their interaction with land can be initiated and/or exacerbated by human
activities. Along both the west and east coast of India, there are numerous examples where human
activities have contributed to or caused coastal erosion. Typical causes of beach erosion include
change in sediment supply through dredging, river damming and sand mining or the construction of
littoral barriers such as groynes, jetties or ports. Beach scour can be caused by seawall construction
and erosion rates are also affected by the loss of vegetation on the shoreline. Sediment traps such as
dredged navigational channels and alteration to wave processes caused by jetties and ports also play
a role. Urbanization of the coast has also exacerbated natural erosion into problems of growing
intensity.
7. Financial Issues. Until 1991, the Government of India (GOI) had provided loan assistance to
the coastal states to finance coastal protection works. This was discontinued after 1991-92 during the
process of decentralization. Many states were confronted with other problems requiring funding which
led to persistent large revenue deficits. As a result, many states could not allocate adequate funds for
coastal protection works.
8. Constrained by limited funds, state government investment in coastal protection measures has
declined, and funds have often been inadequate to address even urgent coastal protection works.
Protection measures are typically taken up on an emergency basis, or in a bid to prevent impending
disasters. When the problem is addressed at such an advanced stage, the range of possible mitigation
options is limited to a few structural measures (such as sea walls and groynes). Most often, such
measures are directed to fixing the immediate symptom rather than addressing the cause of the
problem. Since they are treated as emergency measures, coastal protection works are not held up to
strict standards of technical and economic viability or environmental and social impact. Due to the
shortage of funds, maintenance work is very rarely carried out and consequently many protection
works collapse within 3–10 years of construction.
9. National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP). The NCPP was an initiative by the Ministry of
Water Resources (MoWR) in 1994 to formulate a national project on sustainable coastal protection by
consolidation of state level proposals. The NCPP proposed plans for each state include 470 km of
rock sea walls and about 10km of groynes (some with sand nourishment). No specific provision was
made for soft protection measures, including bioshield as they were considered expensive or of limited
application. The project however mentions in general terms some use of soft technologies including
beach nourishment, submerged breakwaters, sand bypassing and vegetation; no specific sites were
identified for these interventions. The estimated cost of the NCPP was about $430 million (2004
prices) with implementation scheduled over five years. Due to lack of funding most of the proposals in
the NCPP have not been implemented.
10. Institutional Issues. The mandate for coastal erosion mitigation is typically entrusted to a
coastal division, a part of a larger state department with a much broader and largely technical
mandate. The technical and human-resource capacity of the coastal divisions is limited with minimal
experience with modern and sustainable coastal protection and management measures. Coordination
of various coastal protection initiatives, both at the central level as well as between central and state
agencies is lacking; institutional processes are largely vertical with limited horizontal interactions
between departments. Integrated coastal planning and management are largely unworkable within the
present public service system. Whilst it is unlikely that the system can be quickly changed there is a
requirement and enormous scope to develop effective implementation arrangements that can work
within the current system. Integrated management and the use of soft solutions for coastal protection
require effective local level community participation. The processes for these are presently very limited
and new methodologies will have to be developed to meet these requirements. Maintenance is a key
issue, a high level of local support for maintenance is required in some areas – e.g. beach stabilizing
work incorporates a long term commitment to planting and management of the dunes. Development of
protection works potentially open up a number of opportunities and it is proposed to identify where the
communities and other stakeholders themselves could, with some initial support, help realize potential
financial benefits. Support is required to identify and take up opportunities that can generate economic
benefits for the communities as well as potential sources of revenue to support management and
maintenance.
Final Report
11. Change in Philosophy and Approach. The change to sustainable and soft engineering
measures for protection needs to be supported by an effective institutional framework including the
Government at different levels, communities and also the private sector. To achieve the necessary
levels of support requires a shift in Government policy with a clear mandate for the concerned
organizations.
12. A key technical issue is the diagnosis and identification of appropriate solutions for coastal
protection works. The proposals in the National Coastal Protection Project plan and projects presently
being implemented in the states are based almost entirely on the continued expansion and
rehabilitation of rock protection works. This type of development is and will continue to have very
serious environmental and social implications. There is a need to completely reshape the approach
and philosophy to planning, design and implementation of coastal erosion works. Soft solutions for
erosion control are now well developed and are already beginning to be implemented in India. The
implementing agencies in the three states have shown a strong level of interest and commitment to
change to soft technologies. There is need to help and guide a well planned and programmed
transition process as well as ensure the planning and designs for the proposed investment program
meet the highest standard of environmentally and socially appropriate solutions. There is also a need
to identify and address the causes of erosion, frequently these are manmade and the most
appropriate solution is to address the cause rather than the effect. This requires an integrated and
coordinated approach to the planning and development of all coastal infrastructure and shoreline
uses.
13. Integrated Coastal Protection and Management. Sophisticated technical methods to

diagnose coastal issues, stakeholder participation and the use of soft technologies for erosion
protection and environmental enhancement all provide significant opportunities for the effective
management and development of the coastline. Coastal protection is integrally linked to coastal zone
planning and development and a move from stand alone coastal protection to coastal protection and
management is required. Coastal management, or more specifically, shoreline management should
include; (i) protection of land and beaches from erosion; (ii) addressing the causes of erosion; (iii)
natural protection using dunes or mangrove; (iv) other issues including water quality, navigation inlets,
dredging reclamation, river and drain mouth training; (v) other investments to increase the economic
or amenity value of the shoreline. Coastal management should include physical and non-physical
activities.
14. Stakeholders. The number and diversity of stakeholders in the shoreline zone is very large
and complex. Liaison and coordination of needs and activities is a major problem. The lack of
coordinated and integrated stakeholder participation is a major area of concern. The list of
stakeholders and an analysis of their interests is described in Supplementary Appendix C.
15. Situation in the Three States. The coastlines of the three states have significant erosion
problems. The NCPP in 2001 identified that of the 1,100 km of coastline, about 530 km are prone to
erosion and 330 km require protection. The NCPP proposal has been reviewed and updated and the
current estimated costs of protection solutions for the three states are estimated to be about $250
million2.
16. Maharashtra. Maharashtra has a coastline of 720 km, of which about 320 km (about 44%) is
subject to erosion. Coastal urban areas such as Mumbai have been severely affected by erosion,
partly due to clearance of mangroves and associated vegetation along the shoreline and also due to
construction of offshore and coastal infrastructure. Rural coastal districts such as Raigat and Palgrave
have also been adversely affected by erosion. This has increased the vulnerability of resident coastal
communities to natural disasters (such as cyclones) since their dwellings are along the fringes of the
shoreline. The government of Maharashtra recognizes the need to address coastal protection in a
more systematic manner. The state is interested in identifying alternative coastal protection methods
that are compatible with the coastal activities and the environments that are to be protected,
particularly innovative coastal protection interventions that can be structured into financially viable
projects, especially through public–private partnerships. Water quality is also a major issue around the
Mumbai urban area.
2
Based on updated data 2008 from Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra, the requirements are summarized in
Appendix 10.
Final Report
17. Goa. The coast of Goa is 105 km long and is typically characterized by wide pristine beaches,
sand dunes, and cliffs. The coastal region of Goa has been subject to high development pressure,
especially for tourism. Poor land-use planning and ineffective enforcement of regulations have
resulted in encroachment into ecologically sensitive areas such as sand dunes and wetlands. Partly as
a consequence of this, Goa is now facing beach erosion in localized areas. At present the extent of
erosion is around 40 km; however, the beach is of prime importance from a tourism perspective and
pre-emptive actions to reduce potential for future erosion are proposed. A significant percentage of the
state’s economy and labor force depends on tourism. Construction of sea walls would clearly negate
the tourism potential of these beaches and a fundamental requirement is to develop environmentally
sustainable and socially acceptable measures for the protection against erosion together with effective
beach management.
18. Karnataka. The Karnataka coastline is 300 km long, and about 250 km (89%) is reportedly
affected by erosion to some degree. The most severely affected areas are Ullal, Honnavar, Bhatkal,
Kundapur, Bengre, Mulki, Bhavikeri, and Tannirbavi. Coastal protection received some prominence in
the state after the Asian tsunami of December 2004. The government of Karnataka has a master plan
for coastal erosion management upon which it based its proposal for inclusion in the NCPP. The
Karnataka coastline includes several stretches of wide beaches which could be developed into tourism
or residential areas. The state wishes to address coastal protection in such areas in a more systematic
manner and adopt long-term measures with an emphasis on soft structures or non-structural
interventions wherever possible.
19. 11th Five Year National Plan describes a range of interventions relating to coastal protection
and management. The key theme in the plan is the integration of environmental concerns into policy,
planning and development activities. The plan also addresses the need to address the impacts of sea
level rise particularly for coastal agriculture as well as management of sea water ingress into coastal
areas. A national action plan for climate change is being developed as well as independent statutory
body for sustainable development and coastal zone management as proposed in the Swaminathan
report. The plan stresses the importance of the participation of fishing communities in coastal zone
planning and management. Coastal shipping is identified as a lifeline for the coastal communities and
is presently hampered by inadequate ports. A major expansion of ports is proposed, with financing
based largely on partnerships with the private sector (PPP). Tourism forms a key part of the national
economy with coastal tourism identified as a key industry including in Goa and northern Karnataka.
20. ADB’s draft Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) program for India identifies environmental
sustainability as a key theme. The strategy envisages the development of infrastructure to help to lead
to opportunities for poverty alleviation, it also identifies support areas to address infrastructure funding
shortages to support growth and ensure that growth is environmentally sustainable; the strategy also
identifies the need to mainstream environmental and gender issues. Given the challenges facing India
and the world at large from climate change and degradation of the environment, the environmental
focus of the assistance program has been enhanced significantly to cover both climate change
adaptation and mitigation aspects; proposed operations cover a number of areas including coastal
protection and management. The CPS supports the use of innovative business and financing
modalities (e.g., PPP, and greater co-financing). The 11th Five-Year plan aims to mobilize 30%
financing from the private sector. ADB will therefore, continue to support the Government’s efforts
towards promoting public-private partnership in infrastructure development. It has been providing TA
support3 for building capacity for designing and appraising PPP projects in state governments and
central line Ministries. Going forward, such assistance would be enhanced since it helps to leverage
ADB’s resources. In order to make a tangible and measurable impact in a vast and diverse country
such as India, ADB will also actively seek to supplement its own resources through official and
commercial co-financing (i.e. non-sovereign operations). ADB would also focus on strengthening
governance and financial sector development. Assessments of previous programs demonstrate the
advantages of the Multitranche Financing Facility and the impacts on project preparedness and the
benefits of a long term partnership.
21. Multitranche Financing Facility. ADB’s MFF allows programmed assistance by aligning the
provision of finance with project readiness and the long term needs of the three states. The MFF
facilitates long term partnerships and opportunities for constructive dialogue on physical investments
as well as non physical (thematic and sector investments). The MFF can be used to finance sectors,
service, industries and thematic areas. The MFF can finance multiple projects under an investment
3
ADB India TA4890 Mainstreaming Public Private Partnerships at State Level
Final Report
program in a sector or in several sectors. The MFF can also finance slices of long term contract
packages. The loan is split into tranches, which may overlap; the financing terms and conditions can
differ between tranches. For the first tranche all the sub-projects should be generally identified,
appraised and ready for implementation when the MFF is submitted to the board of directors. The sub-
projects for tranche 2 and 3 would be identified and designed during the previous tranche.
22. External Assistance. There has been very limited external assistance for coastal protection
and management in India. Nearly all investment funding has been from state, central government and
some private sector work. Extensive training and support from UNDP was given to the CWPRS in the
1990’s, the training was however quite specialized and focused on traditional engineering solutions.
The lack of external assistance has resulted in a lack of exposure to new ideas and practices.
23. A World Bank project to assist the Ministry of Environment and Forest to implement the new
notification is currently under preparation. The project will be involved in various initiatives including
the implementation of the recommendations of the Swaminathan4 report and also to institute proactive
management in the coastal zone. These include: (i) vulnerability and ecological mapping, (ii) national
institutional building and capacity strengthening, and (iii) development and implementation of state
level approaches to Integrated Coastal zone Management. These state projects will be implemented
in Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal. The proposed ADB project focuses on the protection and
management of the shoreline, which forms one part of coastal zone; the outputs of the shoreline plans
and interventions will form a key input to the wider integrated coastal zone management. Close liaison
between the two projects administrations is vital, both at the State as well as the National levels to
ensure maximum cooperation and commonality of direction.
24. Lessons Learned. In India coastal protection has focused primarily on rock protection to
address the effects of erosion and not the causes. Large stretches of beach have been lost as a direct
result of the protection works. Sand beaches are a fundamental resource and their loss has enormous
economic, social and environmental costs. The beaches are required by fishermen and the
communities. They have enormous potential for tourism and represent some the most valuable natural
resources of India. Much of the erosion has resulted from poorly planned and designed coastal
infrastructure. Harbors and other shoreline infrastructure can block the natural coastal dynamics
causing problems of siltation and erosion. The resulting misbalance of the natural systems from the
infrastructure frequently requires further investments to protect the effects of erosion and also high
cost dredging operations. Reduced sediment from the rivers due to dams and sand mining is also a
cause of coastal instabilities.
25. Worldwide there is now an understanding that the traditional methods of shoreline protection
using hard engineering structures such as groins, seawalls and breakwaters cannot be supported as
long term strategies. In Europe and elsewhere there many examples of replacement or modification of
hard rock protection with softer options such as beach nourishments, dune management or
submerged structures below MSL. In Italy, the beaches protected with seawalls, detached
breakwaters and groins are modifying the coastal landscape, creating downdrift erosion, preventing a
full recreational use of the beach and having high maintenance costs. However, during the last
decades more soft shore protections were adopted in Italy: submerged breakwaters, submerged
groins, permeable groins, artificial shoals, geotextile bags and tubes, beach draining, and beach
nourishments. This transition to softer solutions in India is also developing, the transition is not easy
and requires a heavy investment in planning and design to understand the processes and develop the
correct solutions. The use of geotextiles opens many new opportunities, however the design and
specifications must be to the highest quality and standard. In West Bengal poor design and
inadequately specified geotextiles failed and had to be removed; this experience has damaged the
reputation of geotextiles within shoreline management schemes. Coastlines in Europe USA and
elsewhere are now facing immense challenges to rectify the damage caused by inappropriate
protection solutions and poorly designed shoreline infrastructure; it is important that India should not
follow this path. For the three states the beaches, despite some erosion problems, are still largely
unspoiled and have not yet suffered very significant damage from rock protection works, introduction
4
In 2004 Professor M.S Swaminathan carried out a comprehensive review of the coastal regulation zone. The
proposed new Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Notification expected to come into force based on the
recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee Report, provides an expanded definition of the ‘coastal
zone’ and proposes to take into account the vulnerability of the coast to natural hazards and establish set back
lines for the coastal areas.
Final Report
of soft solutions under the project for protection will allow these beaches to be environmentally and
sustainably managed.
26. A radical change to the design philosophy is required. Planning and design studies must
include comprehensive studies to identify the causes and extent of the erosion. Appropriate designs
are required to address the root causes of erosion and to accommodate coastal processes in the
solution rather than simply trying to mitigate the effect. There is an urgent need for coastal erosion
management to move away from the present piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive and pro-
active one based on planning, good practice and accountability of achievements, with long-term cost-
minimization goals and economic benefits. Planning is presently centralized with limited or no
stakeholder or community interactions projects therefore do not fully address local issues or
incorporate the requirements of the communities.
27. There is a general awareness of the impacts of hard structures. Rock wall comes easily and
soft solutions are largely untried and the technologies are not well understood. The continued use of
hard technologies for coastal protection is being questioned by decision makers and there is now a
widespread interest and realization of a need to change to softer solutions. The move to softer
solutions although an easy and acceptable solution in principle, in practice requires significant
behavioral changes by all those involved. The present institutional structure is unable to provide for
these and proper support mechanisms have to be established.
28. Institutional development is a key requirement; capacities within departments are low and
there are very limited interactions between one sector and another. Institutional development under
previous ADB and other multilateral and bilateral funded projects have had mixed success.
Institutional development must be supported within the government institutions and it is considered
that there is a requirement to establish specific dedicated units within the National and State
Governments to oversee and drive the change process.
IV. THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Impact and Outcome
29. The impact of the investment program is improved economic growth in the three States
through well protected and managed shorelines for the benefit of all coastal communities. The project
outcome is protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of stakeholders and the
environment
B. Outputs
30. The project is designed to have a relatively simple structure, with one impact statement, one
outcome statement, and three outputs which to the extent possible correspond with the needs
identified by the Implementing Agencies and stakeholders. The proposed structure is shown in Figure
1 below.
Final Report
Figure 1: Proposed Project Impact, Outcome and Outputs
Impact – Improved economic growth in the three States through well protected
and managed shorelines for the benefit of all coastal communities.
Outcome -- Protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of

stakeholders and the environment
Three Outputs
Component 1: Component 2: Component 3:

Sustainable and Project Effective
appropriate plans Investments for Institutions and
and designs. Coastal Protection Project
and Management Management
1. Overview
31. Sustainable and Appropriate Planning and Design is directed at the preparation of long
term sustainable development plans and management of the shoreline. These would include
preparation of strategies, participatory shoreline planning, project selection, detailed feasibility studies
and designs for subprojects.
32. Investments for Coastal Protection and Management includes physical as well as non
physical investments to meet the specific needs of coastal protection and management. Whilst most of
the investments will be directed at physical infrastructure, some funding will be made available for
investments to support community and economic development initiatives.
33. Effective Institutions The effective planning and sustainability of the proposed investments
requires effective management institutions. Requirements include professional capacity for planning,
design and management. There is a need to strengthen the government as well as private sector
organizations. A formalized and agreed policy document for shoreline protection and management will
be implemented under this component supported by the proposed Technical Assistance.
2. Component 1: Planning and Design
34. This component will be in three parts:
(i) Coastal Management Information Systems (MIS) will be developed and established
within each of the State Executing Agencies and also within the CWC. The databases
will source information from National and State level institutions and other specialized
agencies including MoEF. It will establish effective mechanisms for sharing
information with the various state and district level coastal agencies and stakeholders.
The maintenance of the MIS will be a key responsibility of the new Coastal
Infrastructure Management Units (CIMU) to be established within each of the State
Executing Agencies. Through the CWC the MIS would be harmonized with the World
Bank/MoEF coastal zone management project which includes institution building and
MIS components.
(ii) Shoreline Management Plans will be prepared to meet the long term needs for
shoreline management. It is proposed to produce participatory and integrated
Final Report
shoreline management plans for the whole coastline of the three states. The total
length of coastline for the three states is about 1,100 km, including the estuaries the
total length might be increased by about 20%. Shoreline plans will be prepared for
each district and will address key issues of the coastal processes, shoreline land use
and present proposals for the long term sustainable management and protection of
the shoreline. The plans would also identify potential economic development
opportunities in the coastal areas. The plans will be non statutory and prepared in
close liaison with the District authorities (Zilla Parishads / Zilla Panchayaths, Municipal
Councils and the District Planning Councils). The shoreline management plans will be
prepared by a multi-disciplinary team of coastal management specialists as part of the
project management and design consultancy. The shoreline planning will be
implemented over three years; the areas of coast where erosion or other problems
have been identified will be taken up for priority planning. A key output of the process
for shoreline management planning is to develop the planning capacities at the district
level as well as the capacities of National Consultants to undertake this work.
(iii) Planning and Design of Projects for implementation will be selected based on the
outputs of the shoreline management planning process. Selected projects will be
formulated and submitted for preliminary selection and assessment. Feasibility studies
including numerical modeling as required will be carried out for all projects to assess
their technical and economic viability as well as their social and environmental
impacts. Detailed designs will be prepared for projects selected for implementation.
Appropriate and viable projects will be presented for funding under Tranches 2 and 3.
35. Selection Criteria. All subprojects to be included under the Investment Program will have to
meet the selection criteria namely (i) erosion status; (ii) technical, social, institutional, and economic
feasibility; (iii) insignificant social and environmental impacts; (iv) compliance with safeguards
requirements; (v) endorsement by stakeholders and including agreements to support the project; (vi)
state priority; and (vii) proposal clearance by the Government as applicable.
3. Component 2: Investments for Coastal Protection and Management
36. Component 2 is divided into two sub components: (i) Component 2.1 Physical Investments in
Infrastructure and (ii) Component 2.2 Community and Economic Support Initiatives.
37. Sub-Component 2.1 - Physical Investment in Infrastructure: This sub-component will

include a range of investments to meet specific needs. The scope of the investment will focus on
coastal protection but will also support the physical investments to support the wider area of coastal
management. Five areas of potential investment have been identified.
(i) Investments for coastal protection to address the immediate coastal erosion needs
through the implementation of economically viable protection works using
environmentally and socially appropriate solutions.
(ii) Investments to address the causes of coastal erosion or coastal instability.
Investments will be directed mainly at other coastal infrastructure that is presently
causing, or potentially cause damage to the natural coastal processes. Key areas of
intervention include navigation inlets and training of river and drain mouths.
(iii) Investments to provide natural protection through development and planting of dunes,
planting of mangrove or other trees for protection or shelter.
(iv) Other investments to support coastal management including water quality, dredging,
reclamation etc.
(v) Physical Investments to increase the economic value or amenity value of the coast
and shoreline.
38. Sub-Component 2.2 - Community and Economic Support Initiatives: This sub-component
will develop a mix of non structural and low cost structural activities and initiatives to support the
development and management of the shoreline together with programs to add value to the shoreline
through Government, private sector, and community participation. Funding for this activity has been
provided in Tranche 1 within the budgets for each of the sub projects. The coastal zone offers many
opportunities for economic development and for improvement of the livelihood base of disadvantaged
groups such as poor fishing households and communities in the coastal zone; it also requires
initiatives to preserve the environment, address issues of degradation and to provide for long term
Final Report
maintenance. The sustainability and economic viability of coastal protection and management
investments are closely linked with the development of the economic value of the shoreline; the value
or perceived value of the shoreline is integral with the level of interest and the capacity of the
stakeholders to support its management. The Government has a key role to play; however under the
present institutional, administrative and financing structure it is clear the Government alone lacks the
capacity and flexibility to provide the very wide spectrum of support requirements. The participation of
the communities, including those in disadvantaged rural areas, stakeholders and the private sector
therefore becomes a key element in shoreline management. This sub-component is envisaged to
develop sustainable initiatives to engage the community and the private sector in the development and
management of the shoreline. Support initiatives under sub-component 2.2 will include:
(i) Initiatives to Support Community Development. The use of soft technologies provides land
protection as well as improved and expanded beaches. Both of these have the potential to
improve the livelihoods of the shoreline communities. The protection will allow scope for
investment of the landside and the expanded shore opens up a number of opportunities
including tourism, fishing boat landing, shore fishing, fish processing, etc. There has been
interest shown at the sub-project sites in developing community tourism, fish processing, local
trading, etc. This component is designed to support communities to promote income
generation and improved livelihoods, particularly for poor rural communities; possible areas
include finance for small and micro enterprises, minor infrastructure to help improve the value
of the shoreline (access, roads, lights etc), and development of a CEPA (communication,
education, participation and awareness) programs. Although t there will not be any
displacement of people or persons negatively affected by the sub projects; there are however
a number of marginal groups including womenc residing or working in the vicinity of the sub
project sites. Appropriate and viable community development initiatives will be targeted
towards these groups to enable them to enjoy the benefits from the coastal protection and
management investments. Employment opportunities will also be created as part of the project
maintenance activities, and with proper training individuals from poor communities can entry
into formal employment through these activities. Where appropriate some part of the income
generation proceeds could be used for funding support for shoreline maintenance
(ii) Initiatives to Support the Economic Development in the Coastal Zone. The potential of
the shorelines for tourism or other economic development is considered to be significant, and
in many parts still largely unrealized. Meetings with stakeholders indicate that there are high
expectations for the economic development of the shorelines. There are however many
constraints but the potential economic returns from promotion of the shorelines on a state or
regional scale is considered to be significant.5 There is a large interest by real estate and
other investors in the shoreline and beach areas. This needs to be encouraged but it should
be well managed and incorporate the needs of the environment and social issues. This
component is intended to bridge the gap between the coastal development requirements and
opportunities and the identification of effective areas for partnership and where appropriate
promote the involvement of the private sector. It is anticipated that the role of the private
sector will come in gradually; the type and level of the private sector role will be quite varied
and may range from large capital investments for protection works to smaller periodic financial
or contributions in kind for maintenance or maintenance service agreements. The outputs of
this component might include promotion and creation of awareness of private sector
opportunities, creation of clearly defined procedures for private investors, preparation of
contracts and legal agreements to protect both parties, financial support for set up costs
including support for feasibility studies, market studies, modeling studies, environmental
assessments, planning and design, landscape designs etc. This component would operate in
close liaison with PPP nodal cells in each of the states and the ongoing ADB PPP support
program.
5
One major logistical constraint is transportation to the beach sites. Transport to Goa is well served by air links
but all other sites rely on land transport. The most convenient and low cost transportation option is the Konkan
Railway route constructed in 1995. The capacity of the route is however severely constrained and the
availability of seats is limited, particularly over the holiday periods. Increasing the capacity of the trains in the
Konkan Railway route could be of major benefit for expansion of the tourism sector. There is also potential to
develop coastal transport and tourism utilizing the private ports in all the three States.
Final Report
4. Component 3: Effective Institutions and Project Management
39. This component will develop the institutional arrangements required to support the immediate
project needs as well as the long-term institutional requirements for integrated shoreline planning and
management. The proposed initiatives for planning, design and sustainability will not work without
effective management institutions. The outputs of this component will include:
(i) Development of effective capacity at the district and state level to prepare and
implement participatory shoreline management plans together with mechanisms to
prioritize the investments and to effectively implement the plans.
(ii) Development of capacity through private sector and Government Institutes for detailed
planning and design of projects including specialist skills in numerical modeling, and
design of soft engineering protection measures.
(iii) Establishment of effective and professional control capacities at state level to evaluate
coastal infrastructure projects including engineering planning and design,
environmental and social assessments.
(iv) Establishment of capacities and mechanisms to develop an effective and sustainable
coastal management information systems including free sourcing and sharing of data
with MoWR and MoEF as well as the various state and district level agencies.
(v) Establishment of an effective organizational mechanisms to finance, manage and
maintain the completed coastal protection investments including the sub-projects.
(vi) Increasing the mandates of the Central Water Commission and the State Executing
Agencies as the lead agency for coordination of all coastal infrastructure programs.
Establishment of a coastal infrastructure unit (CIMU) within the SEA to support the
coordination of all coastal infrastructure programs.
(vii) Establishment of programs for capacity building on institutional functioning,
participatory planning, sustainable environmental management, social assessment,
public-private partnerships for service delivery involving coastal and shoreline assets.
(viii) Preparation of an agreed policy for Shoreline Protection and Management. The policy
document would draw together the wide range of technical and institutional proposals
developed under the project into a comprehensive policy document that would form
the basis of long term shoreline protection and management.
40. Component 3 will be implemented as two parallel but integrated parts:
(i) At the State level through the State Executing Agencies; the focus will be the strengthening
and training for the State, District, Panchayats and communities. This part will be supported by
the Project Management and Design Consultancy (PMDC).
(ii) At the National level through the Central Water Commission (CWC) and will focus on senior
level management training on strategies and policy and other major issues. The component
will also involve representatives from the other maritime states and the Union Territories. The
component will be supported by the Institutional Development and Change Management
Consultants (IDMC). At the national level the activities would be funded by the TA grant.
C. Special Features
41. Opportunities. The project will develop effective delivery of effective protection and
management the shoreline through a balance of appropriate soft technologies supported by
development of strategies, professional technical planning and wide spectrum stakeholder
participation. A move from centrally planned technical solutions is proposed together with the creation
of opportunities for the wider stakeholders including the private sector. The project will incorporate:
(i) Long-term planning of shoreline protection and management with effective participation of key
stakeholders and based on systematic shoreline planning, monitoring and performance
evaluation.
(ii) Introduction of new socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable technologies and
procedures for structural and non-structural interventions.
(iii) Increased participation of the private sector including accessing financial support where
appropriate for capital as well as operation and maintenance expenditures.
(iv) Sustainable management, operation and maintenance by efficient institutions, and public-
private and public-community partnerships
Final Report
(v) Preparation of an overall strategy for integrated coastal protection and management, including
the development of the relevant policy and institutional frameworks;
42. The timing of the project is appropriate; the beaches despite some damage from infrastructure
and rock protection works remain largely unspoiled. This opens the way for soft technologies that can
provide protection and maintain the environmental integrity. Releasing the threat of erosion and
potential environmental damage from hard protection measures allows an opportunity to open of the
way forward to effectively realize the significant economic potential of the coastal areas.
43. Linkages with National Coastal Management Project and CZM Notification. The project is
designed to be fully complementary with the MoEF and World Bank supported National Coastal
Management project; the two programs are working in different areas of a common theme. The
outputs of the Coastal Protection and Management Project with focus on shoreline planning and
management is designed to smoothly link in as a sub component of the broader aspects of coastal
zone management and planning. The approval of the new Coastal Zone Management Notification is
still pending. The proposed project is fully compliant with both the existing as well as the proposed
notification.
D. Project Investment Plan
44. The project investment cost is estimated at $417.3 million (Table 1) including taxes and duties
of $ 34.7 million.
Table 1: Project Investment Plan

($ million)
Item Total
a
A. Base Cost
1. Planning and Design 7.28
2. Coastal Protection and Management Investments 319.63
3 Effective Institutions and Management 16.73
Subtotal (A) 343.64
B. Contingenciesb 42.94
c
C. Interest During Implementation 29.34
D. Commitment charge 1.35
Total (A+B+C+D) 417.27
Notes: a) Base costs in mid 2008 prices
b) Includes price contingencies and physical contingencies at 10% of base costs on civil
works, materials, supplies and equipment.
c) Interest during implementation at the LIBOR 5 year US$ swap rate for 09 March 2009
plus a margin of 0.2%.
E. Financing Plan
45. To finance the project the Government has requested financing up to $300 million through
ADB’s ordinary capital resources through the MFF in accordance with ADB’s Mainstreaming the
Multitranche Financing Facility6. The MFF may extend three (or more if needed) loans to implement
the Investment Program, subject to the submission of the related periodic funding request (PFR) by
the Government and the signing of the related loan agreements. The Government has confirmed its
intention to enter into a framework financing agreement (FFA) with ADB in the form attached, which
satisfies the requirements set forth in the said policy All of the provisions of the ordinary loan
regulations applicable to the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR)-based lending facility made from
ADB’s ordinary capital resources, dated 1 July 2001, would apply to each loan, subject to any
6
ADB 2008 Mainstreaming the Multitranche Financing Facility Manila
Final Report
modifications that may be included under individual loan agreements.. The specific terms of each loan
will be based on the related PFR, with interest to be determined according to ADB’s LIBOR-based
lending facility. The Government may choose a currency (from among several eligible currencies) and
interest rate regime for each loan.
46. The financing plan is in Table 2. Detailed cost estimates and a financing plan are shown in
Appendix 4.
Table 2: Financing Plan

($ million)
Source Total %
Asian Development Bank 300.0 71.9
Government a 87.4 20.9
Private Sector/Beneficiaries 29.7 7.1
Total 417.1 100.0
Source: PPTA Estimate - see Appendix 4 and Supplementary Appendix I for details.
Notes: a) Funding from State governments
b) In addition, TA funding for $1.8 million is proposed for financing Institutional Development
and Change activities.
47. Project 1. The amount for the first Periodic Financing Request is estimated to cost the
equivalent of $76.60 million (Table 3). This includes taxes and duties of $4.41 million equivalent. It will
cover the infrastructure costs of four medium coastal protection and management schemes appraised
prior to the submission of the PFR. The project will also cover non structural measures for coastal
protection, training and support for the introduction of new technologies, support for local communities
and consulting services. A loan of $ 58.37 million has been requested under the first PFR from ADB’s
ordinary capital resources to cover part of the cost of Project 1. The ADB loan will have a term of 25
years, including a grace period of 8 years, with interest rate to be determined according to ADB’s
LIBOR-based lending facility, a commitment charge of 0.15% per annum, and such other terms and
conditions as agreed in the FFA, and the loan and project agreements. No private sector investment is
proposed for Tranche 1, O&M costs will however be sourced from the beneficiary stakeholders.
Detailed cost estimates and a financing plan for Project 1 are also shown in Appendix 4.
Table 3: Cost Estimates and Financing Plan for Project 1

($ million)
b Benefic-
Project Components ADB Govt. a Total
iaries
Planning and Design 2.88 0.17 - 3.04
Coastal Protection and Management Investments 51.90 3.81 0.16 55.88
Effective Institutions and Project Management 3.59 3.80 - 7.40
Financing charges c 10.28 - 10.28
Total 58.37 18.07 0.16 76.60

Notes: a) Contributions of State governments – see Appendix 4 for details
b) Costs including contingencies
c) Interest during implementation of $10.3 million and commitment charges of $0.03 million.
F. Implementation Arrangements
1. Project Management
48. The State Executing Agencies (SEA) will form the Executing Agencies (EA’s) responsible for
the overall implementation of the Project; these are the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB); Goa
Final Report
Department of Water Resources and Karnataka Ports and Inland Waterways7. For each state a State
Working Group will be established based on present working group established for the PPTA8. The
working group will advise on policy, and interdepartmental coordination. The working group would be
used to help institutionalize effective mechanisms to plan, improve and manage coastal management
initiatives, the working group would meet twice annually.
49. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established in each of the SEA as well as a PMU
within the CWC, the PMU will be managed by a full-time program director. The PMU will have a
multidisciplinary structure comprising staff from the EA and associated line departments and some
directly recruited individual consultants. The PMU will be assisted by the Project Management and
Design Consultants (PMDC) for institutional strengthening and project management. The organization
structure is described in Appendix 6.
50. The PMU will support the implementation of the various project activities and will be required
to (i) prepare an overall implementation plan and annual project budget; (ii) coordinate with other
departments; (iii) guide the shoreline management planning, sub project selection, feasibility studies
and design, endorse subproject appraisal reports including the necessary safeguards; (iv) monitor
project progress and evaluate project benefits and social and environmental impacts; (v) arrange
necessary training programs for staff and other providers; (viii) manage procurement, consulting and
NGO services, and loan disbursement; (vi) maintain financial accounts; and (vii) prepare periodic
implementation progress reports.
51. Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) will be established at each project site. The
SMO will consist of locally based community stakeholders and beneficiaries who help support the
coordination and monitoring of the project during the implementation and would take on the
responsibility for the management and maintenance of the projects after the completion of the capital
works. The SMO will be established early in the project prior to award of any contracts; the SMO will
require project support and resources to ensure they effectively represent the shoreline stakeholders
and have capacities to take on their full management responsibilities.
2. Implementation Period
52. The Project will be implemented over an eight year period from January 2010 to June 2017,
with funds utilized up to December 2017. The implementation is proposed to be funded under three or
more tranches. Project 1 funded under Tranche 1 will run for five years and will comprise of 4 medium
sized protection and management schemes designed during the PPTA, procurement of equipment
and financing of consultants. Tranches 2 and 3 will implement schemes identified and designed under
Project 1. The support for institutional development will continue over the entire period. The
Implementation schedule is presented in Appendix 10.
3. Procurement
53. Procurement to be financed from the ADB loans under the MFF will be carried out in
accordance with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2007, as amended from time to time). International
competitive bidding (ICB) or Limited International Bidding (LIB) will be followed for civil work contracts
costing $10 million or more. Civil works contracts costing less than $10 million will be procured
through national competitive bidding (NCB) procedures acceptable to ADB. Some contract packages
such as the construction of offshore reefs will be procured through ICB/LIB even though their cost is
less than $10 million since there is limited experience or capability within India for this type of
construction. ADB standard bidding documents with post-qualification under the two-envelope system
will be adopted. In addition, small service contracts or community works costing less than $10,000
each may be directly contracted since the works are non competitive in nature, i.e. dune grassing, tree
plantation etc. In procuring goods and related services, ICB/LIB procedures will be used if the
estimated cost is at least $1 million and NCB procedures if the cost is between $0.1 million and $1
million, and shopping if the estimated contract amount is less than $0.1 million. The detailed
procurement plan for Project 1 is shown in Appendix 11.
7
The Karnataka Ports and Inland Waterways Department will shortly form a board which will give them more
autonomy (the draft act has been approved).
8
The proposed composition of the State Working Groups would include: State Executing Agencies, Planning
and Finance, State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMA), Environment and Forests, Fisheries, Ports
and Harbours, State Pollution Control Board, Tourism, Urban Development, Panchayat and/or rural
development, NGO, representatives from the private sector.
Final Report
54. The PMU will monitor and report on the implementation of the Procurement Plan and will
organize the procurement activities. Measures to strengthen the capacity of the PMU and SEA staff in
undertaking procurement activities will be implemented including training on procurement and other
aspects of project implementation. PMU staff will also be nominated to attend ADB-sponsored course
and seminars on procurement and project implementation prior to Loan effectiveness.
55. Advance Contracting and Retroactive Financing. This is allowable subject to approval by the
ADB board provided that the total eligible expenditure under such financing will not exceed an amount
equivalent to 20% of the individual loans, and must have been incurred not more than 12 months
before the signing of the relevant legal agreements. The Government has been informed that the
approval of advance action and retroactive financing does not commit ADB to finance the relevant
projects under the Investment Program.
4. Consulting Services
56. The project will finance two consulting packages Package A and Package B with a total of
1,039 person-months (p-m) of consultancy; further information is given in Appendix 14
57. Package A: Project Management and Design Consultants (PMDC). A total of 726 p-m (115
p-m international and 611 p-m national). The first contract will run for three years with a second
contract for five years. The PMDC will be responsible for the direct planning and design of sub
projects during Years 1-3 after which time the focus will move to supervision of planning and design
from years 4 onwards. The Package A consultants’ budget will include the state level training budget
as a provisional sum. This consultancy will support the activities of components 1, 2 and 3.
58. Package B: Planning and Design Support Consultants (PDSC). A total of 313 p-m (284 p-
m national and 29 p-m international support consultants). This package will be implemented through
national consultancy companies or organizations working with international support staff. The final
composition of the consulting team and packaging will be defined based on the type of sub projects
selected. This consultancy will primarily support component 1 (planning and design) but would also
provide some inputs to component 2 (supervision of projects).
59. Budget has been provided for each of the State Project Management Units to contract support
consultancies or services from state and national institutes. These will include project environmental
monitoring and assessments, support for surveys and design etc. Procurement of these packages will
follow the Government of India requirements. The State Level PMU will be responsible for the
recruitment of the PMDC and PDSC consultants.. A number of small training contracts will be awarded
to individual trainers or organizations for these it is proposed to use CQS/LQS depending on the
thresholds of the training. All the consultants, NGO’s and other institutions and resource persons will
be hired following the ADB’s Guidelines for the Use of Consultants (2007, as amended from time to
time).
60. Consultancy Supported by the Technical Assistance: An additional consultancy package

will be supported through the Technical Assistance. This consultancy will work with the Central Water
Commission to support institutional development and also to coordinate policy, coordination and
centralized training for the loan states. Some training and institutional development will be provided for
the other maritime states and union territories. The consultancy Package C: Institutional
Development and Change Management Consultants (IDCMC) will include a total of 80 p-m (73 p-
m national and 7 p-m international support consultants). Package C budget will include the central
level training activities as a provisional sum. The IDCMC consultants will be recruited by PMU at the
Central Water Commission.
5. Anticorruption Policy
61. ADB’s Anticorruption Policy was explained to and discussed with the Government and the
Implementing Agencies. Consistent with its commitment to good governance, accountability, and
transparency, ADB reserves the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt,
fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices relating to the Project. To support these efforts, relevant
provisions of ADB’s Anticorruption Policy are included in the loan regulations and the bidding
documents for the Project. In particular, all contracts financed by ADB and any grant funding in
connection with the Project will include provisions specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the
records and accounts of the IAs and all contractors, suppliers, consultants and other service providers
as they relate to the Project. The Project design and implementation arrangements provide for
Final Report
mitigating corruption risks. Risks associated with project management, including procurement and
disbursement, will be mitigated by (i) engaging an international consultant and a national consultant to
advise and assist in the procurement of goods and services, and the engagement of other consultants;
(ii) introducing a dual signing system in which the civil works contractor awarded the contract will also
sign an anticorruption contract with the employer; and (iii) periodical inspection by the PMU of the
contractor’s activities related to fund withdrawals and settlements.
6. Disbursement Arrangements
62. The proceeds of the loan will be disbursed in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement
9
Handbook, as amended from time to time. Because many of the payments will be made for large
contracts, direct payment, reimbursement, and commitment procedures will be used to withdraw funds
from the loan account. To expedite the flow of funds and simplify document processing, the Statement
of Expenditure procedure may be used to reimburse eligible expenditures for any individual payment
not exceeding $100,000. The payments exceeding Statement of Expenditure ceiling will be
reimbursed based on full documentation process. Before disbursement, the Government shall have
certified to ADB that the on lending agreement, which shall include the terms and conditions required
under the loan agreement, shall have been duly effective and binding upon the parties thereto in
accordance with its terms. The proposed grant funds will be channeled through ADB. To expedite the
disbursement of the loan and the possible grant funding proceeds, the Government will set up two
imprest accounts, one for the loan proceeds and the other for the proposed grant, in a commercial
bank acceptable to ADB. Disbursements from the imprest accounts will be supported by an
appropriate withdrawal application and related documentation. The initial amounts to be deposited in
each imprest account shall not exceed the estimated expenditures for the next six months or 10%,
respectively, of the loan amount and the proposed grant, whichever is the lower. Each sub-borrower
will open a second generation imprest account. It will be a condition of disbursement of the loan
proceeds and any grant funding that (i) the on-lending agreement for the relevant activity has been
entered into between the Government and the sub-borrowers, and (ii) such on-lending agreements
contain the same financial terms and conditions as required in the loan agreement.
63. The PMU requires additional capacity and experience to efficiently deal with the operation and
withdrawal procedures necessary for the operation of the imprest accounts. Accordingly, assistance
and training will be provided so that PMU staff and the IA staff can expedite loan and the possible
grant disbursements. An assessment of the financial management capability of the implementing
agencies and specific arrangements for managing the project funds are provided in Supplementary
Appendix K..
7. Accounting, Auditing and Reporting
64. All agencies involved in project implementation will maintain records and accounts that identify
goods and services from loan proceeds and the grant funding, financing resources received,
expenditures incurred and use of local funds. These accounts will be established and maintained in
accordance with sound accounting principles and internationally accepted accounting standards. The
PMU will review and consolidate these accounts and have them audited annually in accordance with
sound accounting practices by the sovereign audit agency of the Government or other auditors
acceptable to ADB. The audit report will include a statement verifying whether or not the funds
disbursed by ADB were used for the purposes for which they were provided, as well as the auditor’s
opinion on the use of the imprest account and statement of expenditures procedures. Copies of the
audited accounts and auditor’s report will be submitted to ADB within six months after the end of each
financial year. The PMU will prepare consolidated quarterly reports indicating progress made,
problems encountered during the period, steps taken or proposed to remedy the problems, proposed
program of activities, and progress expected for the next quarter. Both the loan and grant funding will
be covered in these reports. Within six months of physical completion of the Project, PMU will submit
to ADB a completion report that describes the achievements in relation to the Project’s expected
impact, outcome and outputs. The Project is supporting the development and implementation of a
Project Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (BME) system. Implementation of the BME will be
contracted to the third party by the PMU and will provide a statistical baseline, in Project Year one, an
assessment of achievements in terms of inputs and output by mid Project Year 4 and the overall
outputs and outcomes of the Project in Project Year 8. It is proposed that funds flow directly to the
State Project Management Units as shown in Figure 2. It is proposed that the Central PMU within the
9
ADB. 2007. Loan Disbursement Handbook. Manila.
Final Report
CWC is tasked with the consolidation of the accounts from each of the State Project Management
Units.
Figure 2: Proposed Flow of Funds
8. Project Monitoring and Evaluation
65. To monitor the progress of the Project in achieving the planned outcome and outputs, the
PMU in each state will establish and maintain a project performance management system (PPMS),
which will be designed to permit adequate flexibility to adopt remedial action regarding Project design,
schedules, activities and development impacts. The PPMS will adopt the following agreed indicators
(i) overall project progress, (ii) progress in the preparation of shoreline plans, information systems and
sub project designs ,(iii) progress the investment programs including the both the physical programs
as well as community and economic initiatives, (iii) progress with the institutional development
including policy, establishment and mandating of the CIMU, (iv) results of training and capacity
development, (v) progress of community and private sector participation, including establishment of
the shoreline management organizations, (vi) beneficiary impacts, (vii) progress with the
environmental monitoring plan and (viii) related improvements to the sustainable environment of the
beaches.
66. At Project inception, the PMU, in consultation with each of the sub-borrowers and with the
assistance of the consultants, will develop comprehensive PPMS procedures to systematically
generate data on inputs and outputs of the project activities; and the socioeconomic, health, and
environmental indicators to measure project impacts. This will include individual and consolidated
work plans that once approved will form the basis for assessing progress and achievements.
67. The PMU will refine the PPMS framework, confirm achievable targets, firm up monitoring and
recording arrangements, and establish systems and procedures no later than 6 months after Project
Effectiveness. Baseline and progress data will be reported at the requisite time intervals by the IAs to
the PMU, including resettlement monitoring results and reporting on any environmental management.
The PMU will be responsible for analyzing and consolidating the reported data through its
management information system, and for reporting the outcome to ADB through the quarterly progress
reports.
9. Project Review
68. In addition to regular monitoring, project performance will be reviewed at least twice per year
for the first two years and once a year thereafter, jointly by ADB and the Government. The review will
assess implementation performance and achievement of progress towards project outcomes and
Final Report
outputs, financial progress, identify issues and constraints affecting implementation, and work out a
time-bound action plan for their resolution. ADB and the Government will undertake a midterm review
prior to the end of Project Year 4 to assess implementation status and take appropriate measures
including modification of scope and implementation arrangement, and reallocation of loan and grant
proceeds, as appropriate, to achieve the Project’s objectives.
V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
69. A Technical Assistance program is proposed to support the development of the sustainable
framework, strategies, policies as well institutional development, for coastal protection and
management. The Technical Assistance will be based at the national level through the MoWR, the
Central Water Commission (CWC) and CWPRS.10
70. The rationale for the Technical Assistance program is to support the Central Water
Commission (CWC) and the CWPRS as the key agencies for national level technical support, training
and institutional development. The TA program, through the CWC will also identify, coordinate and
address issues of long term shoreline management strategies and policy for all the mainland coastal
areas and Union Territories. The TA would support senior level raining and institutional development
for three loan states as well as the other maritime states and union territories. The inclusion of all the
maritime states would provide the forum for the dialogue and development of national level strategies
and policy.
71. The investment project in the three states will develop a wide range of initiatives at the state
level to support the long term sustainable management of the coast. The role of the TA program
thorough the CWC will be to inform and liaise with all the maritime states to gradually expand the
knowledge base of the initiatives. The CWC working in close liaison the investment project and the
other maritime states will support the process of formal endorsement of the strategies and institutional
changes into Government policy. Close cooperation and information sharing with the MoEF and World
Bank coastal management project will be a key requirement.
72. The Technical Assistance will include funding for senior level training, institutional
development, and a support consultancy.
73. The TA program will be supported by the Institutional Development and Change Management
Consultants (IDMC). The IDMC will be funded through the TA with recruitment organized by the CWC.
The IDMC will support all the activities of the TA including addressing issues of policy and long term
shoreline management strategies as well as the Central Training Program.
74. The outcome of the technical assistance will be the development of institutional capacities
strategies and policies to meet the long term sustainable needs of coastal protection and management
in all the maritime states and the union territories. The TA program will address issues relating to
institutional responsibilities, capacities and legal aspects. It will also develop logical strategies for long
term integrated coastal planning for sustainability and adaptation of coastal communities to climate
change, maintaining the integrity of the beaches, biodiversity and coastal ecosystems.
75. Availability of Technical Assistance funds is not confirmed; possible funding may be available
from the Global Environment Fund. The TA cost is $1.8 million; to be funded by the Global
Environment Fund or other grant fund. .
VI. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS
A. Financial and Economic Analysis
1. Benefits and Impacts
76. The main direct financial and economic impacts of the project will be the protection of land,
buildings and infrastructure from future damage caused by coastal erosion and monsoon storms. The
benefits of the protected land will indirectly benefit the incomes and livelihoods of urban and rural
households and businesses located on the coastline. Tourism, rural farm and fishing households,
ports and factories and their owners, operators and workers will benefit from the subprojects.
10
The TA would be titled ‘Support for Sustainable Strategies and Institutional Development’ (SSSID).
Final Report
Subprojects may have both direct and indirect benefits for the environment. Removal of erosion risk
will help encourage future investment in the coastal zone.
77. In addition to land protection, the project will support the long term sustainability of the
beaches. Previous protection programs have neglected the beaches and in many cases have caused
increased degradation. Use of the new technologies and soft protection measures proposed under the
project will sustain and enhance the beach areas. The beaches are key contributors to the economies
in the tourist areas and essential for artisanal fishermen. The tourism potential of much of the coastal
area is very high and the long term economic and environmental benefits of sustaining the beaches
through the project interventions will be very significant.
78. The four sub projects proposed for implementation under Project 1 directly protect land and
buildings (including houses, public buildings, hotels and factories) and infrastructure from loss or
damage caused by erosion of the coast and beaches. Indirectly, incomes and livelihoods of urban and
rural households will be protected. These interventions will also restore or protect tourism assets or by
restoring beaches will provide opportunities for the development of tourist activities. The subprojects in
Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka will lead to the avoidance of resettlement costs for the state
governments that would very likely be incurred if no action is taken to prevent the ongoing erosion
processes at those locations.
2. Financial Analysis
79. Project interventions will maintain the status quo or restore situations to the pre-erosion
situation. Financial impacts for beneficiaries are therefore limited and occur only in some contexts.
Where an eroded beach will be restored, as at Coco Beach in Goa or Ullal in Karnataka, there will be
a restoration of income for tourism businesses that lost business because of the erosion of the beach
and new businesses may also be established. At other locations where future erosion is prevented,
there will be no financial effect for businesses or other beneficiaries. Some interventions will reduce
future government expenditures; these interventions will have a potential impact on government
expenditures by reducing future requirements for infrastructure replacement and the resettlement of
affected populations.
3. Economic Analysis
80. The results of the economic analysis show that the four subprojects have EIRRs of 14.5% for
the Ullal Coastal Erosion and Inlet Project, 16.8% for both the Mirya Bay Coastal Erosion and
Restoration Project and the Coco Beach Restoration Project and 33.4% for the Colva Beach
Management Project. Switching values show the subprojects at Mirya Bay, Coco Beach and Colva
Beach to be robust to variations in total investment costs and total benefits, but the subproject at Ullal
is more susceptible to variations in costs and benefits. This is partly a reflection of the high project
cost in this case. Sensitivity analysis of benefit categories and other key variables show that individual
variables by themselves generally have little impact on the economic indicators.
4. Economic Risks
81. Economic risks to project feasibility are few. Large cost overruns would place all subprojects
at risk. Benefits reduced significantly below the estimates would also place the subprojects at risk, but
this can only occur if the probabilities of damage over the life of the project or the future number of
tourists have been significantly over-estimated. However, variations in the probability of damage or in
the rate of growth of tourist numbers both have relatively small impacts on total benefits.
B. Benefits of New Technologies and Skills for India
82. Through the use of soft protection solutions the project will bring in new technologies and
skills. The use of geotextiles and soft solutions to coastal protection in India is in its infancy.
Experience in the use of the soft technologies in other countries is more advanced; there were many
initial mistakes and one aim of the project will be to ensure these mistakes are not replicated in India.
C. Benefits and Impacts from Planned Development
83. The coastline is under immense development pressures, the requirements of which are often
conflicting. A major weakness is the single sector approach to development; a prime cause of erosion
is the interaction of poorly designed coastal infrastructure on the natural coastal processes. The
Final Report
project will implement a program of shoreline management planning and will support a number of sub
projects aimed at correcting the causes or potential causes of erosion; these include harbor
breakwaters and other shore crossing infrastructure. The planning process will be participatory and
aimed at optimizing the needs of the various stakeholders in the planning processes. The move from
sector development to integrated development and management will likely generate significant
economic benefits as well as cost savings. The requirements for integrated development can be seen
at the Mirya bay sub project where the conflicting needs of artisanal fishermen, tourism, a fishing boat
and commercial harbor require to be assimilated into an integrated into a development plan.
D. Environmental Impacts
84. Initial environmental examinations (IEEs) were prepared for each of the four subproject
proposed for funding under Tranche 1. Environmental assessments of the subprojects were discussed
with the MoEF who concurred that being soft solutions the environmental impacts would be minimal
and not likely to involve environmental issues. Overall the subproject will have positive impacts on the
environment including the reversal of damage to the beaches and coastal processes caused by
previous interventions. There may be some temporary impacts during construction but these would be
quite minimal and of short duration. It was therefore agreed to classify the Tranche 1 subprojects as
Category B.
85. The project will support the use of soft environmentally appropriate technologies for erosion
protection. These interventions will in many cases improve the natural environment of the shoreline. In
addition the project will address areas where coastal infrastructure is presently or may potentially
damage the natural coastal processes. These initiatives will support positive impacts to the coastal
environment. The project philosophy is to promote the use of natural protection measures including
dune restoration and management, planting of mangrove and shelter belts.
86. The present national environmental capacity to analyze impacts of development projects on
the coastal dynamics is quite limited and one of the project objectives is to upgrade the capacities of
Government and private sector consultants to support the preparation of professional environmental
impact reports.
E. Social and Gender Issues
87. The sub projects will not cause any specific social or gender issues. A part of the sub project
objectives will in fact be to create and support opportunities for income generation on the restored and
protected beaches and land. To help realize these activities it is proposed to provide some small funds
to support community initiatives at each sub project site. The funds will also be available to provide
support for poor or marginal groups. At some of the projects where dune management is proposed
there will be a requirement to employ unskilled labor to plant and manage the dunes and also maintain
open channels for the small drains (nallas) where they cross the beach.
F. Land Acquisition and Resettlement
88. All the proposed works for the subproject will be carried out offshore or on the shoreline. There
are no settlements in this area and as a result none of the sub projects will require any land
acquisition. There is also no requirement for the resettlement of people. The purpose of erosion
control is to reclaim back from the sea the beach area lost and the sub projects would create
additional beach area. The dune restoration and planting will be undertaken on the backshore and
would not have any resettlement requirement.
G. Indigenous Peoples and Minority Groups
89. The study areas have only a few families belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) and other
backward communities (OBC). There is no evidence of tribal people living in the three sub-project
sites. The SC and OBC have social and cultural features that do not make them distinct from the main
stream. The minority people linguistically are not different from the mainstream. The minorities cannot
be distinguished from the main stream in terms of their dress, appearance, food, living area, etc. Their
children go to the same schools as the main stream children are. They share the same jobs such as
vending, taxi driving, offering services to tourists, undertaking civil contracts, factory workers, etc.
Such jobs are similar to the jobs held by the main stream. They live within settlements inhabited by
families of the main stream. Their religion is also the same as those of the main stream. Women of
SC and OBC are also doing jobs similar to the members of the main stream. Their inter-marriage with
Final Report
the main stream members has made them almost fully absorbed into the wider society. Many have
family members inter-married with the main stream and live outside of the project area.
SC and OBC people in Colva are not residents along the beach. This suggests that they may only
have indirect impacts from the proposed project interventions which in any case are similar on the
main stream people due to their high level of integration. The above evidence amply illustrates that
the minority groups in the sub-project areas are fully integrated with the mainstream. This leads to the
conclusion that project impacts on minority people would be similar to the main stream.
H. Risks
90. Implementation Delays. Lengthy procedures to establish the project, procurement delays
and financing delays can all pose serious risk to the project schedule. The project will be implemented
on or near the shoreline. Implementation of surveys and works can largely only be implemented during
the 6 month non monsoon period (approximately October to April). Avoiding lengthy delays from
extreme weather events requires very careful scheduling of activities.
91. Inappropriate solutions may be proposed for development. There are a number of pressures
to continue the program of rock wall construction and change to soft environmentally appropriate
options may not always be perceived as acceptable. To ensure that all physical investments are
environmentally and socially appropriate it is proposed that all sub-projects for funding be supported
by full environmental and social assessments11.
92. Sustainability will require resources, capacities and organizations for management and
maintenance of the completed works. The level of input varies considerably depending on the type of
works. For the offshore reefs requirements are minimal, however the proposed beach management
solutions require fairly continuous inputs to protect and maintain the dunes with supplementary
resources after storms and for pre monsoon digging of streams (nallas). Local level capacities, funding
and organizations will be established to support this work. A management and maintenance plan
including identification of funding sources will be identified at the feasibility stage.
93. The Project’s overall sustainability will be achieved through the series of initiatives described
in the proposed institutional arrangements a part of Component 3. The underlying premise of the
project is to develop a self sustaining and well resourced Shoreline Management Organizations
(SMO). The form of the SMO will be site specific and will range from Community Based Organizations
to private sector service contracts or a hybrid of the two. Funding sources for these Management
Organizations to manage and maintain the beaches will be identified as part of the feasibility studies
for each sub project. To help support the long term sustainability of the coastal protection measures
some additional funding for each subproject will be provided for initiatives to support for community
development.
94. The project direction will be to move towards soft environmentally appropriate methods of
protection. Experiences of these methods in other countries have been proven to provide sustainable
solutions for erosion protection if applied correctly. To meet the expected 25 year design life requires
high specifications for the geotextile bags to withstand the marine environment; at present Indian
geotextiles do not comply with these requirements. Offshore reefs in particular require a thick non
woven geotextile; however once in place the geotextile reefs require virtually no maintenance. Use of
geotextiles on shore can be of a lower specification, they however are vulnerable to vandalism or
damage. It is very important that these materials are maintained buried as part of the dune system. A
requirement that requires a proactive maintenance organization. Some failures of shore located
geotextiles in India have been reported due to inappropriate materials, designs and lack of
maintenance.
95. Reform Frameworks The sustainability of the project requires a number of institutional
reforms to be initiated. Without such reforms it is likely project initiatives will not be carried forward
after the completion of the project. The project does not require major institutional changes and most
of the activities can be implemented largely within the existing institutional structures. To support the
project targets a Shoreline Protection and Management Policy Document will be prepared which will
11
Under the present environmental legislation environmental clearance for coastal protection is not a statutory
necessity however for the project it is proposed that all sub projects must be submitted for state and national
environmental clearance as well as to ADB.
Final Report
form one of the outputs of Component 3. The document will be based on consultations with CWC and
the State Executing Agencies as well as the other maritime states.
VII. RECOMMENDED ASSURANCES AND CONDITIONS
96. In addition to the standard assurances, it is proposed that the Government and the three State
Executing Agencies (Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka) give the following assurances. These should
be incorporated into the FFA and incorporated into the individual loan agreement as applicable,
subject to any amendments to be mutually agreed by the Government of India, the three State EA and
ADB.
97. Each state will establish a State Level Working group to support the project activities. The
state level working group will include representatives from the following organizations State Executing
Agencies, Planning and Finance, State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMA), Environment
and Forests, Fisheries, Ports and Harbors, State Pollution Control Board, Tourism, Urban
Development, Panchayat and/or rural development, NGO, representatives from the private sector. The
working group will meet not less than twice annually.
98. A National Steering Committee will be established at the Central Level. The steering
committee would comprise of representatives of the following agencies : Ministry of Finance, Ministry
of Water Resources, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Agriculture (Fisheries), Ministry
of Science and Technology, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Ministry of Defense (Hydrography office) and
the Ministry of Home Affairs.
99. Each state EA will ensure that all the sub projects are adequately planned and designed
including, if necessary, numerical modeling. Sub projects must be supported by environmental, social
and economic analyses to ADB and Government of India requirements. Sub projects must be
adequate participation of the local community and stakeholders in the planning and must be endorsed
by stakeholders and the District Planning Committees.
100. Each State EA will ensure that the investment program is implemented in compliance with the
existing environmental laws and regulations of the State and also MoEF as well as ADB’s
Environmental Policy 2002 and the project’s Environmental Assessment and Review Framework
(EARF: Supplementary Appendix M).
101. The project is proposing the significant use of sand filled geotextile tubes for erosion
protection, either in offshore reefs or as a protective core inside the sand dunes. These geotextiles,
especially for the reefs have to withstand severe conditions in the marine environment. Assurance is
required that geotextiles use for protection works fully meet the needs of structures in the marine
environment with a design life of 25 years and fully meet the specifications of the design consultants.
102. The project includes a significant program of institutional development and training. The
present lack of skills and capacities in many of the departments responsible for the coastal
management is partially due to the policy of rotating of staff to other departments. Training benefits will
be significantly reduced if trained staff are transferred out of the coastal sector. Assurances are
required to ensure that core staff trained under the project are retained within the coastal sector for not
less than five years after the completion of training.
Final Report
Appendix 1
DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK-MFF
Design Summary Performance Targets/ Data Sources/ Assumptions and

Indicators Reporting Risks
Mechanisms
Impact Contribution from Statistics on tourists Assumptions
Improved economic tourism to State GDP and tourism-related Stable socio political
growth in the 3 States increased by 20% by economic activities environment
through well protected 2018
Climate change effects
and managed shorelines 10% increase in coastal Fish and harbor cargo are within predicted
for the benefit of all shipping and fish landings statistics levels
coastal communities. landings at intervention
districts
Human Development
Poverty incidence in
Index (HDI) and Below
coastal communities
Poverty Lists (BPL) for
reduced by 10% by 2018
intervention districts
at intervention districts
District and panchayat
Total of 150 km of
reports
coastline in the 3 States
stabilized and without Beach topographic
erosion by 2018 surveys
No. of businesses at Satellite imagery
intervention beaches PPP Cells in each state
increased by 15% within BME reports
5 years after completion
of sub projects.
Outcome 150 km of coastline in Space Application Assumption
Protected and managed the 3 States protected Centre satellite All future coastal
shorelines meeting the using soft technologies imageries. protection and
needs of stakeholders by 2018 Statistics from District management projects
and the environment Annual rate of coastal Industry Centers, Trade are implemented using
erosion is reduced by Association of small highest technical
60% from present levels and medium standards and
at identified erosion enterprises specifications of
prone beaches Panchayat and rural materials and
Annual loss of beach development workmanship within
area over the three department statistics. planned time frame.
states reduced by 50% Project progress Effective organizations
by 2018 reports to implement
Increased community maintenance
and private sector Sustainable sources of
participation in coastal funding
protection (7% of
subproject investments
Risks
to come from the private
sector by 2018) Implementation delays
Pressure to develop
inappropriate solutions
Outputs
1. Sustainable and appropriate plans and designs
a. Participatory Shoreline All plans are completed Approved Shoreline Assumptions
Management Plans for and endorsed by district Management and Government and
the whole 3-state and state level Plans political support
coastline prepared and stakeholders and District Mechanisms and
endorsed Planning Committees finance to update the
(DPCs) by 2013 plans are maintained
Final Report

Mechanisms
b. Functional coastal Information is available Data from State and Assumption
information system to and up to date Central government Information is provided
support planning and Staff are available and agencies freely from relevant
management established trained to manage and Data from Coastal institutions
maintain the system Infrastructure Risk
Management Units Information systems
(CIMU) are not updated after
completion of the
project
c. Sub-projects for future Designs are approved by Approved design Assumption
tranches planned and qualified professional documents and State Governments
designed technical review panel supporting reports and GOI to officially
and endorsed by constitute review
communities and panels
stakeholders
2. Coastal Protection and Management Investments
2.1 Physical Projects
Coastal protection and Sub-projects to the value BME reports Assumptions
management sub- of $319 million Stable socio political
projects implemented completed by 2018 environment.
with community and Community/local
private sector government agreements
involvement entered into for
maintenance of
completed projects
Private sector
investments in coastal
protection and
management up to 7%
of total cost
2.2 Community and Economic Support Initiatives
a. Initiatives for 50 communities at all BME reports on
economic and intervention districts community projects
community development supported and other enterprises
for coastal communities No. of businesses in the that have received
implemented intervention districts support.
increase by 15% by Business licenses
2018 application records
3. Effective Institutions
a. Developed capacity District Planning Plans endorsed by the Assumption
within districts and states Committees established stakeholders Government reduces
to identify, plan, select, to support the project by Inclusion of shoreline the rotation of staff and
design, and implement 2013 protection and allow a core of trained
shoreline protection and Coastal Infrastructure management project coastal staff to remain
management projects Management Unit included in district plan. in the coastal divisions.
(CIMU) operational by
2012
Shoreline plans are
updated at five yearly
intervals
b. National private 10 private sector Baseline and post Assumption
consultants and consultants and project surveys of Government opens the
Final Report

Mechanisms
Government Institutes specialist organizations technical capacities of way to allow
able to provide specialist strengthened. government institutions recruitment of private
support for planning, 100 staff at CWC, and private sector sector consultants.
modeling, design, CWPRS and other consultants
checking and review for central agencies trained
coastal protection and
Design review
management
committees established
c. Communities and Shoreline Management Monitoring of SMO
stakeholders manage Organizations (SMO) activities, minutes of
and maintain the established and active at meetings and audited
beaches each subproject site finances
d. CWC and the State Approved formal Approved Shoreline Assumption
Implementing Agencies mandate as part of Planning and State and Central
formally mandated to proposed shoreline Management Policy Governments support
coordinate all coastal planning and Appropriate notification the proposed mandate.
infrastructure programs management policy by MoWR and SIA Risk
Procedural Delays
Activities with Milestones Inputs
[TRANCHE 1] (Q1 2010 to Q4 2013)
1. Preparatory Activities State Government (SIA)

1.1 Establishment of PMU (Q2 2009) ADB support consultants
1.2 Tendering and selection for Tranche 1 sub projects and
PMDC consultants (Q1 2010)
2. Planning and Design

2.1 Preparation of shoreline management plans and information PMDC consultants
systems for whole 3 state coast coastline- Preliminary plans (Q4
2010), approved plans (Q2 2012). SIA, Districts panchayat with PMDC
2.2 Updating of the long list of potential projects (Q1 2011). consultants.
2.3 .Tranche 2 Sub Project selection (Q1 2011)
2.4. Planning of Tranche 2 Sub Projects( Q2 2011) Training, institutional development
2.5. Design of Tranche 2 Sub Projects (Q4 2011) Mobilization of counterpart funds
3. Sub Project Implementation (State Governments) PMU supported by Project

3.1 Award of Tranche 1project construction contracts (Q1 2010) Management and Design
3.2 Implementation of Tranche 1 subprojects (Q1 2010-Q4 2O12) Consultant
ADB and Government funding
PMU staff resources
4. Institutional Development and Training (State Government, International Project Management
Central Water Commission) and Design Consultant
5.1 Preparation of Training Needs Assessment and Training Plan.
(Q3 2010) Institutional Development and
5.2 Tendering and award of contract for Institutional and Change Change Management Consultant
Management consultants (Q4 2010)
5.3 Implementation of Training Plan(Q3 2010 to Q4 2015)
6. Coastal Protection and Management Policy ( CWC, State CWC supported by TA program
Executing Agencies State Working Groups and National
Steering Committee) State Working Groups, National
6..1 Tendering and recruitment of Development and Change Steering Committee, District
Management Consultants (Q2 2012) Planning Bodies, SIA, PMDC,
6.2 Policy Review (Q4 2010)
Final Report
6.3 Draft guidelines and policy document(Q4 2011)

6.4 Agreed guidelines and approved policy (Q4 2013)
7. Loan Approvals and support(by ADB) Tranche 1 costs

7.1 Project approval (Q1 2010) ADB: $58.37 million
7.2 Inception mission (Q2 2009 ) midterm review (Q4 2011), Government $18.06million,
review missions (intermittent) Beneficiaries $0.16 million.
Total Project Costs

ADB Multitranche financing facility
Tranche 1:$58.37 million
Tranche 2:$122.37
Tranche 3:$ 119.28
Total: $300.00 million
[Tranche 2] (Q1 2012 to Q4 2015)

Tranche 2 financing request approved (Q1 2012)
Tendering and selection of Project Management and Design
Consultants for tranche 2 (Q2 2013).
Tendering and award of tranche 2 subprojects( Q1 2012)
Implementation of tranche 2 sub projects( Q2 2012 to Q4 2015)
Project selection for tranche 3 subprojects (Q1 2012)
Design of Tranche 3 sub projects (Q1 2012 to Q1 2013)
[Tranche 3] (Q1 2014 to Q4 2017) .

Tendering and award of Tranche 3 subprojects (Q1 2013)
Implementation of Tranche 3 subprojects (Q1 2013 to Q1 2017)
Final Report
Appendix 2
SECTOR ASSESSMENT, ROAD MAP AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY
A. Introduction
1. The coastal zone forms a key part of the Indian economy; about 20-25% of India’s population
lives within 50 km of the coast with around 70% of these residing are in rural areas. It is these rural
poor coastal communities who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of erosion and poor coastal
management. Many of India’s rapidly growing urban areas are also vulnerable to coastal erosion;
Mumbai, for example, incurs a cost of approximately $2.5 million per km on capital works alone to
protect some of its prime waterfront property. The impact of climate change is likely to aggravate
coastal erosion and management issues even further. Sea level rise in the Indian subcontinent is
projected to be between 25 and 50 centimeters (cm) by the end of the 21st century. A 1 meter (m) rise
in sea level in India would inundate about 5,700 square kilometers (km2) of land, affecting around 7
million people.
B. Sector Assessment
2. Coastal erosion is the natural result of coastal processes and their interaction with land;
erosion can in many cases be initiated and/or exacerbated by human activities; along all the coast of
India there are numerous examples where human activities have contributed to or caused coastal
erosion. Typical causes of beach erosion include change in sediment supply through river damming
and sand mining or the construction of littoral barriers such as groynes, jetties or ports. Beach scour
and erosion can be caused by seawall construction and the loss of vegetation on the shoreline.
Sediment traps such as dredged navigational channels and alteration to wave processes caused by
jetties and ports also play a role. In addition, urbanization of the coast has exacerbated natural erosion
phenomena into problems of growing intensity. The natural causes of shoreline erosion include severe
storms, an imbalance in the long-shore sediment and Aeolian transport12.
3. The coastal protection strategy in India is synonymous with a prime objective to protect the
land; the concept of protecting the beach and the environment are relatively new concepts; coastal
protection is not perceived within the wider context of the economic development of the coastline. The
most frequently applied methods for coastal protection have been through the use of hard structures
such as seawalls or groynes. Despite many failures and environmental damage seawalls and groynes
have continued to be constructed which in many cases has simply shifted the problem to neighboring
coastal areas or left the real problem to be solved by future generations. As the pressure on the
coastal zone due to human-induced activities as well as relative sea level rise keeps expanding, there
is an urgent need to find sustainable solutions for coastal protection.
4. There is a general awareness of the impacts of hard structures. Rock wall comes easily and
soft solutions are largely untried and the technologies are not well understood. The continued use of
hard technologies for coastal protection are being questioned by decision makers and there is now a
widespread interest and realization of a need to change to softer and appropriate solutions The move
to softer solutions although an easy and acceptable solution in principle but in practice requires
significant behavioral changes by all those involved. The transition from hard to soft structures will
require an integrated program of awareness, training, capacity building and other support initiatives.
5. Coastal Protection and Management involves a wide number of stakeholders covering a

number of sectors. It is multidiscipline, dynamic, and participatory and cross-sectoral. Its successful
application requires cooperation and coordination. Coastal management is multi-disciplined in its
outlook, dealing with technical, environmental, social and economic issues and their consequences
within the coastal zone. Coastal protection is one aspect of coastal management and largely deals
with either rectifying or preventing the physical outcomes of coastal and especially littoral processes,
including erosion, silting and similar problems; these can be natural, events or induced by
interventions such as ports and sand mining.
6. The number and diversity of stakeholders in the shoreline zone is very large and complex.
Liaison and coordination of needs and activities is a major problem; the lack of coordinated and
12
Pertaining to the wind, especially used with deposits such as dune sand, and sedimentary structures like wind-
formed ripple marks.
Final Report
integrated stakeholder participation is a major area of concern. A summary of the key stakeholders
and an analysis of their interests are summarized in Supplementary Appendix C.
7. Presently measures to manage coastal erosion have generally been designed as a local
emergency measure rather than sustainable and economically beneficial perspective. The most
frequently applied protection methods are hard structures such as seawalls or groynes. Such
interventions provide only land protection, and do not address the root cause of the problem; in many
cases the protection structures actually accelerate erosion resulting in major losses of the beach.
Limited examples of ‘soft’ options such as beach nourishment and sand filled geotubes filled with sand
exist; however with mixed success.
8. The National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) was initiated by the Ministry of Water
Resources, in 1994 and designed to move towards achieving a more effective and sustainable means
of coastal protection. The Central Water Commission (CWC), the technical arm of the MoWR,
coordinated the state level proposals and prepared a consolidated proposal based on the proposals
submitted by the nine coastal states. The NCCP proposed plans for each state are almost entirely
hard solutions including seawall, revetment, offshore breakwater and groynes. No specific provision
was made for soft protection measures, including biosheild as they were considered expensive or
limited application. The project however mentions in general terms some use of soft technologies
including beach nourishment, submerged breakwaters, sand bypassing and vegetation; no specific
sites were identified for these interventions. Soft protection measures were considered expensive (e.g.
high initial cost for beach nourishment and re-nourishment requirement) or of limited application (e.g.
biosheilds).
C. Institutional Arrangements
9. Central Government. MoWR and MoEF are the two key Central Government Ministries
which, through their various agencies and institutions have direct governance jurisdiction over the
coastal zone in the country. In addition to MoWR and MoEF there are a number of Ministries which
through their agencies and research establishments play an important role in policy planning, advising,
administration and program implementation of shoreline protection and coastal zone management.
However, in spite of the presence of a number of specialized agencies, there is very little coordination,
knowledge sharing and interactions for capacity enhancement among the institutions and the
Implementing Agencies in particular, who follow a vertical route for works implementation. In addition
to MoWR and MoEF, four Ministries of the Government of India viz. (i) Ministry of Defense (MoD), (ii)
Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), (iii) Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and (iv) Ministry of Shipping (MoS)
have governance jurisdiction over shoreline / coastal protection and management activities through
their framework laws and policies. In addition, two other Ministries viz. the Ministry of Earth Sciences
(MoES) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) play an important role through their
programs and research support for coastal protection works.
10. Central Water Commission (CWC), the technical arm of MoWR is the apex agency for
shoreline protection / coastal erosion works in the country. CWC implements coastal protection works
through two Directorates viz. the Coastal Erosion Directorate (CED) and the Beach Erosion
Directorate (BED). The activities of the two directorates are not well coordinated and lateral
communication between the two peer bodies is virtually non-existent. The apparent lack of an
integrated approach to coastal erosion problems stems from this structural imbalance. CPDAC is an
advisory body of 25 Members representing different Government Departments / State Agencies /
Research Institutions and three Non-Official members and has wide mandate on coastal protection
activities. CPDAC depends upon its secretariat CED for translating its mandate into implementation
programs. Due to the imbalances inherent in CED and inadequacies in its strength and capacity many
of the programs could not be completed. Since its formation in 1995 CPDAC has to date held only 10
meetings.
11. CWPRS under MoWR is the major national level institution for providing technical support to
the State Governments for planning and undertaking research studies including design development
for anti-sea erosion works. Two other national key research institutions which play an important role in
providing research assistance and expert services in the field of coastal environment and engineering
are (i) Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) in (Kerala) and IIT Madras (IITM), Department of
Ocean Engineering in Tamil Nadu.
12. MoEF is the central authority for regulating and controlling the activities in the coastal zone of
the country. It operates through various national level bodies like the National Coastal Zone
Final Report
Management Authority (NCZMA), State / Union Territory Coastal Zone Management Authorities
(SCZMA), Central and State Pollution Control Boards and other State level agencies. MoEF enforces
compliance through the umbrella Act viz. Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986 and a number of
policies, legislations and Notifications. MoEF operates at the State level through various agencies and
programs and maintains an information data base for use by various sectors.
13. State Government. The protection of the coasts from erosion is the responsibility by the line
agencies in the respective States responsible for administration of the coasts and implementation of
coastal protection /anti-erosion works. In Maharashtra, the responsibility vests with the Maharashtra
Maritime Board under the, Home – (Transport & Port) Department and the Public Works Department
which executes the jobs through the Coastal Engineer (Coastal Engineering Circle) under it. In Goa
the key Department for planning and implementation of anti-sea erosion work is the Water Resources
Department while in Karnataka the responsibility vests with the Public Works Department (PWD)
which implements the works through the Directorate of Ports & Inland Water Transport.
14. These agencies in all the three States assess the vulnerability of the coastal stretches based
on the severity of the erosion and its likely impact on the landward installations, assets and the threat
posed to the immediately adjacent human settlements; the focus is primarily on the protection of the
land.
15. In the process, the activities involved in coastal protection starting from planning, designing
and implementation remains vertical along the administrative hierarchy of the respective Departments.
Inter-Departmental / Agency coordination is weak and the District Institutions (Panchayati Raj) have
minimum role in the entire process. Considering the vulnerability of the coastal communities to natural
hazards, the various options for coastal protection and shoreline management are not deliberated
upon by the Implementing Agencies with the different stakeholders viz. the fishing communities, local
residents, tourism service providers, industrial units, agriculturists, etc.
16. The problems of coastal erosion and protection are mainly referred by the states to the Central
Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) for technical consultancy. Referral to CWPRS is not
normally made until a situation of severe erosion occurs. In such cases, normally CWPRS is required
to prepare an emergency solution to protect the eroding coast and land with the key requirement to
provide adequate protection. In such an emergent situation where there is threat to human life and
property due to erosion is imminent, the state and CWPRS had little option but to go for hard solution
like seawall, rockfill bund etc. Depending upon the local situation, availability of materials (stones) etc.
CWPRS, in consultation with the State authority take to design the protective structure. Based on
CWPRS report, the state authority proceeds for implementation adhering to the suggested measures.
17. Viewed from the angle of sustainability, the present implementation approach should move
forward towards an inclusive paradigm of integrated planning and management that conforms to
central theme of India’s Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012) - ‘Towards Faster and more Inclusive
Growth’.
18. District Administrations. The process of vulnerability assessment is essentially non-

participatory and does not involve consultation with the communities or the District and Village Level
Administrations (Gram Sabhas or Gram / Village Panchayats) The Gram / Village Panchayats are the
basic unit of planning and implementation for economic development and social justice. Constitutional
status for the Gram Sabhas was accorded in the 73rd Constitution Amendment in 1993.
19. As present practice, coastal protection plans are not integrated into the district plan in a
‘bottom-up’ approach and are formulated separately by the line agencies. As per Article 243 ZD of the
Constitution every State is to constitute a District Planning Committee (DPC) in each district to
consolidate the plans prepared by the Gram Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to
prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole. The planning subjects include matters of
common interest between Panchayats and Municipalities including spatial planning, sharing of water
and other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and
environmental conservation. The DPCs can consult specified institutions and organizations while
developing their plans. Shoreline management is given little attention in urban planning; Mumbai
despite the long and complex there was not any consideration to shoreline planning or management in
the city master plan.
20. There are many NGOs and CBOs as well as stakeholder groups like industry / trade
associations in the coastal districts in the three States which play a significant role on issues of coastal
Final Report
zone management including coastal protection. There is a clear lack of coordination and consultations
with them is absent during the planning stages.
21. Legal Framework. MoEF is responsible for framing legislations and conservation of the
environment of the country including the marine environment up to EEZ. The Environment (Protection)
Act 1986 is umbrella legislation enacted for the purpose of protecting and conserving the environment.
The mandate of the Ministry of Environment and Forests includes "Environment and Ecology,
including Environment in Coastal Waters, in mangroves and coral reefs but excluding marine
environment on the high seas".
22. At present, as coastal erosion measures do not fall under the category of ‘prohibited’ activities
under the CRZ 1991 Notification anti-erosion works including construction of protective walls and
breakwaters are not subjected to environmental impact assessment. Any engineering interventions in
the natural environment impacts not only affect the physical and biological environment but also the
human use values and quality of life values of the stakeholder communities.
23. Due to the absence of any environmental and social impact assessment in the implementation
plans, the adverse impacts cannot be addressed or mitigated for restoration of the eco-system and
conservation of bio-diversity. On present reckoning there is limited understanding of the wider aspects
of shoreline management for which environment and social issues are not factored into the
implementation proposals of the SEAs.
24. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures, as implemented under the terms of the
Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, have been insufficient in addressing the cumulative impacts or
impacts due to development on the wider coastal environment. The new CMZ notification will require
environmental assessments to be prepared for all coastal protection projects.
25. Key Institutional Issues There is a myriad of agencies and institutions involved in coastal
protection which falls within the scope of coastal zone management. There are several layers of
agencies involved in the planning and implementation process of coastal protection with many of them
represented at all levels. Nearly all the stakeholders report a need for coordination and integration and
the agencies involved suffer from capacity constraints in the technical, financial and human resource
aspects. The basic issues that emerge from the review of the major institutions and processes are:
(i) There is a lack of oversight and coordination among the departments and agencies
with the emphasis of work being immediacy rather than long term goals. Planning has
largely been based on the outputs of the NCPP which is directed at the effects and not
the causes. The coastal management policy is not well defined and the delays in
implementing the new coastal zone management notification are causing serious
difficulties for decision makers. Coastal protection and management is almost entirely
managed by the Government agencies with almost no community, local government
or private sector involvement.
(ii) The institutional mandates are not clearly defined with no system of integrating
development policies with the social and ecological requirements. There is no overall
coordination of coastal infrastructure works, and in many areas there are overlapping
jurisdiction, duplication of efforts, and sometimes conflicting objectives. The
institutions are very hierarchical and there is poor development of reporting or
monitoring systems.
(iii) There is no allocation of funds for regular maintenance and protection works often
suffer serious damage in storms due to the lack of maintenance. There is no capacity
or provision of funds at the lower levels for maintenance. Environmental damage is
rarely addressed.
(iv) There is a lack of technical information available, designers have limited access to
data and are under resourced. There is very limited data sharing between the
agencies and institutions. Research findings are in many parts irrelevant to the issues
or are not disseminated to the responsible agencies. There are only very limited
numbers of experienced coastal engineering staff; government policy is to regularly
rotate staff and as such there is only limited scope to build and develop capacity.
There is an absence of guidelines on design and construction of environmentally
appropriate coastal protection works. All planning and design is through under
resourced government institutions, there is no private sector involvement outside the
construction programs.
Final Report
(v) Planning and development is top down with negligible participation of the local
stakeholders. The districts encourage very limited participation in planning issues.
Communities are almost never considered at the planning stages of projects. The
management of the shoreline should involve the administrators, managers and
stakeholders on both landward and the seaward sides. Typically, the landward side of
the shoreline falls under jurisdiction of the LSGIs (Local Self Government Institutions)
i.e. panchayat (village) or municipal authority. The seaward side, including the
shoreline, is the responsibility of the State and National Government.
(vi) The strategic approach needs to change the underlying practices at present towards a
more participative, bottom-up approach as soft engineering solutions require closer
monitoring and systematic maintenance which can best be provided by the local
community. Once the strategies are formulated and agreed upon, the requirements of
the institutional framework becomes identifiable. However there has to be incentives
for change. An important move is in the form of decentralization and the changing
relationship between the District and Village councils and the line agencies. At the
same time while decentralization is mandated in the Constitution, the structures and
the processes through which decentralization will be delivered lack capacity and
resources. For addressing this issue, enhancement of capacities, augmentation of
enabling fund to meet the new challenges will from part of the planning parameters in
which the DPCs will have a role to build in the same in the State Plan.
D. Government Strategy
26. A key theme of the 11th Five Year National Plan is the integration of environmental concerns
into policy, planning and development activities. The plan also addresses the need to address the
impacts of sea level rise particularly for coastal agriculture as well as management of sea water
ingress into coastal areas. The plan stresses the importance of the participation of fishing communities
in coastal zone planning and management. Coastal shipping is identified as a lifeline for the coastal
communities and is presently hampered by inadequate ports. A major expansion of ports is proposed.
The plan promotes financing of capital projects based largely on partnerships with the private sector
(PPP). Tourism forms a key part of the national economy with coastal tourism identified as a key
industry.
E. ADB’s Strategy
27. Environmental sustainability and identification of opportunities for poverty alleviation are key
themes in the ADB’s country program strategy. The ADB strategy includes support for funding
shortages for infrastructure to support environmentally sustainable growth and poverty alleviation.
Climate change and degradation of the environment are environmental focus areas to cover both
climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects; proposed operations cover a number of areas
including coastal protection and management. The CPS supports the use of innovative business and
financing modalities (e.g., PPP, and greater co-financing) and will therefore continue to support the
Government’s efforts towards promoting public-private partnership in infrastructure development. It
has been providing TA support13 for building capacity for designing and appraising PPP projects in
state governments and central line Ministries. ADB will also actively seek to supplement its own
resources through official and commercial co-financing (i.e. non-sovereign operations). ADB would
also focus on strengthening governance and financial sector development.
F. Strategic Framework
28. The objective of the strategic is to identify key areas of issue and present proposals to meet
the wide long term needs of sustainable shoreline planning and management. The broad strategy is to
develop a workable integrated approach to meet the needs of the communities and other
stakeholders, whilst maintaining the environmental integrity of the shoreline. Shoreline planning must
be integrated and participative; there are very many aspects to be considered. The strategic
framework focuses on the key issues including balancing of the needs for erosion protection,
economic development, and social and environmental integrity. The strategic framework has been
based on extensive consultations with stakeholders as well as referencing the output and the findings
of the Swaminathan Committee Report (SCR). The strategic framework interprets the findings and has
applied them in the context of developing a realizable and effective plan for sustainable management
13
ADB India TA4890 Mainstreaming Public Private Partnerships at State Level
Final Report
of the shoreline. The strategic framework also reflects the key proposals in the Government and
ADB’s strategy including (i) investments in infrastructure for poverty alleviation and economic growth,
(ii) integration of environmental concerns into policy, (iii) support for private sector participation.
29. The Technical Framework. Coastal erosion management must move away from the present
piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive and pro-active one based on planning, good practice
and accountability of achievements, with long-term cost-minimization goals and economic benefits.
30. New technologies including the use of sand-filled containers can be successfully used in
engineering designs for coastal erosion control. Improvements in the geosynthetic materials,
fabrication methods, and designs of these systems have increased the applications and longevity of
these structures. Sand filled geotextiles can be used to support dune restoration as well as for
offshore breakwaters including multi-purpose reefs for environmental and surfing enhancement. Sand-
filled containers if used correctly are "softer" and more "user-friendly" than structures constructed of
rock, concrete and steel, making them more desirable and benign in areas of natural sandy beaches.
31. The effective adoption of these new technologies together with the development of capacities
for effective planning and design for coastal protection is a key area requiring professional support and
coordinated program research, training and dissemination of information. Creating and increasing the
national capacities to take on these challenges is a major part of the strategic framework.
32. Much of the erosion problems stem from poorly planned infrastructure projects; harbor or other
structures crossing the beach disturb the natural processes, poorly planned dredging results in
environmental damage and loss of key sand resources. A priority area for coastal sustainability is to
address the causes of erosion as well as the effects.
33. Institutional Framework. To meet the long term goals of sustainability requires a change of
direction from stand alone coastal protection to coastal protection and management. The present
institutional processes within Government are largely vertical with limited horizontal interactions
between departments. Coastal protection and management have fundamental requirements for
community and stakeholder interactions as well as lateral coordination between departments. Within
the present public service system these processes will be largely unworkable, and although it is
unlikely that the system can be quickly changed there is a requirement to develop effective
implementation arrangements that can work within the system. The target of the institutional
framework include: (i) integrated and effective institutional arrangements; (ii) effective linkages
between institutions; (iii) effective measures to ensure sustainability; (iv) effective stakeholder
participation at state and district levels and (v) increased participation of the private sector.
34. Policy. The proposed institutional changes have to be endorsed by the Government and to
ensure the long term sustainability of the changes the changes will require to be incorporated as
policy. Various institutional changes will be implemented under the loan in stages; these will require to
be formalized into a policy for Coastal Protection and Management. It is estimated that it will take four
years to achieve an overall policy agreement.
35. The strategic framework is designed to be fully compliant with the existing CRZ Notification
and also the proposed notification. The policy is in a state of transition, moving from the present CRZ
1991 Notification to a new CMZ Notification; the time period of its implementation is uncertain. The
Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP), as proposed under the new notification, are to be
developed for the whole of India. The CZMP will be statutory plans assessing vulnerability and
establishing set back lines for regulating development. The CZMP would also include mapping of
coastal ecosystems and ecologically sensitive areas. The new CMZ notification includes three main
criteria in relation to shoreline protection and management: (i) sandy beaches and dunes are classified
as ecologically sensitive areas, with no development permitted; (ii) coastal protection is permitted, but
with proper scientific study; and (iii) coastal protection is a permitted activity with EIA clearance and
Environmental Management Plan.
36. The strategy for coastal and shoreline management are presented in the SCR and are
supported in this strategic framework. These management initiatives depend on an integrated
approach involving extensive lateral interactions between Government and non Government agencies
and stakeholders. This is unlikely to evolve naturally and will require a strategic change in policy
towards participative and integrated planning.
Final Report
37. The CZMP proposals as proposed in the SCR do not fully address the specific needs of the
shoreline; the need for stakeholder participation are only loosely defined. There is a requirement to
undertake very specific shoreline management planning as a component of the Coastal Zone Planning
process. It is proposed that site specific shoreline planning would be implemented through a
participative planning process at the district level. Shoreline planning would address the management
of the shoreline including appropriate measures for erosion protection and management strategies
and controls to ensure the sustainability of the shoreline. The proposed shoreline planning would
effectively supersede the National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) proposals.
38. The State Executing Agencies (SEA) are the frontline agencies for coastal protection and
management. For the future the SEA must play a key and increased role in the coordination of coastal
infrastructure development including ports, harbors, dredging, sand mining, shipyards, jetties, fisheries
harbors, roads. Very many coastal problems are caused by the interference of coastal infrastructure
on the natural coastal dynamics and erosion protection programs frequently involving the rectification
of poorly planned infrastructure. Siltation is a frequent problem resulting in heavy costs for dredging.
39. A major weakness in the current sector orientated sector development is the difficulty of
addressing the processes and impacts of one sector on another. A prime cause of erosion is the
interaction of coastal infrastructure on the natural coastal processes. To help this horizontal
coordination is proposed to establish the CWC and the SEA as the lead group at National and State
levels to coordinate coastal infrastructure activities. At National level the leading organization should
be the CWC. The CWC remit is presently restricted to erosion control but there is a key requirement
for the coastal erosion directorate to take on a wider coordination role of all coastal infrastructure
works including erosion control, ports and harbors, dredging etc. At the State Level it is proposed to
establish a Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit (CIMU) within the State Executing Agencies. This
unit would be given a mandate to coordinate all coastal infrastructure programs.
40. This lead role for the CWC and the State Executing Agencies will require to be officially
endorsed. Once approved it will be necessary to develop memorandums of understanding to ensure
the coordination functions are clearly defined and understood.
41. There is requirement for a policy document to support the process of shoreline management
planning. The policy document for shoreline management planning should include:
(i) Charging the Coastal District Authorities to prepare Shoreline Management Plans (in
coordination with the State Executing Agencies and agencies) over an agreed period.
The shoreline plans would be advisory and non statutory. The plans would be
participative involving the stakeholders and local level stakeholders in the primary
planning, as well as lateral involvement of different government departments / sector
agencies.
(ii) Increasing the mandates of the SEA and the CWC to take on a lead coordination role
in the overall coastal management specifically to coordinate and guide the
development and management of all coastal infrastructure.
(iii) Ensuring that all shoreline developments and interventions are properly studied and
subject rigorous technical analysis including numerical modeling. Projects should be
supported by environmental assessments.
G. Investment Strategy
42. There is a requirement for a significant change in the philosophy in the approach to the
planning, management and investment of the shoreline. Investment priorities should remain coastal
protection and management but should in parallel support areas economic and social development
and environmental management. Key areas for investment would include:
(i) Coastal protection needs to address the immediate coastal erosion needs through the
implementation of economically viable protection works using environmentally and
socially appropriate solutions.
(ii) The causes of coastal erosion or coastal instability require to be considered. Coastal
infrastructure that is presently or potentially would cause damage to the natural coastal
processes requires to be identified and solutions identified to avoid or minimize the
impacts.
Final Report
(iii) Coastal protection should include the scope for natural protection measures through
development and planting of dunes, planting of mangrove or other trees for protection or
shelter.
(iv) Wider issues of coastal management have to be considered in parallel with coastal
protection these include including water quality, navigational entrances, dredging,
reclamation, and training of river and drain mouths.
(v) Coastal protection and management should also incorporate initiatives to increase
economic value or amenity value of the coast and shoreline including water quality.
(vi) Increased participation of the private sector to support investments but also through
planning, design and management of the coastal/shoreline zone.
43. There are major requirements to invest in training and institutional development. Long term
sustainability of the coastline depends on skilled and experienced personnel.
44. The proposed investment plan is summarized in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Investment Plan for Coastal Protection and Management
Item Mahar- Goa Karnataka Total

ashtra
Total length of coast(km) 720 105 300 1,105
Reported eroding by NCPP 2001(km) 263 11 250 523
Reported as requiring protection SEA (2008) 48 9 48 105
Total proposed for protection(km) under project 48 9 48 105
Causes of erosion-number of harbor breakwater sites 5 0 4 9
of concern (nr)
Causes of erosion number of harbor breakwater sites 2 0 1 3
proposed under project (nr)
Natural Protection: Total proposed for Dune 50 30 50 130
Restoration and Management (km)
Estimated Total Physical

Investment Needs($ millions exc. Taxes)
Overall requirements as Proposed under Project
estimated by State Executing
Agencies
Categories M’shtra Goa Kar’tka Total M’shtra Goa Kar’tka Total
Category 1 Protection 53 15 118 186 47 15 85 147
Category 2 Causes of erosion 16 0 69 85 16 0 15 31
Category 3 Natural Protection 8 6 7 21 8 6 4 17
Category 4 Other support areas 11 1 5 17 11 1 2 14
Category 5 Coastal Facilities 21 1 260 282 21 1 4 18
Category 6 Procurement. of Equipment 17 0.4 7 24 14 0.4 6 20
Category 7 Community & Economic 1 0.4 1 2 1 0.4 0.8 2
Initiatives
Total 126 24 468 618 111 24 115 250
H. The Road Map to Support the Strategic Framework
45. A road map to support the implementation of the strategic framework has been prepared.
Although the focus of the project activities will be within the three states a parallel program supported
by a TA grant has been developed to strengthen capacities at the centre, involving the Central Water
Commission. This will allow representatives from the other maritime states and union territories to
participate in the training activities, support the development of policy documents, and to indirectly
benefit from the project outputs. The road map to achieve the strategic framework is given in Table 5.
Final Report
Table 5: Coastal Protection and Management Road Map
Key Issues and Actions Actions by Time Frame Performance Indicators

1 Coastal Protection and Management Policy
1.1 Formal Establishment of State Level Working Groups and National SEA March 2010 Documented minutes of meetings
Steering Committee
1.2 Defining roles and empowerment of CWC, CWPRS CPDAC (Coastal MoWR October 2010 Scope and terms of reference for the committee
Protection and Advisory Committee) Agreement and formalization by MoWR
1.3 Establishment of the SEA as the lead agency to coordinate coastal MoWR/ CWC January 2012 MoWR/ Ports/ Fisheries and Other Coastal Stakeholders/
infrastructure management Formal establishment of Coastal CPDAC
Infrastructure Management Unit(CIMU)
1.4 Improved liaison and cooperation between the MoEF/ State MoWR/MoEF
Environment Departments coastal management programs and the SEA and State
MoWR and SEA Coastal Protection and Management Project. Environment
Deps.
1.5 Establishment of processes and procedures for approval of coastal CWC July 2010 Nominations for technically qualified individuals and
infrastructure plans and designs organizations.
1.6 Agreed policy for Coastal Protection and Management incorporating CWC/CPDAC, July 2013
project initiatives. National Steering
a. Defining role and empowerment of CWC,CPDAC and CWPRS Committee
b. Establishing SEA and CWC to be lead agency to coordinate coastal
infrastructure.
c. Formal establishment of Coastal Infrastructure Management Unit in
each SEA.
d. Incorporation as policy shoreline planning and establishment of
coastal information systems.
e. Establishment of processes and procedures for approvals of
coastal infrastructure plans and designs.
f. Formal coordination of MoWR and MoEF coastal programs.
g. Opening the way for increased private sector participation in
consulting as well as for PPP.
Final Report
2 Planning and Design

2.1 Upgrading the coastal planning processes through preparation of State and Districts July 2012 State/ Districts have capacities to address issues and
shoreline management plans in the three states and eventually for integrated planning of shoreline.
maritime states. Training and capacity building to prepare shoreline Effective mechanisms in place for participation by
plans. stakeholders.
State and District Agreements to support and finance
planning process and to update plans every 5 years.
Capacities of national level consultants developed to
support planning process.
Stakeholder agreements/endorsement on final plans.
Preparation of shoreline plans becomes a part of the
national policy.
2.2 Development of criteria and guidelines for planning, design for coastal SEA and CWC- July 2010 Development of criteria and guidelines and criteria for
projects including the use of soft technologies and requirements for support thro’ coastal protection and management.
environmental and social assessments. Agreed processes for CWPRS and PMC Endorsement by CWC and all maritime states
selection of sub projects. consultants
2.3 Development of capacity through private sector and government SEA, CWC Training assessments
institutions for detailed planning and design of projects including CWPRS, State Baseline assessments, review assessments at end of year
specialist skills in numerical modeling and design of soft engineering Institutes and 3,6 and 8
solutions. private sector
-Development of a database of experts and trainers. consultants
-Training of trainers and extensive training to 3 states as well as other
maritime states
3 Coastal Protection and Management Investments
3.1 Promotion of private sector participation in the Coastal Area. To be Completed PPP projects
incorporated into the project planning and development and would
include a preliminary plan for PPP in the coastal areas, scoping of
investor opportunities, contracts and agreements for specific projects.
3.2 Beneficiary stakeholder participation in management and Agreed management plans for all sub projects.
maintenance of completed schemes Monitoring and assessment of management and
maintenance of completed projects
3.3 Initiatives to support community development. Monitoring of the community support fund and achieved
benefits.
3.4 Initiatives to support the economic development of the shoreline. Monitoring of the areas and sectors where support is
Outside the area of physical investments there are requirements to identified.
develop non structural initiatives
Final Report
Appendix 3
EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE
Table 6: External Assistance
State Funding Project Title Implementing Grant Loan Year

Source Agency ($ ($
Million) Million)
Karnataka ADB Karnataka Urban Karnataka Urban - 145.0 2007
Development & Infrastructure
Coastal Development and
Environment Finance
Project Corporation
Karnataka ADB MFF North Karnataka 270.0 2008
Urban Sector
Investment Project
Nationwide: 15 ADB Mainstreaming Department for 3.0
selected states Public Private Economic Affairs
including Partnerships at
Karnataka, and State Level.
Maharashtra
National with focus World Bank Coastal Zone Ministry of 90.0 2009
on three Integrated Environment and
states;Gujarat, Management Forests
West Bengal and
Orissa.
Final Report
Appendix 4
COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING PLAN
Table 7: Component Cost by Financier (Total Investment Program) ($ millions)
Project Project TOTA

Project 1 (2010 - 2013) 2 3 L Technical Assistance
Govern Bene- Sub (2012- (2014- Project Projects
Item ADB ment ficiaries total 2015) 2017) 1 2&3 TOTAL
Planning and Design 2.88 0.17 - 3.04 3.36 1.06 7.46

Coastal Protection and Management
Investments 51.90 3.81 0.16 55.88 153.03 152.96 361.87
Effective Institutions and Project Management 3.59 3.80 - 7.40 5.91 3.79 17.10 0.95 0.83 1.78
Total Project Costs 58.37 7.78 0.16 66.32 162.30 157.81 386.43 0.95 0.83 1.78
Financing charges - 10.28 - 10.28 13.61 6.82 30.70 - -

Total Cost including financing charges 58.37 18.06 0.16 76.60 175.91 164.63 417.13 0.95 0.83 1.78
Final Report
Table 8: Project Cost Summary
(Rs Lakh) (US$ '000)

Component Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total
Planning & Design 2,265.1 1,452.3 3,717.4 4,433.4 2,842.4 7,275.9

Coastal Protection & Management Investments 140,071.3 23,237.5 163,308.8 274,153.2 45,481.4 319,634.6
Effective Institutions & Project Management 7,491.2 1,002.0 8,493.2 14,662.1 1,961.2 16,623.3
Total BASELINE COSTS 149,827.6 25,691.8 175,519.4 293,248.7 50,285.0 343,533.7
Physical Contingencies 13,825.0 2,329.9 16,154.9 27,058.9 4,560.1 31,619.0

Price Contingencies 39,733.1 6,983.1 46,716.3 9,601.8 1,672.9 11,274.7
Total PROJECT COSTS 203,385.8 35,004.8 238,390.6 329,909.4 56,518.0 386,427.4
Interest During Implementation - 17,178.0 17,178.0 - 29,343.1 29,343.1

Commitment Charges - 880.9 880.9 - 1,358.3 1,358.3
Total Costs to be Financed 203,385.8 53,063.7 256,449.5 329,909.4 87,219.4 417,128.8
Note: Technical Assistance not included

Final Report
Table 9: Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ‘000)
Cost Sharing (%, average for all Projects)

Private Technical
Government ADB Total Private
Sector Assistance
Government ADB Sector
I. Investment Costs
A. Civil Works 23,314.1 216,428.0 21,439.6 261,181.6 8.9 82.9 8.2 -
B. Materials 17,205.8 46,400.3 5,405.7 69,011.8 24.9 67.2 8.3 -
C. Equipment & Supplies
Equipment, Software and Supplies 5,536.0 19,695.5 2,448.6 27,680.1 20.0 71.2 10.0 -
Office Equipment and Supplies 99.2 396.6 - 495.8 20.0 80.0 - -
Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 5,635.2 20,092.1 2,448.6 28,175.9 20.0 71.3 9.8 -
D. Vehicles & Boats 26.6 79.9 - 106.5 25.0 75.0 - -
E. Training 26.9 242.4 - 269.3 10.0 90.0 - 689.1
F. Community Initiatives 328.8 3,184.2 278.5 3,791.5 8.7 84.0 7.3 -
G. Surveys and Studies
Survey, Design and Studies 68.4 615.5 - 683.9 10.0 90.0 - -
Monitoring and Evaluation 33.1 297.5 - 330.5 10.0 90.0 - -
Subtotal Surveys and Studies 101.4 913.0 - 1,014.4 10.0 90.0 - -
H. Implementation Consultants
International Consultants - 4,335.8 - 4,335.8 - 100.0 - 340.3
National Consultants 598.3 4,187.9 - 4,786.2 12.5 87.5 - 487.7
Consultancy Support 322.5 3,977.0 - 4,299.5 7.5 92.5 - 261.6
Subtotal Implementation Consultants 920.7 12,500.8 - 13,421.5 6.9 93.1 - 1,089.5
I. Staff Costs 9,116.4 - - 9,116.4 100.0 - - -
Total Investment Costs 56,676.0 299,840.6 29,572.3 386,089.0 14.7 77.7 7.8 1,778.7
II. Recurrent Costs
Maintenance of Coastal Protection 1 - 177.8 - 177.8 - 100.0 - -
Maintenance of Coastal Protection 2 - - 160.6 160.6 - - 100.0 -
Total Recurrent Costs - 177.8 160.6 338.4 - 52.5 47.5 -
Total PROJECT COSTS 56,676.0 300,018.4 29,733.0 386,427.4 14.7 77.6 7.7 1,778.7
Interest During Implementation 29,343.1 - - 29,343.1 100.0 - - -
Commitment Charges 1,358.3 - - 1,358.3 100.0 - - -
Total Disbursement 87,377.4 300,018.4 29,733.0 417,128.8 20.9 71.9 7.1 1,778.7
Final Report
Table 10: Maharashtra – Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ’000)
Total Investment Program Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Government ADB Private Sector Total (2010-2013) (2012-2015) (2014-2017)
I. Investment Costs
A. Civil Works 9,995.6 84,404.1 9,718.1 104,117.8 6,936.5 48,789.0 48,392.4
B. Materials 7,409.8 19,779.1 2,450.3 29,639.1 1,869.1 13,941.7 13,828.4
Equipment, Software and Supplies 2,508.9 8,925.7 1,109.9 12,544.5 58.3 6,268.6 6,217.6
Office Equipment and Supplies 36.9 147.6 - 184.5 184.5 - -
Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 2,545.8 9,073.3 1,109.9 12,729.0 242.8 6,268.6 6,217.6
D. Vehicles & Boats 7.6 22.8 - 30.4 30.4 - -
E. Training 12.1 109.1 - 121.2 56.2 65.0 -
F. Community Initiatives 139.3 1,257.3 126.2 1,522.8 260.5 633.7 628.6
Survey, Design and Studies 30.8 277.0 - 307.8 183.4 124.3 -
Monitoring and Evaluation 12.4 111.8 - 124.2 46.0 46.7 31.5
Subtotal Surveys and Studies 43.2 388.8 - 432.0 229.4 171.0 31.5
International Consultants - 1,951.1 - 1,951.1 1,136.5 616.0 198.6
National Consultants 243.1 1,702.0 - 1,945.1 622.0 878.5 444.6
Consultancy Support 122.1 1,506.4 - 1,628.5 573.7 701.8 353.0
Subtotal Implementation Consultants 365.3 5,159.5 - 5,524.7 2,332.2 2,196.3 996.2
I. Staff Costs 3,196.4 0.0 - 3,196.4 1,207.4 1,198.7 790.3
Total Investment Costs 23,715.1 120,193.9 13,404.5 157,313.6 13,164.5 73,264.0 70,885.0
II. Recurrent Costs
Total Recurrent Costs
Total PROJECT COSTS 23,715.1 120,193.8 13,404.5 157,313.4 13,164.5 73,264.0 70,885.0
Interest During Implementation 10,681.3 - - 10,681.3 2,038.9 5,940.0 2,697.4
Commitment Charges 600.7 - - 600.7 1.7 223.8 377.9
Total Disbursement 34,997.1 120,193.8 13,404.5 168,595.4 15,205.1 79,432.8 73,960.2
Final Report
Table 11: Goa – Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ‘000)
I. Investment Costs
A. Civil Works 2,116.3 19,820.4 1,930.9 23,867.5 4,559.0 9,646.2 9,662.4
B. Materials 1,877.0 5,144.1 486.8 7,507.9 1,990.4 2,756.4 2,761.1
Equipment, Software and Supplies 499.6 1,778.0 220.5 2,498.1 17.3 1,239.4 1,241.5
Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 520.4 1,861.2 220.5 2,602.1 121.3 1,239.4 1,241.5
D. Vehicles & Boats 3.8 11.4 - 15.2 15.2 - -
E. Training 5.4 24.2 - 26.9 12.5 14.4 -
F. Community Initiatives 35.7 402.7 25.1 463.5 212.7 125.3 125.5
International Consultants - 433.6 - 433.6 252.6 136.9 44.1
National Consultants 112.0 784.0 - 896.0 309.9 369.6 216.5
Consultancy Support 78.2 964.3 - 1,042.5 379.0 413.5 250.0
Subtotal Implementation Consultants 190.2 2,181.9 - 2,372.0 941.4 920.0 510.6
I. Staff Costs 1,656.8 0.0 - 1,656.8 627.1 624.2 405.6
II. Recurrent Costs
Maintenance of Coastal Protection 1 - 177.8 - 177.8 177.8 - -
Maintenance of Coastal Protection 2 - - 160.6 160.6 160.6 - -
Total Recurrent Costs - 177.8 160.6 338.4 338.4 - -
Interest During Implementation 2,913.6 - - 2,913.6 1,150.2 1,218.5 544.9
Final Report
Table 12: Karnataka – Expenditure Accounts by Financiers (Total Investment Program) ($ ‘000)
I. Investment Costs
A. Civil Works 11,202.2 112,203.5 9,790.6 133,196.3 35,290.3 48,789.0 49,117.0
B. Materials 7,919.1 21,447.2 2,468.6 31,864.8 3,887.7 13,941.7 14,035.4
Equipment, Software and Supplies 2,527.5 8,991.9 1,118.2 12,637.5 58.3 6,268.6 6,310.7
Subtotal Equipment & Supplies 2,564.4 9,139.5 1,118.2 12,822.0 242.8 6,268.6 6,310.7
D. Vehicles & Boats 7.6 22.8 - 30.4 30.4 - -
E. Training 24.2 109.1 - 121.2 56.2 65.0 -
F. Community Initiatives 153.8 1,524.2 127.2 1,805.2 533.5 633.7 638.0
International Consultants - 1,951.1 - 1,951.1 1,136.5 616.0 198.6
National Consultants 243.1 1,702.0 - 1,945.1 622.0 878.5 444.6
Consultancy Support 122.1 1,506.4 - 1,628.5 573.7 701.8 353.0
Subtotal Implementation Consultants 365.3 5,159.5 - 5,524.7 2,332.2 2,196.3 996.2
I. Staff Costs 3,177.5 - - 3,177.5 1,207.4 1,179.7 790.3
II. Recurrent Costs
Total Recurrent Costs
Interest During Implementation 15,739.7 - - 15,739.7 7,053.7 5,948.5 2,737.4
Final Report
Appendix 5
SUMMARY FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A. Objective
1. The economic and financial analysis assessed the four sub projects which are to be included under
the first tranche of the loan for the Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project. The analysis
focused on the economic feasibility of the individual subprojects. The benefits of the subprojects are
principally the prevented losses that would occur in the without project situation. The investment and on-
going maintenance costs of the subprojects are weighed against these benefits. Although the four
subprojects are typical in certain respects, and the results of analysis indicative, there are many individual
factors and circumstances applying in each situation and the subprojects included in later phases of the
Investment Program will need to be carefully assessed.
B. Approach and Major Assumptions
2. To assess the expected quantifiable benefits of the subprojects, with and without scenarios were
compared. Most benefits accrue from the prevention of losses in the without project scenarios with regard
to land, buildings and infrastructure. All subprojects are assumed to have an economic life of 25 years.
Quantified benefits arising from the prevention of erosion and damage are based on the probability of
occurrence and accrue from the start of the respective subproject. Other benefits, notably from tourism,
begin to accrue from the second or third year after the commencement of construction. Investment costs
are based on the designs for proposed interventions at each site. The analysis uses the domestic price
numeraire and a standard conversion factor of 0.9 and a shadow wage rate factor of 0.85 was used.
Economic indicators were estimated without overhead costs (for project management, technical assistance,
training and institutional strengthening) since a high proportion of these costs relate to the implementation
of the overall project, not just to the first tranche loan, and to the establishment of new technologies and
skills in India. Overhead costs were assigned to the subprojects (pro-rated for each state) and the
economic indicators re-estimated as part of the sensitivity and risk analysis.
C. Estimated Benefits
3. Quantified Benefits: Benefits accrue principally from the protection of land, buildings and
infrastructure from erosion and damage and the avoidance of some other costs. For the interventions
included under the first MFF loan, benefits arise from the protection of (i) rural land, (ii) houses and public
buildings, (iii) factories and (iv) roads and other infrastructure as well as from the avoidance of resettlement
costs and estimated savings on dredging costs. Land and assets have been valued in economic prices
and all benefits arising from protection against damage are associated with a probability of occurrence in
the without project scenario. The protection, restoration or enhancement of beaches that are important for
tourism or with potential for development as tourist attractions will foster increases in visitor numbers and
prevent the long term decline in the number of tourists that would be inevitable if these assets are allowed
to deteriorate over time. These benefits are especially important in Goa, but also occur at other locations.
The benefits have been assessed in relation to the without project situations; losses without the projects
relate to loss of land, buildings and infrastructure as well as loss of income from reductions in tourist
numbers. Refer to project feasibility reports (Supplementary Appendixes DEF and G for a description of the
present situation and the expected developments without the projects.
4. Non-Quantified Benefits: The projects have been assessed based on the more simply
quantified, benefits which are adequate to provide an adequate rate of return. The project implementation
will also generate additional benefits that have not been quantified. Non-quantified benefits vary from
location to location but include (i) increased production or security for artisanal fishing and rural fishing
families, (ii) improved security for households, businesses, farms and infrastructure in at risk coastal areas
providing better conditions for future investments, and (iii) indirect impacts on employment and economic
activity generally, especially where tourism or coastal infrastructure is protected. Long term benefits that
may accrue from institutional strengthening and knowledge and skill upgrading in the public and private
sectors have also not been quantified.
Final Report
D. Assessment of Financial Impacts
5. Project interventions will maintain the status quo or restore situations to the pre-erosion situation.
Financial impacts for beneficiaries are therefore limited and occur only in some contexts. Generally, the
incomes and livelihoods of households and business turnover and profits are protected and maintained.
Where an eroded beach will be restored, as at Coco Beach in Goa or Ullal in Karnataka, there will be a
restoration of income for tourism businesses that lost business because of the erosion of the beach and
new businesses may also be established. At other locations where future erosion is prevented, there will
be no financial effect for businesses or other beneficiaries. Some interventions will reduce future
government expenditures, for example by reducing future port dredging requirements, as is expected at
Mirya Bay in Maharashtra14. The interventions will also have a potential impact on government
expenditures by reducing future requirements for infrastructure replacement and the resettlement of
affected populations.
E. Assessment of Economic Impacts
6. The results of the economic analysis show that the four subprojects have EIRRs of 14.5% for the
Ullal Coastal Erosion and Inlet Project, 16.8% for both the Mirya Bay Coastal Erosion and Restoration
Project and the Coco Beach Restoration Project and 33.4% for the Colva Beach Management Project. The
latter project has a low cost per km of beach protected with high potential impact on tourism if the long term
erosion processes along this popular tourist destination are not allowed to continue. Switching values
show the subprojects at Mirya Bay, Coco Beach and Colva Beach to be robust to variations in total
investment costs and total benefits, but the subproject at Ullal is more susceptible to variations in costs and
benefits. This is partly a reflection of the high project cost in this case. Sensitivity analysis of benefit
categories and other key variables show that individual variables by themselves generally have little impact
on the economic indicators. Economic risks to the viability of these subprojects are low, the major risk
being large cost overruns.
7. Overhead costs for the first project were assigned to the subprojects and in the case of Mirya Bay
this reduces the EIRR to only 10.4% and at Ullal to 12.0%, but a high proportion of these costs refer to the
longer term implementation of the whole investment program and to the establishment of new technologies
and skills in India and not to the implementation of these subprojects.
F. Impacts on Poverty
8. The poverty headcount ratios in Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka are 30.7%, 4.4% and 25%,
respectively. The primary focus of the project is on solving issues of coastal erosion and coastal
management, direct impacts on and benefits to the poor are limited to those areas where a significant
number of poor are likely to be beneficiaries of the subprojects. Impacts on the poor, as with the non-poor,
largely refer to protection from loss and damage to land, buildings, infrastructure and sources of income on
which they are dependent. Where a significant portion of benefits accrue to government because public
infrastructure is protected or enhanced, the proportion of government’s benefits accruing to the poor is
assumed to be in proportion to their number in the population.
14
Since 2000, actual annual dredging costs at Mirkawada Port have varied between $53,000 and $285,000 per year.
Final Report
Table 13: Summary of Economic & Financial Analysis
Item Mirya Bay Coco Beach Colva Beach Ullal Coast &
Inlet
Investment cost (IND lakh) 4,848 1,330 2,475 21,605
Investment cost ($ ‘000) 9,066 2,472 4,290 39,655
Economic Internal Rate Of Return 16.8% 16.8% 33.4% 14.5%
Economic Net Present Value (IND
892 338 8,031 1,797
lakh)
Switching Values
Cost overrun (%) +32% +39% +661% +13%
Benefit shortfall (%) 1) -24% -28% -86% -11%
EIRR with overhead costs 2) Note 5) 14.3% 31.2% 12.0%
Beneficiaries
Direct 5,000 > 30,000 at least >40,000
4)
Indirect 100,000 500,000 -
Poverty Head Count Ratio 3) 30.7% 4.4% 4.4% 25.0%
Poverty Impact Ratio 30.7% 3.7% 1.6% 23.3%
Note: 1) All benefits together
2) All Project 1 overhead costs assigned to subprojects: Maharashtra & Karnataka – 45% each,
Goa – 10%, pro-rated according to capital cost.
3) State average ratios
4) Beneficiaries at Colva include at least half of the tourists staying in the taluka each year plus all
taluka residents employed or benefiting from tourism. The number of beneficiaries will increase
each year.
5) The whole project overheads include state wide planning, capacity building and the costs for full
planning and design for tranche 2 projects; most of these activities will generate additional benefits.
Although the Coco, Colva and Ullal projects achieve returns of >12%, the Mirya project EIRR with
the full overheads added is 8.7%
Final Report
Appendix 6
ORGANISATIONAL PLAN
Figure 3: Proposed Organizational Structure
GOVERNMENT OF ASIAN
INDIA DEVELOPMENT
BANK
MINISTRY OF WATER
Institutional RESOURCES
Development & ( National
Change Coordinating Agency)
CENTRAL WATER
Management
COMMISSION
Consultants CWPRS
CWC PMU
Project
Management
and Design
Consultants
STATE EXECUTING SEA GOA SEA KARNATAKA

AGENCY(SEA) DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF
MAHARASHTRA WATER RESOURCES PORTS AND INLAND
MARITIME BOARD WATERWAYS
MAHARASHTRA KARNATAKA
GOA PROJECT
PROJECT PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
UNIT
UNIT PMU UNIT
PMU DIRECTOR PMU DIRECTOR PMU DIRECTOR

Maharashtra Goa Karnataka
PMU same as PMU same as
Maharashtra Maharashtra
Deputy Director Deputy Director Deputy Director -

Technical Admin and Associated
Contracts and Finance Agencies and
Procurement Finance District Level
Construction Manager Administration
QC/QA Accountant Environment
Design Admin Fisheries
Engineer manager Ports
Site Engineers Public Forestry
Social/ Relations Tourism
institutional Computer Panchayat
specialist assistant District
GIS/MIS officer Secretaries, CRZ COMMUNITY
drivers etc Administrations SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
Final Report
Appendix 7
SUMMARY OF SUB PROJECTS
A. Mirya Bay Coastal Erosion and Protection Project
1. Location
1. Mirya Bay, in Ratnagiri District is the sub-project site in Maharashtra State. It is situated
between two headlands.. The site is complex and is subject to diverse physical, biological, social and
cultural interactions. The location and key areas of accretion/ sedimentation are shown in Figure 4
Figure 4: Overview of Mirya Bay – Showing Areas of Erosion and Accretion
2. Present Problem
2. Mirya Bay would not be eroding if anthropogenic pressure from development had not
occurred. Bay beaches are traditionally stable due to protection supplied from headlands aiding the
retention of sediment within the bay. Since little sand is lost from the system naturally it would take a
large energy event or physical alteration to remove sand. The bay system is described as closed since
no sediment is leaving or entering, this is important when trying to understand the system. In this case
human interference is the sole cause of the severe erosion witnessed.
3. Mirya Bay is subject to numerous inter-linked pressures. The natural hydrodynamic circulation
moves the sediment to the south of the bay, only to be trapped by the fishing harbor. Without the
harbor, the natural littoral drift would return the sediment to the north of the bay. The seawall, built for
land and property protection on the north part, is causing increased instability of the beach and
preventing sediment accretion.
4. . The prime causes of erosion on the north beach is related to::

Final Report
(i) Significant volumes of sand is being trapped in the wave shadow zone of the fishing
port
(ii) Dredged sand from the port is being placed on land, rather than being put back to the
bay.
(iii) The beach which originally provided coastal protection is now severely degraded due
to the lack of sand supply and offers virtually no protection.
3. Ongoing Development Proposals
5. The problem of erosion cannot be considered in isolation with the other developments in the
bay. Three development projects are presently being proposed for the Mirya bay.
(i) The Department of fisheries is proposing to dredge 60,000m3 from the fisheries
harbor and dump the material out to sea. (work proposed for 2009)
(ii) Department of Fisheries has designed and requested government funding for a major
expansion of the present fisheries harbor. The alignment of the new breakwaters is
shown in Figure 4.
(iii) There are also some proposals to extend the commercial breakwater.
4. Probable Impacts of the Developments
6. The results of extensive numerical modeling of the bay indicate that:
(i) Dumping offshore of the dredged material will further reduce the sediment balance.
The PPTA consultants recommend the dumping should be transferred to the shallow
water in the north bay. This proposal has been endorsed by CWPRS.
(ii) The design of the new fishing port will significantly increase the volume of sand
trapped adjacent to the north breakwater of the new port, which would causing further
sand depletion and further erosion of the northern beaches.
(iii) If the breakwater of the commercial port were to be extended this would create a
larger wave shadow zone which would lead to further trapping of sand which could
actually swamp the entrance to the fishing port.
7. The key issues relating to Mirya are summarized in Figure 5.
Final Report
Figure 5: Key Issues at Mirya Bay
Monsoon wave
o
angle of 250 T
Proposed extension of the main breakwater and the fishing port. The yellow shoreline shows the anticipated
shape of the fillet of sand that will build up in the wave shadow zone after construction of the proposed
fishing port. The red line shows the fillet with the commercial port breakwater extension and the likely extent
of beach erosion without protective works. The waves during the monsoon come from 250°T as shown by
the dotted arrows which define the line of wave shadowing associated with two proposed extensions. The
orange and green lines show the current position of the sand fillet and the original shoreline respectively.
5. Overall Development Proposal
8. The proposal for Mirya Bay is for a integrated development package rather than a piecemeal
development approach that will ultimately lead to wasted spending and repeated costs. The study has
shown that there would be major cost and functional benefits if the development of the fishing and
commercial harbors were to be combined. Extending the commercial breakwater creates a larger
wave sheltered zone which would allow a significantly improved design for the fish harbor to be
constructed. Benefits of this approach would include (i) improving the fishing port entrance for boats;
(ii) reducing maintenance dredging costs and improving benefits to the beaches; (iii) reducing the
wave energy levels in the fishing port;(iii) saving costs on the construction and maintenance of the
fishing port breakwaters (which would be no longer subjected to large waves at the entrance and
environs).
9. The proposed fish harbor is presently planned and designed exclusively for fishing boats. The
commercial harbor is almost entirely for the cement plant. There are no existing or planned facilities
for general cargo ships, tourist ships and boats. An integrated harbor plan would offer significant
opportunities and benefits to the local economy.
Final Report
6. Project Stages
10. The proposed project would be implemented in two stages:
(i) Stage 1: Erosion Protection of the Northern Part of Mirya Bay (To be
implemented under Project 1 of the Loan)
(a) Constructing a small headland “Cup Reef” to trap sand at the northern end of
the Bay.
(b) Sand nourishment to return to the beach all the available sand trapped within
and around the existing fishing port, particularly including the sand in the
reclamation area.
(ii) Stage 2: Sustainable Development of the Fisheries and Commercial Harbors

(Proposed for Funding Under Project 2 of the Loan)
A combined development of the commercial and fishing harbors; including (i)
Construction of an extended commercial port breakwater and (ii) altering the proposed
fishing port wall locations by expanding the reclamation area to the north, to ensure
that sand from the northern and central parts of the beach are not trapped as a large
fillet of sand adjacent to the new port lee wall.
7. Consultation with Stakeholders
11. The overall stage 1 and stage 2 proposals have evolved as a result of the modeling results
completed in December 2008. The findings of the study and the proposed integrated project were
discussed at State Level with MMB and the Department of Fisheries on the 19 January 2009, and the
State Working Group at a meeting on 11 February 2009. A meeting was held at the district level on 23
January
12. The stage 1 project has been discussed extensively with the stakeholders; the preliminary
design was presented and discussed at formal meeting with stakeholders the project was held on 6
November 2008. At the meeting full consent was given by the community stakeholders including the
fishermen, the district collector and residents.
13. Further discussions were held with the district level officials in January 2009, some design
modifications were presented at the meeting.
8. Stage 1 Plan Erosion Protection in Northern Part of the Mirya Bay
14. The stage 1 project is proposed for implementation to provide the very necessary protection to
the North part of the bay-presently the most critical. The stage 1 project can be implemented as a
standalone project and is independent of the final plan for the fishing harbor.
15. The studies have indentified the importance of wave sheltering to support the creation of sand
trapping zones. Three interventions are proposed:
(i) Construction of an offshore reef to the northern headland to replicate the sand capture
presently occurring in the fisheries port at the south end of the bay.
(ii) To provide 450,000 m³ of beach nourishment to the northern part of the bay. The sand
for this beach nourishment will be sourced from the deposited sand around the harbor
area.
(iii) Financial support for community initiatives to improve income generation through
tourism, shore fisheries etc.
16. The goal is to protect the houses in the northern end of the Bay while providing sandy areas
for the cottage industry fishing fleet and general use, such as deployment of fishing nets, tourism,
more effective beach usage etc. The reef is anticipated to change the northern corner of the Bay into a
sandy beach.
17. The reef specifications are given in Table 14. The reef has the following key elements:
Final Report
(i) “Cup reef” shape to capture sand moving shoreward over the reef crest
(ii) Rotating orientation to cause the waves crossing the reef to be deflected more to the
north and thereby rotate the waves more onto the northern corner of the Bay
(iii) Divergent rounded shape that is designed to scatter the wave energy and thereby
increase the shadow effect
(iv) Reef crest height to be set at the LAT (the Lowest Astronomic Tide) to break the
waves in all seasons (not just the monsoon).
18. The proposed plan for the Stage 1 ‘Erosion Protection for Mirya North Part’ is shown in Figure
6. The total volume of sand for nourishment is 450,000 m³ to be placed along 2 km of shoreline,
providing 216m³/m. The sand would be sourced from sediment in the fish harbor as well as sand
trapped against the lee wall of the fishing harbor.
Figure 6: Final Design Proposal for Mirya Bay Subproject
Final reef design proposal for Mirya Bay. Satellite image illustrates position (left) with the reef included in the model
bathymetry (right)
Table 14: Specifications for the Reef at Northern Mirya Bay
Statistic Reef
Distance offshore (m, to MSL from inner-most section of reef) 260
Depth of water (m) 2.5-3 m
Crest height (below LAT) (m) 0
Final Report
Longshore length of reef (m) 360

Volume of reef (m3) 15,000
Shape Cup
Predicted salient amplitude (m) 100
a. Detailed Design
19. Detailed design of the Mirya sub project will be based on the preliminary design but
incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the geotextile reef and the beach
nourishment. The final design will also include detailed drawings, specifications and bills of quantities.
Based on these further studies the final design will define the final location and specifications of the
components of the project.
b. Management and Maintenance Requirements
20. A re-nourishment of the beach will be required one year after the initial beach nourishment
(and has been included in capital costs). After this no on-going maintenance costs are foreseen for
these interventions. It is proposed to establish a small ‘Shoreline Management Organization’
consisting of stakeholders and direct beneficiaries to support the management of the completed
scheme and help coordinate the community initiatives as well as environmental monitoring
requirements. The organization would take on the responsibility for the management and protection of
the reef.
c. Environmental, Social and Gender Issues
21. Comprehensive environmental, social and gender assessments have been carried out. The
main conclusions are that:
(i) There will be some temporary environmental disruption during the project
implementation but the natural ecology would quickly recover. There are no significant
fish breeding grounds and once completed the construction of the reef would in fact
enhance the fish stocks. The work would effectively return the previously eroded
beach to its previous state. The net environmental impacts would be in the form of an
improvement of the environmental conditions.
(ii) The project would provide benefits to local householders and fishermen. All the work
would be implemented within the shoreline area; (i) the reef would be located in the
sea (nearshore zone); (ii) sand for beach nourishment would be sourced from beach
material deposited in or near the harbor area (iii) beach nourishment would occur on
the foreshore or nearshore zone. Permanent settlement is not permitted in these
areas and as such the project will not displace people but is actually expected to
provide them with a reinstatement of the previously lost beach areas. There will
therefore not be any requirement for land acquisition or resettlement.
(iii) There are some indications of possible contamination of the sand inside the harbor
area; the naturally deposited sand outside the harbor however directly originates from
the beach areas and would not be subject to any contamination. Sand would be tested
prior to initiating the beach nourishment.
(iv) There are no indigenous or ethnic minority people at the sub-project area. Hence, the
preparation of an Indigenous People’s Development Plan is not relevant. Support will
be provided under the project to support women.
9. Costs
22. The 2008 base costs for the Mirya project are summarized in Table 15 below.
Table 15: Mirya 2008 Base Costs excluding taxes

Quantity $ '000 Rs Lakh
Beach Nourishment 490,000m3 2,953 1,447
Final Report
Second renourishment after 1 year 49000m3 510 250

Multipurpose sand filled geotextile reef 1nr 3,757 1,841
Initiatives to support community development Ls 250 123
Total 7,469 3,660
23. Including contingencies and inflation the interventions at Mirya Bay have a total cost of $9.1
million (Rs 48.5 crore). Apart from renourishment of the beach that will be required one year after the
initial beach nourishment (which has been included in capital costs); no on-going maintenance costs
are foreseen for these interventions. A summary of the costs including contingencies and escalation
are shown in Table 16.
Table 16: Mirya Bay – Summary of Costs (Totals incl. Contingencies and escalation)
1. 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

IND lakh 1,848.0 2,612.4 384.9 - 4,848.3
$ ‘000 3,553.5 4,827.0 685.6 - 9,066.1
10. Benefits
24. The project will provide the following benefits:
(i) the prevention of erosion and storm damage to land and buildings
(ii) the cost of replacement of the road behind the bay in the event that it were washed
out by a major storm
(iii) prevented resettlement costs
(iv) the benefits of future tourism and recreational development on the beach.
(v) dredging in and around the fishing harbor for beach nourishment will result in future
savings in dredging costs at the fishing harbor.
25. For the base case, the EIRR of the proposed subproject is 16.8% and the NPV in economic
prices is Rs 892 lakh ($1.9 million).
B. Coco Beach Restoration Project
1. Location
26. Coco beach in central Goa is one of the two sub-projects selected for the State of Goa. Coco
Beach is a small embayment located on the north side of Aguada Bay, across the water from the Goa
state capital city, Panaji. The beach is in a relatively sheltered Augada Bay at the mouth of the
Mandovi Estuary. Coco existed as an important beach for the past decade. Several establishments
including permanent and temporary has been came into existence to tap the increase in tourism inflow
to this place. The area is beautiful with panoramic landscape and vegetation. The location is shown in
Figure 7 below.
Final Report
Figure 7: Overview of Coco Bay, Goa
2. Present Problem
27. The beach is a small bay and the river mouth is visible from the beach. It has experienced
severe erosion over recent years and now the local village, local fishing industry and tourism
development is under substantial threat. Sediment has been moved within the bay to an extent that it
will not return naturally through littoral transport alone.
28. Rocks wall protection has been used to protect the last remaining strip of developed land
before the fields. Erosion has been further exacerbated and the problem enhanced due to wave scour
at the foot of the walls. A solution is needed that will address the erosion in a holistic manner, include
the needs of fishermen and provide an aesthetically pleasing results for tourism development (Figure
8).
Figure 8: Coco Beach
Coco beach before erosion (left) and how the beach is found today (middle and right)
3. Development Proposal for Coco Beach
29. The investigations have revealed that the wave patterns have been substantially altered by
changes to the bathymetry off Mama Point. The waves are not rotating around the Point sufficiently to
Final Report
hold the sand in place on Coco Beach. As a result, slowly through time, Coco beach’s sand volume
has dropped. The following solutions shown in Figure 9 are proposed:
(i) Renourishment of the Bay with 150,000 m3 of sand to replace the lost volume
(ii) Construction of underwater Geotextile Berms to hold the sand in place at Coco
Beach (400 m and 180 m, 2.1 m height of Geotube, 3,600 m3 volume)
(iii) Construction of a semi submerged Breakwater Reef on Mama Point to block the
passage of waves that come into Coco Bay (96 m length, crest 2.5 m above LAT)
Figure 9: Satellite Image of Coco beach with Geotextile Berms
Satellite image of Coco beach with Geotextile Berms to retain nourishment and protect
coastline; offshore breakwater reef to re-align waves and provide coastal protection.
30. The sediment for nourishment will be sourced from Mandovi River mouth, a location that is
regularly in need of dredging and will aid boat passage. The dredging will thereby assist the passage
of vessels while the sand will be used for restoring the beach.
31. The beach will be wide and safe. The location is sheltered from the monsoon winds, and close
to main tourist areas like Calangute.
32. A future possible addition to the project would be to construct a jetty possibly with a design
that straddles the main geotube wall. The goal would be to protect the geotube from boats and
pedestrians/fishermen who may choose to use the geotube as a walkway. While this can occur
without damaging the geotube if high quality material is purchased with a protective coating, the jetty
would also provide an ideal location for small craft as the jetty will be in a highly sheltered zone,
suitable for small craft, including passenger ferries, water taxis and pleasure craft. The jetty would be
a feature for domestic tourism and fishing access. The new jetty and other facilities could be a
possible area of funding under a PPP arrangement.
Final Report
a. Discussions with Stakeholders
33. A number of stakeholder meetings have been held. In general there is consensus for the
project and the potential for economic benefit for the bay. Fishermen have raised some issues of the
impacts on boat movements; within the bay the fishermen are only minimally involved in tourism and
see tourism as a threat. Further dialogue is required to engage with fishermen and address how the
projects benefits could best incorporate the fishermen.
b. Management and Maintenance Requirements
34. The management requirements at Coco Bay will be minimal after construction completion.
Nourishment after one year will be required in order to encourage the beach to retain equilibrium, it is
estimated that this renourishment will be a one-off event. A team will be required to routinely check the
geotextile containers for human interference. In the event of damage through anchorage or deliberate
mistreatment then the team will be competent to repair minor damage. The offshore breakwater is a
permanent, rock structure which will require very minimal, maintenance and management. It is
proposed to establish a small ‘Shoreline Management Organization’ consisting of stakeholders and
direct beneficiaries to support the management of the completed scheme and help coordinate the
community initiatives as well as environmental monitoring requirements
c. Environmental, Social and Gender Issues
35. Benefits will be felt by the local community through the enhancement of fisheries and tourism,
alongside protection from Monsoon sea conditions in the Monsoon season. The proposed project will
benefit tourism, both local and international visitors will be drawn to the site once the beach has been
re-established and the facilities improved.
implementation but the natural ecology would quickly recover. The beach nourishment
would create some temporary turbidity; there are however no significant fish breeding
grounds in the vicinity. The work would effectively return the previously eroded beach
to its previous state. The net environmental impacts would be in the form of an
improvement of the environmental conditions. High levels of turbidity are frequently
experienced during the storm period of the monsoon.
(ii) All the work would be implemented within the shoreline area; (i) the breakwater and
geotextile walls would be located in the sea (nearshore zone) and would be below the
low water level; (ii) sand for beach nourishment would be sourced from from the
Mandovi River mouth, a location that is regularly in need of dredging and will aid boat
passage.
(iii) The beach nourishment would occur on the foreshore or nearshore zone. Permanent
settlement is not permitted in these areas and as such the project will not displace
people but is actually expected to provide them with a reinstatement of the previously
lost beach areas. There will therefore not be any requirement for land acquisition or
resettlement.
(iv) There are no indigenous or ethnic minority people at the sub-project area. Hence, the
(v) The erosion of the beach has clearly caused a loss of income for women vendors, the
beach reinstatement will open opportunities for women. There are some concerns by
women hawkers who may face eviction from the beach, and there are proposals to
help them set up established stalls and provide employment in beach management.
Final Report
d. Detailed Design
37. Detailed design of the Coco sub project will be based on the preliminary design but
incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the breakwater reef, the geotextile
retention structures and beach nourishment. The final design will also include detailed drawings,
specifications and bills of quantities. Based on these further studies the final design will define the final
location and specifications of the components of the project.
4. Costs
38. The 2008 base costs for the Coco beach subproject are estimated in Table 17.
Table 17: Coco 2008 Base Costs excluding taxes

Beach Nourishment 180,000m3 900 441
Sand filled geotextile retention structure 1nr 583 285
Offshore low crested rock breakwater Ls 382 187
Initiatives to support community development 200 914
Total 2,065 1,828
39. Including escalation and contingencies the estimated cost for the subproject is $2.5 million (Rs
1,330 lakh) as summarized in Table 18 below.
Table 18: Coco Beach Sub Project Costs ($ ‘000)
2. 2010 2011 2012 Total

IND lakh 249.9 1,039.4 40.4 1,329.7
$ ‘000 480.5 1,920.5 71.3 2,472.3
a. Benefits
40. The project will support the diversification and stabilization of the local economy at Coco
Beach. Create jobs and business opportunity through attracting additional businesses and increased
tourism. Foreign tourism will increase the economy substantially.
b. Environmental
41. Re-establish previous beach additional reef habitat. Geotextiles and nourishment schemes
are environmentally less harmful than other alternative methods for sea defense i.e. rock walls. The
breakwater reef will provide substantial protection to the west part of the bay during the monsoon
season and storm events. Submerged structures will create new habitats, enhancing and diversifying
the natural ecology of the bay. Also the project hopes to encourage public participation in maintaining
a cleaner environment.
c. Social
42. – Brings outside revenue supporting community facilities and services. Provides operational
space for beach landing of boats to support traditional livelihood and enhancing the income of
traditional fishermen, additional reef fish will be attracted to the area. Tourism based amenities and
recreation will increase economic value to the beach thereby creating opportunity for investors in
beach based tourism. Local workers will benefit from the increased jobs available.
43. The proposed interventions are:
(i) Environmentally less harmful than other alternative methods for sea defense;
(ii) Increased protection during Monsoon season and storm events;
(iii) Do not tamper with the natural resilience of the system;
(iv) Interventions can result in biologically richer and diverse habitat; and
Final Report
(v) Potential for enhanced fishery and social benefits.
d. Economic Benefits:
44. At Coco Beach, the first source of benefits of the proposed interventions will be the restoration
of the beach to its former status and consequently the restoration of economic benefits that previously
accrued. In addition, the beach will in many ways be improved, compared with the past, upon
completion of the restoration. It will provide a safe and calm swimming area in addition to the restored
beach area, and its use as a base for water sports and boating activities is very likely to expand.
Without any project intervention, it is likely that the land behind the beach will eventually erode and
saline intrusion into the fields behind the beach will result in the cessation of agricultural production.
45. The proposed Coco Beach Restoration Project has an EIRR of 16.8% and a NPV in economic
prices of Rs 338 lakh ($690,000).
C. Colva Beach Management Project
1. Location
46. The Colva Beach Sub Project (Figure 10) in southern Goa is a 6.5 km long section of the
straight and uniform long Salcete Beach which stretches 25 km stretch from Velsao to Betul, in the
Salcet Taluka. It attracts quite a large number of both domestic and international tourists. The Colva
Beach Sub Project incorporates three main tourist beaches — Utorda, Majorda and Colva. The beach
near Colva town is used for mass tourism and attracts a large number of day visitors. Utorda and
Majorda have lower levels of (mainly international) visitors.
Figure 10: Overview of Colva Beach, near Margoa, Goa
2. The Problem
47. The entire 25 km Salcete beach (from Velsao to Betul) is slowly, but substantially, eroding
over its full length. While quality white sand is plentiful along the coast, the erosion is caused by a slow
degradation of the upper beach. For the Utorda and Majorda beach areas the problems are more
serious with medium levels of beach and dune erosion occurring. A major factor is the uncontrolled
flow of water across the beach during the Monsoon, which erodes a nalla across the beach that can
migrate down the coast eroding the upland dunes and properties.
Final Report
48. At Colva beach domestic and international tourism is very large and forms a very important
part of Goa’s overall future development. There are already several 5-star resorts along the coast and
more are planned. The beach is also suitable for smaller-scale tourism, given its long length. The
major issue at Colva and surrounding beaches is that continued erosion and deterioration of the
beaches affect tourism and related activities.
49. The land runoff during the monsoon feeds the rivers, and also creates temporary water flowing
out across the beach in many areas, a feature known locally as a “nalla.” The water flow from a nalla
creates a meandering channel across the beach, the interaction of the nalla with the coastal
processes causes the path of the nalla to meander and migrate during the monsoonal flows. Wherever
a nalla exists, erosion of the beach and upland dune can easily occur. Many efforts to control the nalla
location and dune erosion using small rocks or sandbags were observed at various points along the
beach. The observed erosion problem is often worsened using this method as increased scour at the
base of these walls often induces further erosion, causing more damage and the wall to fail.
50. Anthropogenic activities such as constructions in sandy areas, beach resorts, coastal roads
and sand mining are other major contributing factors which have led to the desecration and
consequent elimination of sand dunes (Mascarenhas, 1998). The loss of beaches amounts to loss of
opportunities including livelihood of the dependent communities.
3. Development Proposal
51. The Colva sub project incorporates a 6.5 km stretch of the Salcette beach; and includes the
Utorda, Majorda and Colva beaches.
52. Three types of protection are proposed for the Colva sub project:
(i) Dune Management: Along the most of the beach there is low erosion, with more
severe erosion is occurring at some localized points. The general prognosis is that
erosion will increase over time if no action is taken. For these parts of mainly low
erosion it is proposed implement dune management to provide protection at the
erosion points as well as preemptive protection along the whole beach. Dune
management is a simple and effective low cost solution and is very appropriate for the
low erosion situations. By building up the dunes and planting with grasses, the dunes
can form a natural protection and buffer against erosion. Activities under dune
management include scraping of the sand from the lower part of the beach and
placing on the dunes, shaping and planting of the dunes with natural grasses. Dune
management requires an effective organization to maintain and repair the dunes as
required. Damage to the dunes after storms should be quickly repaired by scraping of
sand from the low tide level and replanting of lost or damaged grasses. Linked to dune
management is periodic excavation of nalla channels after storms and prior to the
monsoon. This activity can help alleviate the erosion damage caused by meandering
nalla. Planting, fencing and laying of semi permanent pathways and slip roads are key
aspects of dune management. Community-led dune restoration is the most affordable
management option available (about 1% of seawall costs). The length of dune
management would be about 5.3 km.
(ii) Dune Management plus geotubes: At the Utorda and Majorda beaches areas the
erosion is more significant. There is risk of dune breaching and erosion damage to the
shoreline. A major factor is the uncontrolled flow of water across the beach during the
monsoon, which erodes a stream line (nalla) across the beach. The nallas to migrate
up down the coast and cause turbulence when they meet the sea this causing
increased erosion risk in the vicinities of the nallas. The solution for these points is to
reinforce the dunes with sand-filled geotextile containers (geotubes) which would be
placed inside the dune system. The dunes would provide a basic buffering function but
would have the geotubes to provide a back up protection during severe storms. The
geotubes would also act as guide (training walls) for the nalla to ensure they don’t
migrate. To ensure the long term sustainability it is important that the geotubes are
kept buried in the dune. After storms the tubes may come exposed and it is important
that fast track maintenance is carried out to ensure the tubes are properly buried.
Final Report
150m of geotextile are proposed each side of the Nalla giving a total length of 600m
for the two sites of Utorda and Majorda.
(iii) Offshore Geotextile Reef: At Colva town a medium sized town in the central zone,
domestic tourism is very large and erosion is being increased due to the human
pressure on the beach A major issue at Colva is the potential of increased erosion that
may affect tourism and related activities In the central city zone of Colva. Due to the
heavy human pressure dune management is difficult to undertake and an offshore reef
is proposed to hold that part of the coast in place. The structure will aid defense
against big wave events during the monsoon season and arrest future erosion. The
proposed reef at Colva is a multi-purpose artificial soft reef.
53. The reef design for Colva is a Cup shape, which is ideal for Indian conditions. Modeling shows
that the reef will protect the coast and produce a large salient with amplitude of order 100 m. The reef
will therefore adequately protect the coast at Colva, while also providing other improvements for
tourism and the environment, including:
(i) Reduced flooding and overtopping by waves

(ii) Enhanced ecology
(iii) Improved fishing
(iv) Snorkeling
(v) Surfing activities from board surfing to kite surfing and wind surfing
(vi) Surfing school potential
(vii) Sheltered swimming
(viii) Better access for boats and local fishermen
54. The reef will consist of a series of sand-filled geotextile containers. The reef statistics are as
follows:
(i) Reef length longshore 180 m

(ii) Reef length cross-shore 140 m
(iii) Distance offshore 330 m
(iv) Reef crest height 0.4-2.0 m
(v) Water depth 2.5-5.0 m
.
55. The proposed arrangements for the geotubes and the reef are shown in Figure 11, Figure 12
and Figure 13 below.
Final Report
Figure 11: Conceptual Dune Management Plan with Geotubes, Utorda
Figure 12: Conceptual Dune Management Plan with Geotubes, Utorda

Final Report
Figure 13: Proposed Reef for Colva Beach
56. A summary of the proposed works for the Colva Beach Sub Project are shown in Table 19.
The proposed section of the dunes with geotubes is shown in Figure 14.
Table 19: Summary of the Proposed Works for the Colva Beach Sub Project
Nr Type Length
1. Dune Restoration and Management
1.1 Full restoration without geotubes (6m³/linear meter length of beach) 1,800 m
1.2 Rehabilitation of existing dunes (3m³/linear meter length of beach) 1,700 m
1.3 Minor dune rehabilitation of existing dunes (2m³ /linear meter length of dunes) 2,600
2. Dune Restoration and Management with Geotubes
2.1 New dune construction (5 m³/ linear meter length of beach) with geotubes (3 nr 600
1000m dia, 3,100 circumference geotubes including 300 mm toe protection.
Total 6,700 m
3. Multi-purpose Offshore Reef 1 number
Length offshore 180 m Design
Length cross shore 140 m volume=8,500m3
Distance offshore 330 m
Reef Crest 0.4 m - 2.0 m
Water Depth 2.5 m - 5.0 m
Final Report
Figure 14: Typical Cross-Section Design using Geotextile Tubes for Dune Core
a. Environmental, Social, and Gender Issues
implementation but the natural ecology would quickly recover. There are no significant
fish breeding grounds and once completed the construction of the reef would in fact
enhance the fish stocks. The net environmental impacts would be in the form of an
improvement of the environmental conditions.
(ii) The direct impact of erosion on other stakeholders like local residents, fishermen,
and the farmers is not yet significant as there are only a few residents living close to
the beach. Erosion has not yet made any direct impact on the fishing community living
in temporary settlement near the shoreline. Without any intervention to protect the
beach, the dunes and the beach will gradually degrade and the beach will be affected
by gradually more severe erosion.
(iii) The project would mainly provide longer term benefits benefits to local householders
and fishermen and women. Over time the degradation of the beach will result in
revenue losses from tourism and reduction opportunities for beach vendors including
women.
(iv) All the work would be implemented within the shoreline area; (i) the reef would be
located in the sea (nearshore zone); (ii) sand for dune restoration would be sourced
from scraping of beach material located from just above the low tide line. Permanent
settlement is not permitted in these areas and as such the project will not displace
people but is actually expected to provide them with a reinstatement of the previously
lost beach areas. There will therefore not be any requirement for land acquisition or
resettlement.
(v) There are no indigenous or ethnic minority people at the sub-project area. Hence, the
b. Stakeholder Consultations
A number of stakeholder consultations have been held, in general there is a positive response to the
project. There are however some concerns amongst the stakeholders regarding the reef; it is a new
technology which not yet developed in India. It is therefore proposed to implement the reef in year 3.
Final Report
This would give the stakeholders an opportunity to see the performance of other reefs being
developed under the project
c. Detailed Design
58. Detailed design of the Colva sub project will be based on the preliminary design but
incorporate further and more detailed studies and designs for the reef, and the dune management
proposals. The final design will also include detailed drawings, specifications and bills of quantities.
Based on these further studies the final design will define the final location and specifications of the
reef and requirements for the dune management.
4. Costs
59. The 2008 base costs for the Colva project are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20: Colva 2008 Base Costs excluding taxes

Multipurpose sand filled geotextile reef 1nr 2,594 1,271
Beach scraping and dune restoration 28,500m3 171 84
Geotextiles for dune protection and nalla training Ls 471 231
Planting and establishment of dunes 182 89
Total 3,418 1,675
60. The estimated cost for the sub project including contingencies and escalation is $4.3 million
(IND2,474 lakh) as summarized in Table 21 below.
Table 21: Colva – Summary of Costs (totals incl. contingencies and escalation)
2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Rs lakh 332.4 162.9 12.1 1,967.2 2,474.5
$ ‘000 639.2 301.0 21.3 3,328.2 4,289.7
5. Benefits
61. General: Increased tourism will be generated through the addition of the Colva reef, attracting
additional local and international tourism to the already popular beach. Employment for women is
expected to be improved and enhanced within the scheme as more jobs are generated. The reef will
adequately protect the highly used Colva beach, while also providing other improvements for fishing,
tourism and the environment, including:
(i) Shoreline stabilization and protection during monsoon and storm conditions
(ii) Future preparation for sea level rise effects and possible erosion
(iii) Enhanced ecology thereby improved fisheries
(iv) More sheltered access for boats and local fishermen
(v) Sheltered swimming; potential surfing and diving tourism
62. Environment: Dune management, dune management with geotubes and the offshore reef are
all ‘soft’ technologies which are able to provide naturally and ecologically sustainable solutions to the
problems associated with coastal erosion. Hard structures such as visible breakwaters and walls
would cause significant environmental damage to the beach and are not appropriate. The dunes and
the reef provide the environment with a platform on which to flourish, colonization of the dunes and
reef geotextile structures will provide a habitat for successful breeding and multiplication.
63. Social stability will be felt through the protection of the dunes and beaches. Worries
regarding their disappearance will be quashed and positive attitudes will develop from the increased
awareness generated from the dune management program.
Final Report
64. Economic benefits Without any intervention to protect the beach, the dunes and the beach
will gradually degrade and the beach will be affected by gradually more severe erosion. The land
behind the beach will also be threatened, affecting agriculture and existing hotels. The beach would
become significantly less attractive to visitors and the number of tourists visiting this beach would
decline will be felt as the coastline is promoted as an environmentally sustainable and well maintained
natural beach.
65. The EIRR for the Colva sub project is 33.4% and the NPV is IND8,031 Lakh ($16.4 million).
This subproject has a relatively low investment cost and a high level of potential benefits, resulting in a
high EIRR.
D. Ullal Coastal Erosion and Inlet Improvement Project
1. Location
66. The sub project site of the Mangalore channel and Ullal beach encompasses a stretch of coast
on the southwest of Karnataka. Ullal entrance and beaches are 10 km south of Mangalore city. A
barrier spit system exists at the mouth of the estuary of the Gurupur and Netravati River confluence.
The 1.4 km Ullal spit is to the south. Another spit exists at the north of the estuary, the Bengare spit,
which runs parallel to the Gurupur River. The Ullal entrance is the key shipping channel for old
Mangalore Port, which is heavily used by local fishing boats.
2. Present Problem
67. Ullal is a natural inlet that has been modified by the construction of breakwaters in 1995 for
safe navigation of the entrance. The training walls physically inhibit the natural migration of the sand
spit and since training wall construction, erosion at the Ullal spit and accretion at the Bengare spit has
been observed. With continued erosion at Ullal, it is highly likely that in time the spit could be breached
creating a new or several new mouths to the Netravati River with substantial erosion and
sedimentation problems.
68. The Ullal beach to the south of the inlet has been seriously eroding for over decades, and now
the local people are under severe attack from waves. Many houses have been lost to the south of the
entrance training walls. Now, the residents are threatened by waves over the full year and under
severe threat in the monsoon. This site was at the top of the priority list of the Karnataka Ports &
Inland Waterways Department and in desperate need of a solution to the ever worsening erosion
problems.
3. Development Proposal
69. Over long time scales, Ullal beach can be stable under either of the following scenarios:
(i) Equilibrium alignment, i.e. when the amount of sand moved north by waves is equal
to the amount moved south; or
(ii) Supply of sand from the north, i.e. when there is a supply of sand from the north to
feed the littoral drift to the south.
70. If one of these two conditions is not present then erosion will occur. The recommended
solution to solve the Ullal erosion takes a longer term perspective. A multi-faceted hybrid solution with
the following three components is proposed:
(i) The shortening and repair of the southern breakwater by 110m to allow better by-
passing of sand to the south (Figure 16);
(ii) 220 m extension to the south-west (across the channel) of the north breakwater wall.
This extension wall will be smoothly curved and aligned approximately south-west to
allow sand coming from the north to naturally by-pass.
(iii) Beach Nourishment Scheme; 1.2 million cubic meters at the northern end of Ullal
beach.
Final Report
(iv) The construction of three offshore multi-purpose artificial soft reefs (M-ASR’s) to hold
the proposed nourishment in place (Figure 17); statistics of which are given in Table
19.
Figure 15: Shortening and Repair of the Southern Breakwater
Re-alignment of existing training walls or breakwaters with the additional extension of the north spit (left) and
the shortening of the southern spit (right).
Figure 16: Offshore Multi-Purpose Artificial Soft Reefs (M-ASR’s)
Satellite image of the Ullal spit and beach with plan design of the three submerged offshore geotextile
reefs proposed for Ullal (left). Modeled position of the three reefs along the coastline with anticipated
salients (right).
Table 22: Specifications for the Three Reefs at Ullal Beach
Statistic Reef 1 Reef 2 Reef 3

Distance offshore (m, to MSL from inner-most section of reef) 900 800 700
Depth of water (m) 7.3 6.9 6.7
Longshore length of reef (m) 260 220 180
Volume of reef (m³) 25,000 19,000 15,000
Predicted salient amplitude (m) 200 170 140
Final Report
a. Management and Maintenance Requirements
71. Once constructed the offshore reefs will not require any maintenance. The rock breakwaters
will require periodically some replacement of rocks and tetrapods that have slipped. Both these forms
of coastal defense are designed to withstand the monsoon conditions. General integrated shoreline
management is recommended, as with all areas looking to increase tourism, for an environmentally
sustainable and attractive beach site. It is proposed to establish a Shoreline Management
Organization consisting of local stakeholders who will be responsible for the long term management of
the investments as well as any minor maintenance.
b. Environmental, Social and Gender Issues
72. The engineering designs described for this project site will prevent further degradation at the
coastline, whilst providing a situation whereby natural processes will enable the beach to regain
stability. Reversing the environmental degradation will ensure that:
(i) Fisheries are protected, as well as the beach from which boats can be launched
locally is also maintained;
(ii) The channel entrance remains sediment free yet the natural littoral drift is
uninterrupted; and
(iii) Environmental enhancement can be obtained through the use of submerged reef
structures in coastal defense and increased protected areas.
73. The benefits of the proposed interventions on the beach will accrue from the positive impact
from the prevention of erosion by correcting the sediment cycle. The submerged reefs are likely to
provide a localized impact enhancement to fisheries.
74. The technical mitigation measures for erosion control of the beach will not require any land
acquisition. Neither any loss of income is envisaged due to project implementation. There will not be
any loss of land or other form of property and hence resettlement of affected persons will not be
required.
75. As there are no indigenous people at Ullal TMC, a plan to address loss due to project impact
is not required. About 20% of women are employed in the fish processing factories,the prevention of
the loss of these factories will provide significant job security.
76. Fishermen previously used to land their boats on the Ullal beach which has now completely
been lost. Reinstatement of the beach will reopen this facility.
c. Detailed Design
77. Detailed design of the Ullal sub project will be based on the preliminary design but incorporate
further and more detailed studies and designs for the reefs, and beach nourishment. The final design
will also include the specifications and bills of quantities. Based on these further studies the final
design will define the locations of the quantities for beach nourishment, sizes and final number of
reefs.
4. Implementation
78. Detailed designs for the beach nourishment and the offshore reefs are being prepared by the
TA consultants. This will allow the implementation of this part to proceed in year 1 of the project. The
proposed changes to the rock breakwaters have been designed to a preliminary design level. Some
further modeling of the inlet channel is proposed to reconfirm the preliminary design proposals as well
as the detailed design for the rock breakwater. This work would be completed during year 1 of the
project with implementation during year 2.There would be scope for the state to apply for advance
contracting of these studies using retroactive ADB finance.
Final Report
5. Costs
79. The 2008 base costs are summarized in Table 23 below.
Table 23: Ullal Base Costs 2008 excluding taxes

Beach nourishment 1,250,000m3 8,550 4,190
Beach renourishment once only after 1 year 125,000m3 1,438 704
Multipurpose sand filled geotextile reef 11,704 5,735
Shortening of southern breakwater 395 193
Extension to northern breakwater 5,272 2,583
Strengthening of existing breakwaters Ls 10,927 5,354
Initiatives to support community development Ls 500 245
Total 38,785 19,004
80. The estimated cost for the subproject including contingencies and escalation is $39.7 million
(Rs 21,606 Lakh) as summarized in Table 24.
Final Report
Table 24: Ullal – Summary of Costs (totals incl. contingencies)
2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

IND lakh 7,226.7 7,723.2 3,762.3 2,893.0 21,605.2
$ ‘000 13,869.0 14,270.3 6,650.5 4,894.7 39,654.5
6. Benefits
81. Benefits will be felt by the local community through the enhancement of fisheries and tourism,
alongside protection from Monsoon sea conditions. The main economic benefits of the subproject
come from
(i) Protection of the spit on the southern side of the inlet entrance from possible
breaching. This would have very serious consequences on the access to the
Mangalore old port.
(ii) Protection of land and buildings along the coast south of the existing breakwaters from
damage and erosion
(iii) Avoidance of resettlement costs that may arise if land and buildings are eroded
(iv) Enhance tourism with implementation of the proposed interventions.
82. Re-design of the training walls will allow greater sand by-passing ensuring the beaches south
will recover from erosion. Improving the navigation to the fishing harbor channel will provide safe
passage for fishing vessels without the need to dredge.
83. The reefs and nourishment will adequately protect the coast at Ullal, while also providing other
improvements for fishing, tourism and the environment, including:
(i) Shoreline stabilization and protection during monsoon and storm conditions
(ii) Future preparation for sea level rise effects and possible erosion
(iii) Enhanced ecology thereby improved fisheries
(iv) Better access for boats and local fishermen
(v) Sheltered swimming; potential for surfing and diving tourism
84. These Geotextile ‘soft’ technologies are a a natural and ecologically sustainable solution to the
problems associated with coastal erosion than the previous engineering of hard structures such as
visible breakwaters and walls.
85. The project at Ullal has an EIRR of 14.5% and a NPV in economic prices of Rs 1,797 lakh.
Final Report
Appendix 8
LONG LIST OF PROVISIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Introduction
1. The long list of provisional development projects provides an initial framework for the
proposed Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 projects. The list is based primarily on information provided by the
states based on identified projects or identified problems at specific locations and should not be
considered as a strategic or integrated coastal plan.
B. Scope of the Project Investments
2. Discussions with the State and National Implementing agencies and key stakeholders have
identified the requirement that the project scope has to address the wider issues of coastal protection
and management. Although coastal protection is the key theme an integrated and holistic approach is
proposed that will be designed to maximize the benefits from the project. The seven proposed
categories of investment are shown in Table 25 below.
Table 25: Categories of Investments for Coastal Protection and Management
Category Category Sub Categories Description

Code
1 Erosion protection Land Protection Addressing erosion problems through
Beach implementation of technically, socially and
protection/regeneration environmentally appropriate solutions
2 Causes of erosion Beach crossings Addressing the causes of coastal erosion

and/or coastal Breakwaters and coastal instability.
stability Harbors Interventions would be designed to minimize
River or drain training impacts of development on the coastal
environment.
Correction of inappropriate
protection (rock wall /
groynes, etc)
Sand mining
Other infrastructure
3 Natural protection Dune management Links with category 1 but requiring different
measures and Shelter belts implementation and management
environmental Mangrove planting / arrangements. Natural protection should be
15
improvements protection considered for protection as well as a pre-
emptive measure to avoid future erosion
problems.
4 Other support areas Water quality Shoreline values are affected by water
for coastal Navigation inlets quality. Areas of intervention might include
management Dredging treatment, outfalls.
Planned and managed navigation inlets to
Reclamation rivers, harbors are critical for shipping,
Khar land reclamation fisheries.
Dredging linked to navigation inlets
appropriate dumping of dredge material to
be used for the benefit of the shoreline.
5 Coastal facilities Fish harbors Associated investments to increase
Shipping harbors, jetties, economic productivity of shoreline.
marinas Investments to increase the amenity values.
Beach rehabilitation Improvements in the quality of the shoreline
Coastal land infrastructure – environment including opportunities for
access roads, drainage recreation.
Bridges
15
These are referred to as bioshields in the Swaminathan Committee Report
Final Report
Category Category Sub Categories Description

Code
Tourist recreation facilities
6 Procurement of Equipment for surveys, State Executing Agencies have requested
marine equipment dredging, and support for the dredging and survey equipment.
coastal zone Specialized hydrographic survey equipment
will also be supplied as a part of the
consultancy contract.
7 Non-physical Initiatives to support A mix of non structural activities to support

interventions community development community and economic development of
Initiatives to support the the coastline.
economic development of
the coastal zone
C. Information Sources
3. The long list has been developed from a number of information sources including:
(i) Field surveys by the PPTA consultants

(ii) Information from the National Coastal Protection Project
(iii) Updated information from the State Executing Agencies
D. Prioritization of Proposals
4. The proposed baseline costs for Coastal Protection and Management Investments is $319.6
million including taxes but excluding physical and price contingencies. The total value of proposals for
the long list as presented by the SEA amounts to $721 million including taxes (Maharashtra $145
million, Goa $32 million and Karnataka $544 million). The total long list including the sub projects is
2.25 times the available funding. The long list is only indicative and a list of projects in excess of the
budget is considered an indication of the overall needs and provides a stock of spare projects.
5. An adjustment of the long list to fit the budget has been carried out. The adjustment has been
made based on prioritization of projects and estimation of the needs of each state. The analysis and
adjustment of the proposed projects to fit the budget is shown in Supplementary Appendix H.
E. Proposed Long List
6. The proposed long list of projects after prioritization is given in Table 26 below.
Final Report
Table 26: Proposed Long List
Category Maharashtra Goa Karnataka Total %

$ million excluding tax
PROJECT 1
CATEGORY 1 – COASTAL PROTECTION 43.1 14.7
Mirya Bay – beach 6.7 Coco Beach – beach 2.2 1.2 million m³ of beach 20.3
nourishment, offshore reef nourishment, breakwater nourishment, construction of
reef, geotextile berms three offshore reefs
Colva Beach offshore 3.0 Ullal – shortening and repair of 10.9
reef, geotubes in dunes southern breakwater,
extension of northern
breakwater
CATEGORY 3 – NATURAL PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT 0.3 0.1
Colva – dune restoration 0.3
and management
SUB-TOTAL, PROJECT 1 6.7 5.5 31.2 43.4 14.8
PROJECTS 2 AND 3
Category 1 – Erosion protection 47 km new protection 47.5 8.5 km protection 14.8 48 km new protection, 24 km 85.0 147.3 50.2
of repair of protection
Category 2 – Causes/potential Ratnagiri integrated fisheries 16.1 No proposal - Support for breakwaters at 14.5 30.7 10.5
causes of erosion and commercial harbor, plus Hejamdikodi, Gangolli,
other harbor(s) to be defined Kodibengre fish harbors, BW
repairs Malpe.
Category 3 – Natural protection and 50 km dune restoration, 50 ha 7.5 30 km dune restoration, 6.1 50 km dune restoration, 50 ha 3.8 17.4 5.9
enhancement measures shelter belts, 75 ha mangrove 58 ha shelter belts, 50 ha shelter belts, 75 ha mangrove
mangrove
Category 4 – Other support areas 550 ha of Khar land (saline 11.3 Projects to be defined 1.0 Support for dredging including 2.1 14.4 4.9
land) — 774 ha new, 4,181 ha use of dredge material to
restoration support beach nourishment.
Category 4 – Coastal facilities Various fish harbors and 13.5 Repair of town drains 1.0 Support for the repairs to fish 3.6 18.2 6.2
jetties to be selected (nalla), shore wharves and jetties, access
regeneration roads
Category 5 – Procurement of Cutter suction dredger, tugs, 13.6 Miscellaneous not 0.4 Crane or back hoe dredger, 5.6 19.6 6.7
equipment survey boats defined barges tugs, survey boats.
Category 6 – Community / Small mainly non physical 1.0 Small mainly non 0.4 Small mainly non physical 0.8 2.2 0.7
Economic Initiatives interventions to support physical interventions to interventions to support
community and economic support community and community and economic
development. economic development. development.
SUB-TOTAL, PROJECTS 2 AND 3 110.7 23.7 115.4 249.8 85.2
Final Report
Category Maharashtra Goa Karnataka Total %

$ million excluding tax
TOTAL EXCLUDING TAXES 117.4 29.2 146.6 293.2 100.0
TOTAL INCLUDING TAXES (9%) 127.9 31.8 159.8 319.6
% share by State 40.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
Final Report
F. Summary Sub Project Selection and Approval Process
7. Selection Criteria. The long list of possible investment projects for the Coastal Protection and
Management project covers a wide range of possible interventions and investments. A logical
framework and methodology for the assessment and selection of projects is required. Due to the
complex nature of the coastal environment and the high requirements for studies (including numerical
modeling) required to support feasibility studies a three stage selection process is proposed.
8. Stage 1: Identification Participative shoreline management plans will be prepared for the
whole coastline (component 1 of the project). Subprojects proposed for implementation should be
identified and supported based on the participative shoreline management processes; subprojects
identified outside the shoreline management processes would not normally be considered. Project
identification assessments will be required to present information (both quantitative and qualitative) on
key assessment parameters including:
(i) Issue identification-identification of the issues, rationale and assessment of project needs.
(ii) Project description; description of the project proposed measures, possible opportunities and
issues.
(iii) Type of intervention proposed-based on the 6 categories (coastal protection, causes/potential

causes of erosion/instability, natural protection and enhancement, other support areas, coastal
facilities, procurement of equipment, community/economic initiatives
(iv) Severity of issues-based on simple parameters including erosion rate( metres/year),

population at risk, land area/value at risk
(v) Social and environmental assessments-identification on number and type of beneficiaries,

identification of environmental enhancements and issues.
(vi) Assessments of maintenance requirements and identification of resources to implement

maintenance.
(vii) Indicative project cost-based on typical unit costs for reefs, dune management etc
(viii) Indicative economic assessments; including cost/beneficiary, cost/m2 of land protected etc
(ix) Level of stakeholder support-projects should be supported by Communities, District Planning

Committee and State Level Working Groups. Projects should be formally nominated by the
District Planning Committees and endorsed by the State Working Groups.
9. Stage 2: Prefeasibility Due to high costs and resources for numerical modeling it is proposed
that projects are initially screened through simple prefeasibility studies. These would include additional
studies to better define the projects and address questions queries and issues identified in stage 1.
Studies might include some supplementary assessments of coastal dynamics, identification of options,
preliminary cost assessments and formal meetings with the communities and key stakeholders. More
detailed assessments of likely economic benefits as well as CRZ and environmental issues. The
resources and costs to undertake feasibility studies would also be assessed. Based on the outcome of
the prefeasibility studies the district Planning Committees to recommend to the State Working Groups
if the projects should proceed to feasibility studies. Small or simple projects not requiring numerical
modeling i.e. Dune Management could go directly to feasibility studies.
10. Stage 3: Feasibility Studies Detailed feasibility studies including data collection, numerical
modeling, economic, social and environmental assessment to meet Government and ADB
requirements. Individual subproject feasibility studies would require to demonstrate:
11. Full technical feasibility, supported by full numerical modeling if required, assessment that any
technical risks that might undermine the efficacy, economic returns, safety or sustainability are
minimal;
Final Report
12. Financial and economic viability with economic rate of returns of over 12% with robustness
under sensitivity and risk analysis.
13. The project is socially and environmentally acceptable with insignificant environmental
impacts. Identification of the numbers and types of beneficiaries.
14. Fulfilment of the safeguard requirements (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples and
environment) of the Government and ADB.
15. Concurrence of the affected stakeholders of the basic designs including any contributions (in
cash or in kind).
Final Report
Appendix 9
PROCUREMENT PLAN
16. The procurement plan for the project is described in Tables 27 and 28 below.
Table 27: Procurement Plan (Project 1)

Project Information The Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management
Investment Project in the states of Maharashtra, Goa
and Karnataka in India include four sub projects to be
taken up for immediate implementation. The investment
project also includes proposals and programs to support
long term sustainable shoreline management including
institutional development and a range of structural and
non structural measures to support the erosion
protection works
Country India
Borrower India
Project Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Project
Loan No To be decided
Effectiveness To be decided
Amount $300 million
Committed $ 58.37 million (Project 1)
Executing Agencies Maharashtra Maritime Board for Maharashtra state
Water Resources Department for Goa state
Ports and IWT for Karnataka state
Approval of Original Procurement Plan Procurement Plan for Project1 was approved on ……….
Approval of most recent Procurement Plan Procurement Plan for Project1 was approved on ………..
Publication for Local Advertisements Date to be arranged

Period Covered by this Plan 60 Months
Procurement Methods: Works and Goods To be used above/below ($)

ICB & LIB works $10,000,000 and above
ICB & LIB goods/ supply & installation $10,000,000 and above and less than $1,000,000
NCB works2 All works contracts less than $10,000,000
Other than community works contracts
NCB goods/ supply & installation All goods greater that $100,000 and less than
$1,000,000
Shopping goods Less than $100,000
Force account for works Less than $500,000

Utility shifting and deposit works of PWD, forest,
KUWSDB, PHE, KEB, fisheries department etc
Exceptional methods Simple civil works contracts costing less than $10,000
may be directly awarded to NGOs, community groups as
a community works contract
following relevant provisions of ADB guidelines regarding
community
For ICB, LIB, NCB works, goods and supply contracts, post-qualification procedures will be followed
2
Full technical proposal required for services greater than $1,000,000
Final Report
Consulting Services2 To be used above/below ($)

Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS) $1,000,000 and above
Quality Based Selection (QBS) $1,000,000 and above
Consultants Qualification Selection (CQS) $100,000 to $1,000,000
Least Cost Selection Below $100,000
Single Source Selection Below $100,000
Table 28: Procurement Packages under the First Periodic Financing Request
Contract Contract Value Procure Expected Prior Type
Package Description $million ment Date of Review
No. Method Advertise Y/N
ment
A. Works and Goods
1. Maharashtra
CW-NCB- Mirya Bay - dredging and beach 5.00 NCB January Y Works
M1 nourishment (approx 490,000m3) 2011
using bulk sand stockpiled and
deposited on the beach and from
dredging of the fishing harbor
CW-ICB- Mirya Bay - construction of 1 6.00 LIB June Y Works
M1 multipurpose geotextile reef 2009
(13,450m3)
Various Mirya Bay - Community Initiatives 0.5 SSS or Y2009 – Y-initial Works/
lots to support shoreline development- shopping Y2011 period goods
in multiple lots
2. Goa
CW-NCB- Coco Beach - dredging and 2.0 NCB January Y Works
Coco1 beach nourishment. (180,000m3 2011
sand)
CW-NCB- Coco Beach - Semi submerged 1.0 NCB June
Coco3 rock/block breakwater 2009
Various Coco Beach - Community 0.5 SSS or Y2009 – Y-initial Works/
lots Initiatives to support shoreline shopping Y2011 period goods
development
CW-NCB- Coco Beach/ Colva Beach 2.0 LIB June Y Works
Coco/ (i) Coco Beach Geotextile 2009
Colva 1 sediment retention structure
(ii) Colva Beach – geotubes for
dunes and Nalla training
CW-NCB- Colva Beach dune development, 0.5 SSS or Y2010- Y Works
Colva 1 dune planting Shopping 2011
CW-ICB- Colva Beach - construction of 3.8 LIB June Y Works
Colva 2 one multi-purpose geotextile reef 2012
(8,500m³)
Various Colva Beach - 3 year service 0.5 NCB / Y2009 – Y-initial Works
lots contract for shoreline shopping Y2011 period
management operator-planting,
maintenance
3. Karnataka
CW-NCB- Ullal - Dredging and beach 11.00 NCB June Y Works
U1 nourishment (1.25million m³ of 2009
sand fill)
CW-ICB- Ullal - construction of three multi- 15.00 LIB June Y Works
U1 purpose geotextile reefs(Total 2009
53,500m³)
CW-NCB- Ullal - shortening and rehab of 15.00 NCB June N Works
U2 southern breakwater, extension 2010
Final Report
Contract Contract Value Procure Expected Prior Type

Package Description $million ment Date of Review
No. Method Advertise Y/N
ment
and rehab of northern breakwater.
Various Ullal community initiatives to 0.5 SSS or Y2009 – Y-initial Works/
lots support shoreline development shopping Y2011 period goods
4. Force Deposit works including utility 0.5 FA Y2009 – Y-initial Works/
Account shifting of PWD, forest, state Y2013 period goods
(all 3 water and power utilities, fisheries
states) department etc.
B. Consulting Services
CS-1 A. International Project 5.00 QCBS May 2009 Y Consulting
Management and Design Services
Consultants
CS-2 B. Planning and Design Support 1.00 QCBS Feb 2011 Y Consulting
Consultants Services
CS-3 C. Institutional Development and 1.7 QCBS Feb 2010 Y Consulting
Change Consultants(funded by Services
TA)
NGO- NGO/CBOs to support community 0.50 LCS/SSS Y2009 – Y Consulting
various initiatives and activities (dune Y2011 Services
management & plantation, etc.) as
required
Individual Recruitment of international and 0.50 LCS/SSS Y2010- Y Consulting
con national consultants to support the Y2013 services
sultants various training programs
Various Direct appointment of 1.0 Direct Y2009 – Y Consulting
government institutes listed below Y2013 Services
for support activities including
environmental monitoring,
technical support as required:
Short list Institutes include: Centre
for Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, Central Water and Power
Research Institute, National
Institute of Oceanography,
Maharashtra Engineering
Research Institute, Karnataka
Engineering Research Station,
National Institute of Technology,
Surathkal
C. Computers, peripherals and software
Various Computers and peripherals, office 0.6 Shopping / Y2009 – N Supply
equipment (multiple lots) direct Y2013
purchase
Various Software ( various in multiple lots) 0.3 Shopping / Y2009 – N Supply
direct Y2013
purchase
ICB= international competitive bidding, LIB= limited international bidding, NCB= national competitive bidding,
QCBS= quality cost based selection, QBS = quality based selection, SSS= single source selection, LCS= least
cost selection.
17. Geotextile Reef Contracts. The geotextile reefs require to be built using very high strength
specification geotextile materials; installation and filling of the geotextile bags is carried out underwater
requiring the use of highly skilled personnel including divers, supervisors and engineers. The
technologies are very new and there are only very few companies in the world with capacities to do
this work; the use of skilled and experienced companies is considered essential. Limited International
Bidding is proposed which will directly source bids from companies with appropriate capacities and
experience to do the work.
Final Report
18. Under LIB the SEA will obtain bids from a list of potential contractors broad enough to ensure
competitive prices. Domestic preferences are not applicable under LIB. In all other respects other than
the advertisement and preferences ICB procedures shall apply.
Final Report
Appendix 10
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Activity Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Project phasing Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Loan Preparation
Tranche 1 Sub Projects
Mirya Bay Reef C
Mirya Bay Beach Nourishment C
Coco Beach Reef and Retention Strct.
Coco Beach Nourishment
Colva Beach Management
Colva Offshore Reef
Ullal Offshore Reefs
Ullal Beach Nourishment
Ullal Breakwater Design
Other Activities
Shoreline Management Plans
Project Selection for Tranches 2 & 3 T2 T3
Planning & Design of T2 Sub Projects T2
Implementation of Tranche 2 Sub Projects T2 Implementation
Planning and Design of T3 Projects T3
Implementation of Tranche 3 Sub Projects T3 Implementation
Proj. Mngment & Design Consultants
Planning & Design Support Consultants
Inst. Development Change Management Cons
Notes Tendering
Draft Final Report
Appendix 11
SUMMARY POVERTY REDUCTION AND SOCIAL STRATEGY
Country/Project Title: India: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management

Lending/Financing Department/Division: South Asia Department/
Modality: Multitranche Financing Facility Agriculture, Natural Resources and Social Services
Division
I. Poverty Analysis and Strategy
A. Linkages to National Poverty Reduction Strategy and Country Partnership Strategy
The 11th Five Year National Plan 2007-2012 prioritizes reducing rural-urban disparity and chronic rural
poverty through inclusive and equitable growth. The plan describes a range of interventions relating to
coastal protection and management. The plan also addresses the need to address the impacts of sea level
rise particularly in relation to the impacts on the coastal communities. A national action plan for climate
change is being developed as well as the establishment of an independent statutory body for sustainable
development and coastal zone management. The plan stresses the importance of the participation of fishing
communities in coastal zone planning and management. Economic development of the coastline is identified
as a key area of support for the coastal communities including support for coastal shipping and ports and
tourism.
ADB’s Draft Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) program for India 2008–2012 identifies environmental
sustainability as a key theme. The strategy envisages the development of infrastructure to help to lead to
opportunities for poverty alleviation; it also identifies support areas to address infrastructure funding
shortages to support growth and ensuring that growth is environmentally sustainable. The strategy also
identifies the need to mainstream environmental and gender issues. Given the challenges facing India and
the world at large from climate change and degradation of the environment, the environmental focus of the
assistance program is directed at climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects, a key requirement to
reduce climate change risks to the coastal communities; proposed operations cover a number of areas but
include coastal protection and management. The 11th Government plan aims to mobilize 30% financing
from the private sector. ADB will therefore, continue to support the Government’s efforts towards promoting
public-private partnership in infrastructure development. Going forward, such assistance would be enhanced
since it helps to leverage ADB’s resources in order to make a tangible and measurable impact in a vast and
diverse country such as India, ADB would also focus on strengthening governance and financial sector
development.
The project will support the Government’s efforts of shoreline management which will ensure continuous
tourist inflow into the Goa beaches and also open opportunities for tourism in Maharashtra and Karnataka.
The regeneration of eroded beaches will help artisanal small boat fishermen who land their catches on the
beach; it will also benefit shore based seine fishing. These interventions will help reduce rural poverty levels
and promote sustainable social development. The project will plan and implement new innovations in
erosion control and shore line management. The project will not only controls erosion on a sustainable basis
but also apply the benefits of shoreline investments to promote community participation in the project and
other parallel income generation opportunities, and thereby to reduce the poverty levels; these initiatives will
support the enhanced livelihood of the affected people. Poverty reduction in sub-project areas is of
paramount importance as about 30 percent of the affected people in the States of Maharashtra and
Karnataka are below the government poverty line (BPL). In the State of Goa, the proportion of the people
below poverty line is about five percent. Goa however is a high employer of migrant workers from other
states.
B. Poverty Analysis
1. Key Issues
The goal of this project is to design innovative interventions for sustainable coastal protection and to address
issues of shoreline management. This project focused on three West Coast states of India ; Karnataka,
Maharashtra, and Goa. The project aim is not directly poverty alleviation however it will indirectly help
reduce the levels of poverty through land protection and security as well as the regeneration of the beaches.
The poverty picture of these three states is somewhat different. The urban poverty in Maharashtra (where
Ratnagiri sub-project site is located) is 32. 3 per cent based on National Sample Survey 61st round (July
2004-June 2005). The corresponding figure in Karnataka (urban – where Ullal site is located) is 32.%6. On
the other hand, the poverty ratio – percentage of people living below poverty line – is only 5.3 percent in Goa
state (where the Coco and Colva sub project sites are located).
The Human Development Indices for the major Indian states give Maharashtra a rank of 4 in 2001 (with HDI
0.523) and Karnataka of rank 7 (with an HDI of 0.478). Some other major socio-economic features of the
three states are as follows: (1) Per-Capita income at current prices in 2005-06 in Rupees (Goa: 61676;
Maharashtra: 36090; Karnataka: 27101); (2) Female Literacy rate (%) based on 2001 (Goa: 75;
Maharashtra: 67; Karnataka: 56) (3) Infant mortality rate per 1000 (Goa: 15; Maharashtra: 35; Karnataka:
48)
Final Report
The selected sub project sites consist of villages and towns within Municipal Council Areas in Karnataka and
Maharashtra and villages in Goa. It was found that the poverty situation in these sub project areas largely
conform to the state-level scenario. Verification was carried out through cross checking with the sales data
of the public distribution shops in each of the villages; these shops offer low level subsidized products to the
Below Poverty Level (BPL) households. In terms of general poverty based on assets (without consideration
of food intake or income), most of the population in the communities have basic infrastructure and assets
including acceptable levels of housing, toilets, access to safe drinking water, roads, primary education and
health facilities. There are only a few households belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other
backward communities in the project areas. None of the sites have any significant indigenous people or
ethnic minority people.
There is considerable disruption of people's livelihood and destruction of property due to sea erosion in the
sub-project areas, which is likely to put poor as well as non-poor households at risk. Many of the affected
people in the project areas in Maharashtra and Karnataka are forced to utilize their minimal savings to repair
their houses. In Goa, people have lost some of their income from tourism due to the loss of beach areas.
This problem has in some parts affected the livelihood of many women vendors resulting in uncertainty of
income; in some cases forcing them into unauthorized trading and harassment by the police. Controlling sea
erosion opens indirectly a number of possibilities to address existing and potential poverty. Protection of
beaches will open up a number of economic opportunities which though the project funded community
support initiatives can help to restore and improve livelihoods after the project is implemented. The project
opens possibilities to benefit disadvantaged groups, including women if local communities are involved in all
aspects of the project from an early stage. Effective community participation is a key challenge for this
project, there is presently no or very little community involvement in coastal projects.
2. Design Features
The project main objective is to provide innovative interventions to address actual or potential problems of
sea erosion in the coastal villages. These solutions will focus on soft measures such as beach rejuvenation,
dune restoration and management and geo-textile off -shore structures. The move away from the normal
hard methods of protection (i.e. rock-based groynes or sea walls) is a major feature of the project. The latter
methods are found to be not only inadequate but can in fact aggravate the erosion problem resulting in loss
of the valuable beach, which in turn affects the income of many of the stakeholder groups. The use of
innovative solutions can also facilitate the development of, or sustain tourism and also engage the
community in a wide range of activities. The types of soft solutions proposed do not require any land
acquisition and the proposed project works would not create any resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R)
problems. There may however be some temporary disruption during project implementation. The
construction of offshore reefs is largely based on imported materials, mechanical equipment and skilled
labor with limited opportunities for communities. Dune management is more labor intensive and requires
significant inputs by unskilled labor during as well as after the construction period.
Extensive consultation has been carried out during the TA and this should continue during the actual
implementation work. It is proposed to establish Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) at each site to
support the coordination and management of the project during and after implementation. At most sites
there are existing community based organization (CBO) and the proposed ‘Shoreline Management
Organizations’ will build on the existing CBO organizations. The project will provide support to establish,
train and strengthen the groups.
The Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO) will be required to take on a wide number of tasks
including;(i) controlling the access and fishing directly from the offshore reefs;(ii) supporting community-
based dune restoration and management at the some of the sites including the Colva sub project. Dune
management is an effective low cost measure to protect against minor or medium erosion risk but requires a
high level of community participation to protect the dunes and planting from damage. As part of the dune
management program the project will establish mechanisms to support the clearing and excavation of
channels for small drains (nallas). This work would create employment opportunities for low income and
women’s groups.
The involvement of the community through shoreline management is an innovative method for beach
management proposed by this project. For this purpose, the project proposes to establish and strengthen
Shoreline Management Organizations (SMO). The SMO would support community initiatives for planning,
management and environmental monitoring of erosion control and beach management work. Some
allocation of funds for community support initiatives will also be provided. These funds will available to
support community initiatives for income generation and economic development.
The utilization of several methods for erosion control as compared with the use of only physical methods
without community and other private sector involvement are some of the special design features of this
project.
Final Report
II. Social Analysis and Strategy

A. Findings of Social Analysis
The project is designed to help control sea erosion and to improve shoreline management in three Indian
states; Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka. The social situations in each state and site are different. The Ullal
sub-project site in Karnataka has about 1,275 directly affected and around 9,500 indirectly affected
households due to sea erosion. Average household size of about 6.2. Sex ratio is favorable to women.
Scheduled caste population is very small and scheduled tribes are almost non-existent here. The coastal
wards are divided between Hindu and Muslims, with certain pockets having concentration of those belonging
to one religion. Thus the community life is also predominantly around religious organizations like mosques
and temples. Literacy rate is only around 60 percent. Work participation rate among men is higher than
women. Most people work in fishery industry, services, trade, cigar making by women, etc. There is also
migration to middle-east countries in search of work and remittances too constitute a major source of
household income. The number of directly affected households in Coco (Goa) is only around 50 with about
1,250 indirectly affected households. Sex ratio is slightly unfavorable to females. The village panchayat has
only few scheduled caste households and none belonging to scheduled tribes. Literacy rate is around 90
percent. Agriculture is quite important; whilst the number of agricultural workers is very small compared to
the cultivators, farmers depend on migrant labor for most of the labor-intensive farm operations. Other
occupations and sources of income include services (tourism, trade and government jobs), fishing, and
migration (and remittances). The sea erosion in Colva and its potential impact on Colva (in Goa) can affect a
larger set of population, i.e. around 70,000 households. Their main features are not very different from that
of the affected people in Coco. However Colva attracts around one-third of the tourists coming to Goa. The
erosion in Mirya in Maharashtra affects around 450 households and 2,000 population. Indirectly the problem
of erosion can have some impact on a larger area of Ratnagiri with around 18,000 households and affects
the important fishery harbor. Sex ratio is favorable to females only in the Mirya village. Scheduled caste and
scheduled tribes constitute only a very small part of the affected population. Female literacy and work
participation rate are low compared to their male counterparts here. Agriculture is almost non-existent in the
Mirkarwada area while it has some importance in the Mirya bay. The popular mango variety called “Alfanso”
comes from the surrounding of the Mirya village. Most people in the area are involved in fishing related or in
other services and industries, either as main or marginal workers.
The similarities of the sub-project areas are that a) none of them have significant indigenous people or
ethnic minority people b) all areas have some active CBOs providing various forms of support to people c)
relationship between the community and the State Executing Agencies is weak d) coordination of erosion
control methods between all stakeholders (i.e. CBOs, private businesses and state and local government
entities) is low e) the use of information and communication materials for people awareness and education
on erosion control does not exist f) building of rock walls and other physical structures appear as the only
solution being adopted for erosion control f) the efforts on shoreline management as compared with erosion
control is not recognized and, g) the almost absence of the need for land acquisition and the resultant
resettlement of people.
The impacts of the affected people due to sea erosion include: (a) actual and potential damage to houses,
private property or industrial units (especially in Ullal); (b) reduced access to sea for fishing due to
inappropriate rock walls; (c) interference with the movement of fishing vessel including damage to gear (d)
actual (in Coco) or potential (in Colva) reduction in beach with negative impact on tourism and employment;
(e) social tension due to the fear of wave attack and the consequent need for protecting local community (f)
resources being spent on compensation of affected people in addition to the colossal investments on
building hard structures.
None of the solutions proposed under the project require any land acquisition and/or resettlement of people
elsewhere. However there may be some temporary local difficulties and inconveniences to local people
during project implementation. This require technical precautions (like marking with buoys the position of
offshore reefs), awareness of and well-coordination of project activities with the newly established Shoreline
Management Organizations.. Liaison and consultation with the project and the shoreline management
groups will reduce the impact during construction; for example to schedule the movement of trucks,
dredgers, fishing vessels as well as development of the community management initiatives (i.e. to control
the access to the area of reefs).
B. Consultation and Participation
1. Provide a summary of the participation and consultation process during project preparation
The key sub-groups of people likely to be affected by the project were identified and their locations and
characteristics noted. Representatives of the different sub-groups in each of the five sub-project sites were
consulted during project preparation. These include households and communities affected by sea erosion,
Final Report
industrial and commercial firms as well as private businesses together with their business associations,
representatives of local government entities such as village panchayat, Municipal panchayat, community
leaders, associations of stakeholders, NGOs, state agencies responsible for erosion control, etc. Field visits
covered a number of sites within each sub-project as well as sample households and businesses. Focus
group discussions were also held with representatives of various sub-groups at different points of time. This
has helped to bring to light the difficulties that they face due to sea erosion, and also their perceptions on the
proposed technical solutions. In addition, field observations also provided with the study team a lot of
insights into the problem and the proposed intervention measures. The major benefits of multiple-erosion
control methods including beach rejuvenation are: (a) reducing the likely damage of houses located very
close to sea; (b) facilitating access to shore launched fishing boats and shore based dragnet fishing; (c)
reducing the threat to tourism from beach erosion (d) and development of beach based employment
opportunities especially in the sub-project sites in Goa.
Initial consultations were at household level involving groups of affected people in and close to the sites at
risk of being damaged. Subsequent to this formal public consultations were organized by the State
Executing Agencies (SEA) where representatives of main stakeholders were present. Representatives of the
TA consultancy and the SEA presented the details of the technical proposals for each site. The
presentations included information on the merits of the proposed design in comparison with the conventional
approaches to protection. Feedback from the local communities was obtained and the concerns of the
stakeholders regarding the project design were discussed and issues explained.
2. What level of Consultation and Participation (C&P) is envisaged during Project Implementation and
Monitoring.
Key areas include:

- Information Sharing Consultation, Collaborative & Participatory Decision Making and empowerment
- Joint implementation
- Improved work coordination
3. Was a C&P Plan prepared? Yes

Different levels of consultation and participation were implemented and should continue at the different
project sites. In general, consultation with fishermen and other beach users was required to minimize their
difficulties during the construction of the projects. At the Colva site dune restoration and management are a
key component which requires a high level of stakeholder participation in the implementation as well as the
maintenance and management after completion of the investment works. For this site in particular,
mechanisms are required to actively engage the local communities together with the local businesses and
governments to participate in dune management program. At Coco, there can be a mechanism by which the
private hotelier/restaurant and private guest houses and, the fishery union participate in the project after
implementation. For this the hotelier, shack owners and the fishery union would collaborate for the
maintenance of the created assets as necessary. In places where beaches are rejuvenated, or offshore
reefs are planned, the plans for community management, especially to avoid fishing very close to reef, etc.
are planned. There are positive indications from CBOs and private firms in Ullal, Karnataka and the Fishery
co-operatives in Karnataka and Maharashtra about their interest in being involved in the plan and its
implementation. Continued consultation with the CBOs and private businesses are a key part of the project
implementation. At the Ullal site in Karnataka consultations will continue to ensure the maximum
participation of CBOs, private businesses, and business associations together with the local government
entities. The consultation plan for Mirya bay, Maharashtra includes and will continue to include gram
panchayat, Town Municipal Council, fishery co-operatives and the government implementing agencies.
C. Gender and Development

1. Key Issues
The sub-projects in themselves will not cause any specific gender issues. There are however a number of
gender issues in the coastal communities; these mainly relate to the limited employment and economic
opportunities for women. The development of coastal protection and management programmes will create a
number of economic opportunities some of which would have direct and indirect benefits to women in the
project areas. For example protection and restoration of the beaches at Coco and Colva in Goa will increase
the number of tourists which in turn will open opportunities for vendors.
At Mirya Bay beach erosion has reduced of the landings of fish catch by artisanal fishermen who land their
boats on the beach. The regeneration of the beach will open up fishing and tourist opportunities which in
turn will open up opportunities for women’s participation. Desilting of the fishing harbor will improve the
access by fishing boats which will in turn increase the opportunities for fish processing.
The livelihood of women among fishers' families at Ullal, Karnataka state, employed in fish oil processing
Final Report
units or selling fish at local market is at stake due to beach erosion, while the housewives of families along
Ullal's coastal wards are concerned about the safety of their homes. Erosion protection will ensure the
factories remain operational and shoreside homes will no longer be at risk.
At the Colva project a key component is the implementation of dune protection and management.
Maintenance groups will be established to plant and manage the dunes which are very suitable activities for
women’s groups. Fish sales and processing are key activities of women and the positive benefits of the sub
projects on fishing will be of direct benefit to women’s livelihood, particularly those selling fish either locally
or at wholesale markets, such as in Mirya Bay and Ullal. At Ullal some women are employed at the fish oil
processing factories. The increased security from erosion protection will allow families to be assured of the
safety of their homes which will, in turn, support improved quality of life.
In Coco and Colva beaches of Goa the women vendors need to be supported by various methods to
improve their level of income. There is also a requirement to improve the status of women who are in many
cases work as unlicensed hawkers. Measures to support this have to be devised including erection of
temporary stalls near the beaches or approach to the hotels. This is a matter to be considered by the local
government, the NGOs and the community which will resolve the issue of livelihood of many poor and
migrant families as well as portray an untarnished image of Goa's attractive beaches to the tourists.
2. Key Actions
Presently there is no gender specific action carried out as part of the coastal protection works. It is proposed
for the new project to establish gender as a component of the project. The initial work should focus on
The empowerment or participation of women in decision-making process. The women will need to be
motivated and trained for taking active role in dune protection, management and plantation which will also
build the capacity of the local people as well as the CBOs and NGOs in the project area. Women’s
participation in the Shoreline Management Organizations is a key requirement.
III. Social Safeguard Issues and Other Social Risks

Issue Significant/ Strategy to Address Issue
Limited/ No Impact
Involuntary Resettlement No Impact None of the technical solutions proposed for controlling
sea erosion require any land acquisition or resettlement of
people. The projects will be either be carried out offshore
(offshore reefs) or on the shore itself (in the case of dune
management). The purpose of erosion control is to protect
the land but also reclaim lost beach area from the sea. At
the Colva site the dune restoration and planting will on
reclaimed area will be undertaken by CBOs and there will
be no resettlement impact.
Indigenous People No impact None of the settlements in the subprojects have any
indigenous people or ethnic minority groups. People who
would benefit from controlling sea erosion have only a
handful of scheduled caste/tribal households who have
largely been fully integrated with the mainstream
population.
Labor Limited Impact The construction of the offshore reefs has a low
requirement for labor (any requirement will largely be for
skilled labor).
Medium Impact for Dune restoration and management and planting does open
dune restoration scope for use of unskilled labor using the local community
and management. groups. This helps income generation in the communities;
help improve their economic standard and reduce poverty
to some extent. The implementation plan will be prepared
in consultation with CBOs and will include provision as far
as possible to employ local people through their
organizations.
Core labor standards (including safety) will be included in
contract clauses. Dune restoration, tree planting, etc. will
be undertaken by local people.
Affordability No impact There are no significant issues of affordability since no

services are expected to be provided for which user
charges can be levied.
Final Report
Other Risks or Limited Impact

Vulnerability
IV. Monitoring and Evaluation
Are social indicators included in the design and monitoring framework to facilitate monitoring of social
development activities during project implementation? Yes
Final Report
Appendix 12
SUMMARY INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATIONS (SIEE)
A. Introduction
19. In accordance with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) guidelines, initial environmental
examinations (IEE) were carried out as part of the project preparatory technical assistance (PPTA) for
the Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management Investment Program. The IEEs assessed all
aspects of the environmental implications of the specific loan interventions and identified.
20. Initial environmental examinations (IEEs) were prepared for each of the four subproject
proposed for funding under Tranche 1. Environmental assessments of the subprojects were discussed
with the MoEF who concurred that being soft solutions aimed at restoration of damaged beaches the
environmental impacts would be minimal and likely to involve only minor temporary issues. Overall the
subproject will have positive impacts on the environment including the reversal of damage to the
beaches and coastal processes caused by previous interventions. There may be some temporary
impacts during construction but these would be quite minimal and of short duration. It was therefore
agreed to classify the Tranche 1 subprojects as Category B. Initial Environmental Examinations have
been completed for the four subprojects proposed.
B. Environmental Conditions for the Investment Project Areas
21. All Indian maritime states and union territories are subject to varying degrees of coastal
erosion. About 26% of the country’s mainland coastline, extending almost 1,450 km, is prone to
erosion. Around 20-25% of India’s population lives within 50 km of the coast, and of this, 70% of the
people live in rural areas. The traditional fishing communities are the dominant groups depending on
the sea for their livelihood.
22. The rural poor coastal communities are the most exposed to the hazardous impacts of
erosion. Dependency on the coastal resources, lack of alternative livelihood and destitution draw them
to the coastline despite threats from the sea. Coastal erosion hits such communities hardest since it
destroys their property and disrupts their livelihood. The impact of climate change and associated sea
level rise is likely to aggravate coastal erosion even further (ADB, 2007). The coastlines of these
three states on the west coast of India have significant erosion problems. The National Coastal
Protection Project (NCPP) proposals in 2001 identified that of the 1100 km of coastline, about 530 km
are prone to erosion and 330 km require protection. The existing practice of coast protection involves
rock walls (revetments) mainly formed by dumping rocks of mixed sizes (rip rap). The cost of solutions
based on rock protection, mainly revetments, from the NCPP is estimated to be about US$250million.
The real extent of the problem is difficult to assess.
C. Summary of Initial Environmental Examinations Prepared for Subprojects
23. Subproject Description – Key features of the subproject are summarized in Table 29.
Final Report
Table 29: Summary of Scope of Principle Works for Subprojects

Item Mirya Bay Coco Beach Colva Beach Ullal Coast & Inlet
Maharashtra - Karnataka -
Location North Goa South Goa
Ratnagiri District Mangalore
Coastal Erosion Beach Coastal Erosion and
Beach Restoration
Subproject Type and Restoration management Inlet Improvement
Project
Project project Project
8,000 m Bay
6,500 m – Utorda,
and Beach area 1,500 m shoreline – 6,000 m study area –
Command Area 2 Majorda and
– 10 km inc. 1,000 m offshore 3,500 m Ullal Beach
Colva
inland areas
Nature and scope of The Restoration of Dune
coastal construction the beach by Restoration The shortening
protection/restoration of one sand retention and and repair of the
and management Submerged between two Management – southern
Offshore submerged reef over the whole breakwater by
Geotextile structures. length of the 110m - allowing
Reef; and Beach project 6,500 m sand by-passing
nourishment with Dune to the south
Beach sand by way of Restoration
Nourishment 220 m extension
deposition of with Geotubes to the south-west
Scheme. suitable material – Utorda and of the north
from dredge Majorda breakwater;
spoils. Beaches smoothly curved
Ancillary (600m) and aligned south-
enhancement of Offshore Reef west to allowing
fishery – Colva Beach natural sand by-
productivity in Creek (Nalla) pass.
the bay by training
creating a reef- Beach
based food web. Nourishment
Scheme; 1.2
million cubic
meters at the
northern end of
Ullal beach.
The construction
of three offshore
multi-purpose
artificial soft reefs
(M-ASR’s) to hold
the proposed
nourishment in
place.
D. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
24. Based on the initial environmental assessment of each of the subproject areas, the following
impacts and mitigation measures have been summarized for the Investment Program.
Final Report
Table 30: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation Measure
A. Construction Phase
Physical Environment
Nourishment of the beaches – sediment balance and Degradation of water bodies should not occur,
littoral transport interruptions although temporary turbidity is to be expected during
nourishment and pumping (filling of geotextile bags).
Visual observations at all stages of implementation;
before, during and post nourishment. Substantial
change initially in the texture, colour and behaviour
to be expected yet should be monitored closely. In
order to understand the sediment transport regular
samples can be taken at intervals along the beach
and grain size analysis carried out post nourishment.
Alterations in the littoral and offshore sediment
transport system should be understood and
monitored through the use of Total station beach
surveys and where necessary, offshore
hydrographic echo-sounding surveys.
Simple observations of sediment migration along the
coastline can be made visually without need for
expensive technology.
Quality of sediments have been tested and are
acceptable.
Construction of Submerged Offshore Geotextile Reefs Dust emissions from the construction site are to be
– Land construction site namely Airborne Dust, Air visually monitored. halt work during excessive
Pollution and Noise onshore winds. verbal social complaints should be
delt with immediately and efficiently. Dust
suppression can be achieved by regular sprinkling.
The use of dust masks are to be encouraged.
Air pollution is not expected to be eccessive but an
increase in exhaust fumes is to be expected. kept to
a minimum, engines and generators should be
turned off when not in use. All vehicals used in
construction will be filled with silencers and servicing
of all construction vehicals and machienery will be
done regularly and during routine servicing
operations. Any defective equipment should be
replaced immediately
Regular monitoring of sound levels surrounding the
project site; kept to a minimum, the contractor will
ensure daily checks are made to improve excessive
noise especially out of daylight hours. Complaints
regarding noise should be delt with profesionally and
with respect
Construction of Submerged Offshore Geotextile Reefs Visual observations and regular checks should be
– Offshore construction site namely made into visible abnormalities
Changes in current, wave and water level
parameters are to be accessed using regular
hydrodynamic surveying techniques in order to
understand the oceanographic environment
Current patterns are important in driving sediment
transport.
Understanding possible erosion and accretion
regions before, during and post-construction is a
crucial aspect of the project implementation and
success.
Water Quality Neither fresh nor saline water bodies will be
interrupted or obstructed where unnecessary, or
allowed to deteriorate from original condition
Where any serious environmental contamination is
suspected samples should be taken and analyzed
accordingly (chemical or physical)
Discharges are unlikely to be made due to the
nature of the proposal. If there are accidental spills
contingency plans should be initiated immediately
Final Report
Biological Environment
Nourishment of the beaches – smothering
Ecosystem monitoring is possible through benthic
analysis and visual monitoring of the surrounding
environments. The contractor will work closely with the
EMC in order to minimize the impact to local
ecosystems
Social, Economic and Cultural Environment
Local economy; Fish catches from traditional fishing, Fishery statistics
Value of catches, Fish landings and value from Local investment
commercial fishing.
Regular Panchayat meetings to discuss social and
The proposed submerged reefs some disturbance to environmental concerns as they arise
the navigation of fishing boats may be expected
Tourist visitation: local/foreign Tourism statistics

Regular Verbal Checks
B. Planning and Management Phases
Physical Environment
Change in effectiveness of retention structures/ Evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the
Geotextile Reefs Offshore Reefs through Hydrographic surveys
(Echo sounding), Beach surveys (Total station
surveys) and regular Visual Observation/ Checks
Success of Storm Buffer – namely increased beach Hydrographic survey – Echo sounding, land based
formed topographic surveys
Tide gauges – Current Profiler/ADCP
Weather stats – local Met Office
Wave buoy records – Available in some regions only
Other impacts to be observed through Panchayat
and stakeholder meetings
Visual Observations
Biological Environment
Land/Onshore Habitats Any disturbance to local habitats should be rectified
before the contractor leaves the site. Planting and
therefore stabilization of the environment,
replacement of any native plant species should be
attempted where possible. Trees that have been
removed for land based works can be replanted or
reforestation activities should be initiated
Coastal Habitats Coastal habitats to be closely monitored through
daily visual checks conducted from the beach,
dunes and shoreline. Records of the reaction of
various habitats will be invaluable for future
nourishment projects at the site and across India. It
is expected that initial effects will be severe but
recovery will be rapid.
Fishermen Fishermen may benefit from enhanced catches in
the long-run, provided the system is managed in a
responsible manner.
E. Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ)
25. CRZ maps have been prepared in order to highlight regions in which regulations may apply to
individual sub-projects.
26. Areas of particular concern to this project are CRZ I, between LTL and HTL, and CRZ-III, area
above the HTL to 200 m inshore. Since the proposed sub-project designs are either below the low tide
line (LTL) or part of a greater shoreline protection and management scheme then activities are
deemed permissible in reference to certain notifications. The environmental studies by CMFRI reveals
that none of the subproject areas are an ecologically sensitive area, as per the definitions of CRZ-I (i)
and the disturbances caused by the project implementation are short term, and not tampering with the
ecological resilience of the area.
27. The projects will be submitted to the State CRZ authorities for clearance.
Final Report
F. Public Consultation
28. Public consultation and disclosure was completed during the project preparatory TA in each of
the subproject areas. Individual subproject stakeholder meetings held for the purpose of disseminating
the proposed project designs at three critical stages of the project;(i) initial discussions and draft
proposal,(ii) interim stage during the design stage and (iii) and the final draft stage. Break-out groups
proved useful in discussing the particulars of the designs and enabling individuals to question and
debate. Stakeholder’s views and concerns have been taken into account, assessed by the PPTA and
incorporated into the proposed designs. The specifics of these meetings are given in the subproject
feasibility reports and individual IEE reports that have been prepared. Public participation and
inclusion will be an important aspect in the continuation of the subproject implementation and
continued stakeholder meetings should be held during every stage of the Investment Program.
Community based Shoreline Management Organizations to be established at an early stage.
G. Institutional Arrangements
29. The State Executing Agencies (SEA) will be the Maharashtra Maritime Board, Goa Water
Resources Department and the Karnataka Public Works Departments. The Ministry of Water
Resources (MoWR) will be the National Coordination Agency (NCA) and will have the responsibility for
the project to the National Government.
30. Based on the IEE and stakeholder consultation, ADB and Government of India guidelines a
Environmental Assessment and Review Framework (EARF) is proposed for the subprojects. The
EARF is described in detail in supplementary appendix M.
31. The overall responsibility for environmental monitoring and management will be the PMU in
each state. The staffing of the PMU includes representatives from the State Implementing Agencies as
well as staff from the State Environment Agencies as well as the representatives from the State CRZ
committee. PMU will include representatives from the Office of Panchayats, Local District Council and
the Panchayat who will be responsible for the establishment of the shoreline management
organizations (SMO)
32. The PMU will directly hold a support budget to engage specialist and survey staff from
National Institutes or from the private sector to provide technical support, monitoring and field surveys
as required. The support budget will be funded from GOI funds as well as from the project loan funds.
33. A senior environmentalist will be assigned to each PMU to coordinate all the environmental
aspects of the subprojects. The environmentalist will be recruited or will be seconded from the State
Environment Departments. The tasks of the environmentalist will include (i) to support the preparation
of environmental assessments (IEE or EIA) for the tranche 2 and 3 subprojects,(iii) supporting the
process of environmentalist clearances for all the subprojects (ii) supporting the implementation of the
Environment Management Plans for all the subprojects.
34. Environmental monitoring will be organized through the Environmental Management

Committee (EMC). The EMC shall be convened by the SEA the SEAs shall be key as an intermediary
of matters between the EMC, stakeholders, local community and the contractor.
35. A total budget of $322,000 of the loan funding has been assigned for monitoring and
evaluation including environmental monitoring and management. In addition funds have been made
available for training of the Environmental Management Committees through the training program.
Provision for the Tranche 2 and 3 environmental assessments have been included as part of the
design consultancies. The required budgets for environmental monitoring for each subproject have
been identified as part of the IEE
36. The foremost requirement of the EMC is to provide a platform for all stakeholders to meet
regularly, discuss and resolve issues. The outputs of the meetings will be directed at the removal of
obstructions that may impede progress of the project implementation. The Environment Management
Committee will consist of members from the community and other stakeholders in the project.
37. A respected community leader will be the chairperson of this committee. The place of meeting
will be a convenient location accessible with ease to all ‘resource use’ categories including the
Final Report
grassroots level. This committee will meet at intervals of one month during the preparation and
implementation of the project. A formal awareness program will establish a foundation for functioning
of the EMC. It will include:
(i) Changing the way that coastal protection is perceived;

(ii) Understanding the site, functions and impacts of the available coastal protection and
management options;
(iii) Viewing coastal protection as investment in a valuable asset base; explore potential
for generating the maximum possible returns from the investments (e.g. community
income generation activities);
(iv) Adopting a systematic approach based on long-term planning and action;
(v) To create understaning that environmental impacts need to be well predicted and
taken seriously at the planning stages;
(vi) Early interventions can be more cost effective;
(vii) Interventions are maintained and sustained; and
(viii) The IEE, the EMP and the monitoring aspects have to be well understood and
modified as necessary to acquire mutual cooperation.
38. The learning component will derive substantially from both the functioning of the EMC and
from participatory monitoring. The monitoring will include a technical component which will provide
scientific information to the EMC. All monitoring tasks will be assigned accordingly to an appropriate
technical agencies. The PMU will be responsible for the engagement of an appropriate technical
agency to carry out the technical activities; the organisation could be a state or national institute or
private organisation. The PMU through direct government funds and loan funds finance the technical
suport organisation. The PMU will provide funds for functioning of the EMC and monitoring activities
based upon a budget request to be submitted by the EMC.
39. A community/stakholder based shoreline management organisation will be established at an

early stage to take on the responsibility and management of the completed project..
Final Report
Appendix 13
SUMMARY OF CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING PROGRAM
A. Introduction
1. Development of capacities of the institutions to meet the long term needs of sustainable
coastal protection and management is one of the key project objectives. Significant requirements for
institutional and capacity development have been identified at National, State, District and Panchayat
levels. The requirements are described in more detail in Supplementary Appendix C.
2. The coastal zone presents many complex issues and it is apparent that there are extremely
few Government personnel with training or significant experience of the coastal processes or related
skills in coastal engineering, environment, social or community development. A key project objective is
to instigate a significant change in philosophy and approach to coastal protection and management;
this requires to be supported by a well planned and managed integrated training program.
3. The proposed training program is designed to be complementary with the many activities
being implemented as part of the planning and investment program which will form the basis of a
number of case studies for the training.
B. Detailed Institutional Review and Training Needs Assessments
The training program prepared under the PPTA is a preliminary plan and requires to be developed into
a detailed plan based on a detailed review and training needs assessment to be implemented as part
of the loan program. The preparation of a detailed review, training needs and development of the
training material is an important part of the terms of the reference of the project consultants.
C. Training Levels
4. Two separate levels of training are proposed. (i) Central Level Training and (ii) State Level
Training.
(i) Central level training will be organized through the CWC and CWPRS with funding through
the Technical Assistance Program, the central level training would include some participation
of staff from the maritime states outside the three loan states; a key requirement to ensure
that there is nationwide forum when addressing issues of strategy and policy.
(ii) State level training would be complementary to the central level training; it would be restricted
to the representatives from the three loan states with funding under the loan. Other states
could potentially organize similar programs through alternative funding sources.
D. Central Training
5. National level training is directed at senior level staff from central government, the three loan
states as well as other maritime states and union territories. The central training is directed at (i)
development of strategies, policies as well supporting the processes of institutional change and
effecting greater horizontal coordination and (ii) support the establishment of a cadre of ‘Coastal
Trainers’ to provide training to state and district officials. The training of trainers course would be held
at CWPRS-trainers would be identified and selected from the states or institutes from experienced
professionals with extensive background, training and experience in coastal protection and
management. The ‘Coastal Trainers’ would be utilized to support other training programs under the
central and state training programs. Central training would be supported by the Institutional
Development and Change Management Consultants (IDCMC)
E. State Level Training
6. State level training will be restricted to the three loan states. There are advantages of
combined training for the three states and it is proposed that state level training would in most cases
be held regionally (i.e. at a centre within one of the three states or other agreed centre (e.g. CWPRS).
Final Report
The state level training would be supported by the Project Management and Design Consultants
(PMDC)
F. Trainers
7. There is a limited number of national personnel with experience is soft technologies for coastal
protection and management. To fill this gap will initially require some recruitment of short term
trainers/consultants from overseas. By year 3 it is planned that sufficient national coastal trainers
would be identified and trained who could form an effective training resource for training in the three
loan as well as the other states.
G. Long term Sustainability of the Training
8. For most courses trainees will be nominated from the relevant National, State and District
agencies. Rotation of Government staff to other department potentially represents a major loss and
inefficiency of the training programs. State and national level agencies should develop a strategy to
ensure the long term effectiveness of training and how nominations of candidates for training could
most effectively continue to support the coastal programs. It is also proposed that some training
places would be allocated to selected candidates from the communities and private sector.
H. Summary Training Program
A summary of the training program is given in Table 31 below. The various training programs and the
participation of the various groups is shown in Figure 17 below.
The outline schedule and linkages with the technical investment program and the consultancies is
given in Figure 18.
Table 31: Summary of the Training Program

Description Target Trainers Details
A Central Training
1 Coastal Management Policy and Senior staff from International and 24 trainees, 4
Planning. Training and development of a Central and all national specialists number 5 day
working group to formulate coastal policy maritime states courses over
and planning. years 1 to 5.
2 Training of Trainers for Sustainable Carefully selected National and 40 trainees 10-
Shoreline Planning and Design (TOT) at personnel with international 15 day course to
CWPRS Establishment of a cadre of coastal training specialists be repeated
‘Coastal Trainers’ to support coastal and experience. twice over yrs 1
management training at state and district to 4.
levels.
3 Sustainable Shoreline Planning and State level officials ‘Coastal Trainers’ 10 day course to
Design (at CWPRS) Intensive course from loan and from TOT above be repeated four
focusing on participative shoreline other states. times over yrs 1
planning and management, use of to 5.
appropriate soft technologies.
4 Exposure Visits to Other Countries- Selected officials Host countries would 10 day visit in
visits to examine experiences in coastal primarily from 3 provide trainers and year 1
protection and management-exposure to loan states and guides
soft solutions. Central
Government
5 Central Level Coordination and Various workshops Various As required

Training Workshops and training
Final Report
Description Target Trainers Details
B. STATE LEVEL TRAINING
1 Training and Development of State and PMU Trainers and GIS/ Two courses in
Management Information Systems and staff responsible database specialists year 1 and year
GIS. Training of key Government staff at for MIS 4
state level in the objectives, design and
management of the MIS.
2 Project Management and Monitoring PMU and other Trainers to be Course repeated
Project management training to meet state officials identified every two years
project objectives.
3 Management of the Shoreline Training for Environmental, Training at sub

community based management, social Environmental community project locations,
and economic opportunities, value of the Management management -short
shoreline, environmental management. Committees, specialists and intermittent
Training and support to establish shoreline Shoreline ‘coastal trainers’ training.
management organization Management
Organizations and
other community
groups.
4 Coastal Management Training at Technical staff and National and Times, duration
International and National Institutes officials from loan International to be defined
Specialist training in key coastal topics in states Institutes
India and overseas, exposure visits
overseas for technical staff.
5 Integrated Shoreline Planning and District Officials, PMU staff, ‘Coastal Various as
Management for State, District and SEA and other Trainers’ from TOT required
Panchayat Training to support the from state working above
preparation of shoreline management groups.
plans, Approaches to participative and
integrated planning
6 ADB Project Management and PMU staff ADB specialist staff Various topics
Procurement Procedures are per
requirements
Final Report
Figure 17: Training Participants

Central Level Training(funded by TA
Training Course Details State Level Training (funded by loan) grant)
Pan
chayat Central Other
Commu and Loan Govt Other key Loan Maritime
Title Details nity District States Other CWC agencies States States
Senior level management training,

led discussion groups, identifying
Coastal Management issues and weaknesses-output
C1 Planning and Policy strategy and policy √ √ √ √
Wide spectrum technical,
environmental, institutional issues, Training of a cadre coastal trainers-
training techniques-located at candidates to be highly qualified and
CWPRS-output cadre of high quality experienced and selected nationally
C2 Training of Trainers 'coastal trainers'
Intensive wide spectrum coastal

Sustainable Shoreline management training to held at
C3 Planning and Design CWPRS-training by 'coastal trainers' √ √
Exposure visits to other Exposure to alternative soft solutions
C4 countries for coastal protection √ √ √ √
Central level coordination Workhsops to address specific

C5 and training workshops issues √ √ √ √
Training and Development Also CWC

of Management Training in database design and & MoEF
S1 Information Systems management, computer skills √ staff
Project Management and Project management skills required Other as

S2 Monitoring to meet project objectives √ √ appropriate
Training and development for

Community management Shoreline Management
S3 of the shoreline Organisations √
Coastal Management Specialist training in key coastal
Training at International/ topics in India and overseas,
National Institutes- exposure visits overseas for
S4 exposure visits technical staff. √
Include
Parallel training to support the other
preparation of shoreline shoreline
Integrated Shoreline management plans. Support for stakeholder
S5 Planning and Management stakeholder participation √ s
Various workshops to address

Project workshops and project implementation and coastal Also CWC
S6 training issues √ √ and MoWR
Final Report
Figure 18: Training Program and Linkages to the Consultancies
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
TRANCHE 1
TRANCHE 2
TRANCHE 3
Technical and
T1 Subproject Implementation
Investements
Shoreline Mang. Plans/ Information systems

T2 Plan/Design T2 Implementation
T3 Plan/Design T3 Implementation
Asses
sment
Central Level
& plan
Over
Trainers
Training
Training
seas
visits
of
Central level training
Asses
sment
Training
&
State
plan
State Level Training
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN CONSULTANCY

Project Management Support
Support for Effective Institutions
Planning and Design (Task)
Planning and Design Support
Consultancies
Support for Sub Project Implementation
PLANNING AND DESIGN SUPPORT CONSULTANTS

Planning and Design
Implementation support
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS
Institutional
assessment
Central level training & training of trainers

Strategies,policy & institut. change
Final Report
Appendix 14
OUTLINE SCOPE OF CONSULTANCIES
A. Summary
1. The project consultancies have been designed to: (i) effectively manage and implement the
project to ensure timely delivery and the highest possible quality of outputs; (ii) to identify plan design
and implement appropriate and sustainable solutions; and (iii) to develop the capacities and
institutions to effectively plan and manage the shorelines
2. Establishing the capacities for effective planning and design for sustainable coastal protection
and management is a fundamental requirement and presents a serious challenge to the project. To
ensure an effective transition with minimal risk a fairly high component of international consultants is
proposed.
3. Package A - Project Management and Design. Consultant will include project management
as well as planning and design activities. The consultant will be directly responsible for the planning
and design activities for the second tranche projects in year 1 and 2. From year 3 the consultancy will
change to a role to support and supervision of national planning and design support consultancies
(Package B). This is approach is designed to help develop and support the buildup of national level
capacities for shoreline planning and management.
4. It is proposed to tender the Project Management and Design Consultancy as separate

contracts for each state but arrange the tender evaluations so that a single consulting organization is
appointed for the three states. This will allow improved coordination between the states as well as
significant cost savings.
5. Package B - Planning and Design Support. Consultants will take on the role of planning and
design of sub projects during year 3. The terms of reference and the final requirements for this
consultancy will be defined once the type and scope of the Tranche 3 funded projects are defined.
6. Package C - Institutional Development and Change Management Consultancy.(funded

by the TA Grant) The development of policy, institutional change and capacity building must be
initiated at Central Government level. A separate consultancy is proposed to support the Central
Water Commission achieve these objectives. The consultants will work primarily with the Central
Water Commission (CWC). Working through the CWC the consultancy will address issues in the three
loan states as well as the remaining coastal states and union territories.
7. To ensure the maximum impact and flexibility of training the training budgets will be managed
by the Package A and Package C consultants. These will be as ‘provisional sums’. Requests for
expenditure would be approved and reimbursed through the PMU. The consultants would pre-finance
the training activities with reimbursement against approved expenditures.
8. A summary of the three consultancy packages are shown in Table 32. Detailed information on
the inputs and estimated costs are given in Supplementary Appendix P.
Final Report
Table 32: Summary of the Proposed Consultancy Packages

Package A - International Project Management and Design Consultant (PMDC)
A total of 726 person-months (p-m) of a multidiscipline consultancy; including 115 p-m of international consultant and
611 p-m of national consultants. Of this package 363 p-m would relate to project management and 363 p-m relating
to the planning, design and supervision work. Each state would have its own consultancy contract; however to
provide continuity for the three states as well as cost savings recruitment will be arranged to ensure a single
consulting organization is recruited for the three states. Costs would be apportioned to each state according the
required inputs for each state. The project management and design consultant would be initially be engaged for three
years, with a second stage for five years starting in year 3.
For years 1 and 2 the PMDC would be fully responsible for planning and design activities. From year 3 the PMDC
planning and design role would gradually change to the supervision of nationally recruited planning and design
support consultancies. A key output of the project will be to build up the national capacities for planning and design of
coastal protection and management through the private sector as well as the state and national Institutions.
An international team leader would coordinate the activities for years 1 to 3, from year 4 one of the National
consultants would take on the team leader role.
Package B - Planning and Design Support Consultancies (PDSC)
A total 284 p-m of National Consultants with 29 p-m of supporting international experts. Starting in year 2 these
consultants would be recruited by each of the SEA for specific planning, modeling and designs support specific
projects under Tranche 3. The scope of works and TOR for these consultancies would be tailored to meet the specific
requirements. The package B consultancies are designed to develop national level private sector capacities in
coastal planning and design through the implementation of actual planning and design assignments.
Package C Institutional Development and Change Management Consultants(IDCC)-funded by the TA

A total 73 p-m of National Consultants with 7 p-m of supporting international experts. This consultancy will provide
support to the management of training and institutional change. The consultants would be contracted directly by the
Central Water Commission (CWC) and would run from 36 months from year 1 to year 4. This consultancy would
support institutional development in CWC and help strengthen the coordination and linkages with other ministries.
The consultancy would support the central training program for the states including training and institutional support
to the other maritime states.
B. Outline Terms of Reference for International Project Management and Design

Consultants (Package A Tranche 1)
1. General
The International Project Management and Design Consultant (PMDC) will be responsible for the
project management, planning and design activities. The full consultancy would run for a total of 96
months 2010 to 2017. The stage 1 would be for 36 months from month 1 to month 36 of the project.
The required consulting services are summarized in Table 33 below. To ensure a coordinated and
integrated approach it is proposed that a single consultancy company would be recruited, there would
however be separate contracts with each state-Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka;
Table 33: Project Management & Design Consultancy Inputs (Tranche 1)
Total Maharashtra Goa Karnataka

Position Person Months
A. International
1 Team Leader 26.00 11.70 2.60 11.70
2 Institutional Development Specialist 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.35
3 Coastal Planning Consultant/design engineer 11.00 4.95 1.10 4.95
4 Coastal modeler 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05
5 Construction Specialist 6.00 2.70 0.60 2.70
6 Environmentalist 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.35
7 Community Planning/social Specialist 5.00 2.25 0.50 2.25
8 Economist 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.35
9 Tourism Specialist 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90
10 PPP Specialist 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90
11 Unspecified specialists as required 4.00 3.60 0.80 3.60
Subtotal International 74.00 35.10 7.80 35.10
Final Report
B. National
Coastal Engineer/Project Manager (1 for each
1 state) 108.00 36.00 36.00 36.00
2 Institutional Specialist 7.00 3.15 0.70 3.15
3 Coastal Planner 18.00 8.10 1.80 8.10
4 Coastal modeler 11.00 4.95 1.10 4.95
5 Construction Management Specialist 12.00 5.40 1.20 5.40
6 Assistant Coastal Engineers 36.00 16.20 3.60 16.20
7 Land Use/GIS Specialist 6.00 2.70 0.60 2.70
8 PPP Enterprise specialist 4.00 1.80 0.40 1.80
9 Community Planning/social Specialist 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05
10 Environmentalist 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05
11 Ecologist(marine science) 3.00 1.35 0.30 1.35
12 Economist 9.00 4.05 0.90 4.05
13 Water quality specialist 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90
14 Unspecified 15.00 6.75 1.50 6.75
Subtotal National 249.00 99.45 50.10 99.45
Total 323.00 134.55 57.90 134.55
2. Scope of Services
9. Part I: Project Management Support. The consultants will assist with the overall project
coordination through the relevant agencies at national, state, district and panchayat levels. The
consultants will work closely with the state project management units to ensure the effective and
timely delivery of the project outputs. These will include:
(i) Working with the state executing agencies, state project management units to identify
the project management needs, planning, strategies and schedules for execution.
(ii) Support the National Steering Committee, State Working Groups and District Planning
Councils with the requirements to support and guide the project implementation.
(iii) Detailing and supporting the projects strategy to support the implementation of
sustainable coastal protection and management through participative and integrated
planning and management.
(iv) Ensuring the implementation schedules reflect the envisaged integrated approach with
phasing of all the interrelated activities.
(v) Identifying the critical paths of activities and ensure that they are priority tasks are
given particular attentions
(vi) Assisting with all tasks on the critical path, and ensure these are given particular
attention. Assisting with project administration, performance and monitoring and
preparation of project reports and tender documents.
10. Part II: Support for Effective Institutions. The consultants will support the projects aims to
develop effective institutions for sustainable planning and management of the coastline. The
component includes the development of professional capacity for planning, design and management
through strengthening of the government, institutions as well as the private sector. These will include:
(i) Prepare an institutional review and assessment of the needs for sustainable coastal
protection and management. Identify the capacity and resource gaps at different levels
and identify how these could be addressed through institutional development and
capacity building. The review should include the relevant institutions and national,
state, district, panchayat and community levels.
(ii) Preparation of institutional and training needs assessments for the state and district
institutions. Prepare a detailed training plan for the state level training.
Final Report
(iii) To liaise closely with the Technical Assistance Program (‘Support for Sustainable
Strategies and Institutional Development’) to integrate the state and district level
needs with a national training and institutional development program.
(iv) Plan and work with the PMU in each state to implement the training program. Pre-
finance the training costs.
(v) Prepare a strategy for institutional strengthening and development of private sector
consultants and Government Institutes to support the planning and management of
the shorelines
11. Part III: Support for Planning and Design is directed at the preparation of long term
sustainable development plans and management for the shoreline. Project selection, detailed
feasibility studies and designs for the sub projects will also be prepared under this component. The
key tasks of the consultant will include:
16
(i) Establishment of a coastal management information system including a GIS and
supporting technical information.
(ii) Prepare participative shoreline management plans for the whole coastline of the three
states. The plans will be based on technical assessments of the coastal process and
issues. The plans will also identify potential economic opportunities for the coastal
areas. The plans will be non statutory and prepared in close cooperation of the District
Planning Authorities.
(iii) Selection, planning and design of the Tranche 2 sub projects
12. Part IV: Support for Coastal Protection and Management Projects. The consultants will
provide management and supervision support for the sub projects including the provision of the
specialist support for the offshore geotextile reefs.
C. Outline Terms of Reference for Planning and Design Support Consultancies (Package
B Tranche 1)
1. Introduction
13. The Planning and Design Support Consultancies (PDSC) are proposed to provide technical
support to the main consultants in key areas, as and when required. The type and scope of the
planning and sub projects design is very varied and it will be necessary to source specialist support
consultants to meet specific needs. During Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 (to a lesser extent) the PDSC
would work in a support role to the main PMDC consultancy, during Tranche 3 the PMDC would take
on the lead role for technical planning and design with the PMDC consultant working in a support role.
14. The PDSC would start in year 2 or 3 with a scope of works to be defined based on an
assessment of the requirements during year 2. The packaging of the consultancy would also depend
on the type and scope of the works; options include direct contract of individuals, or larger groups
through private consultancy companies or institutes.
2. Development of Private Sector Capacities for Planning and Design
15. The PDSC is designed to develop the capacities for planning and design at the state level;
which are presently very limited. Recruitment of the PDSC would be thorough the ADB procedures
(shopping or tender) depending on the size and type of the work; both private sector and state
institutes could participate, with selection based on both quality and cost. The main inputs would be
through national consultants however budget provision has been made to recruit international
consultants to provide specialist inputs. The objective is that by the end of the project there would be
a pool of qualified and experienced national consultants from the private sector and Government
institutes providing commercial consultancy. These consultants would provide the key support for the
16
This should build on the simple GIS developed under the PPTA
Final Report
long term needs of coastal planning and design including capacities to undertake professional and
high level numerical modeling of the coastal processes. The project would also develop and establish
effective and competitive processes for selection and recruitment of consultants.
3. Estimated Inputs
16. At this stage the inputs are only indicative. For the whole project the estimated requirements
for the PSDC are for a total of 313 pm. For Tranche 1 the proposed inputs are 49pm (33pm national
and 6pm international), A preliminary estimate of the breakdown of inputs for Tranche 1 is shown in
Table 34 below.
Table 34: Input Estimate for the Planning and Design Support Consultants (Tranche 1)
Total Maharashtra Goa Karnataka

Position Person Months
A. National
1 Coastal Planner 6 2.70 0.60 2.70
2 Coastal modeler 6 2.70 0.60 2.70
3 Design Engineer 6 2.70 0.60 2.70
Assistant Coastal Engineers (design and
4 supervision) 6 2.70 0.60 2.70
5 Land Use/GIS Specialist/Autocad 4 1.80 0.40 1.80
6 Community Planning/social Specialist 3 1.35 0.30 1.35
7 Environmentalist (coastal ecologist) 4 1.80 0.40 1.80
8 Private sector development specialist 2 0.90 0.20 0.90
9 Economist 2 0.90 0.20 0.90
10 Water quality specialist 1 0.45 0.10 0.45
11 Unspecified 3 1.35 0.30 1.35
Subtotal National 43 19.35 4.30 19.35
B. International
1 Coastal Planning Consultant/design engineer 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90
2 Coastal modeler 2.00 0.90 0.20 0.90
3 Economist 1.00 0.45 0.10 0.45
4 Unspecified specialists as required 1.00 0.45 0.10 0.45
Subtotal International 6.00 2.70 0.60 2.70
Total 49 22.05 4.90 22.05
D. Outline Terms of Reference for the Institutional Development and Change Management
Consultants (Package C)
1. General
17. The institutional Development and Change Management Consultants (IDCMC) would be
contracted by the Central Water Commission using TA grant funds proposed for the project. The
proposed inputs are shown in Table 35 below.
18. The IDCMC consultancy would start in the second part of year 1 and would continue over 36
months till year 3. The start has been scheduled to allow the state level PMDC consultant get
established and identify the institutional needs at the state level before identifying the key issues and
needs at the national level.
Table 35: Proposed Inputs for the Institutional Development and Change Management
Consultants.
Position Total pm
A National
Team Leader Institutions/ Management
1 Expert 36
2 Training Consultant 6
Final Report
3 Institutional Change Consultant 18

4 Workshop Facilitator 5
5 Technical Advisor 4
6 MIS/GIS Consultant 4
Subtotal National 73
B. International
1 Governance/ Institutional consultant 3
2 Education/ Institution consultant 2
3 Unspecified specialists as required 2
Subtotal International 7
Total 80
2. Scope of Services
19. The consultancy would support the institutional strengthening and development of the CWC
and help the coordination and linkages with the other related national ministries. The consultancy
through the CWC will identify, coordinate and address issues of long term shoreline management
strategies and the introduction of policy for all the mainland coastal areas and union territories. The
consultancy would implement a training needs evaluation using the assessment prepared in the states
as a point of reference. The consultancy would help organize and support the centralized training
program with participants from central government, the three loan states as well as the other maritime
states and union territories. The key tasks of the consultant will include:
(i) Prepare an institutional review of the related Government and non Government
agencies involved in coastal protection and management. Examine the linkages and
coordination of activities between the different agencies and ministries. Define the
present and recommend future roles and responsibilities.
(ii) In liaison with the states define the roles and requirements for the MoWR and the
CWC to best support coastal protection and management. Examine the role of the
CPDAC and develop the capacities of CPDAC to coordinate coastal management.
(iii) Prepare a review of capacities and resources of the CWC and other ministries and
departments related to coastal protection and management. Identify the gaps and how
these could be addressed. In coordination with the PMDC loan consultants plan and
organise the central training programme for selected staff. The training programme
would include high level managerial training including Coastal Management Policy and
Planning, Exposure Visits to other countries, Central Level Coordination Training and
Workshops.
(iv) The consultant would develop and implement a programme of ‘Training of Trainers’ to
create a high level cadre of ‘coastal trainers’. Once the established the training group
or cadre would support training through a series of short training courses at the state
and district level. Recruitment of coastal trainers would be from Government, institutes
and private sector. A range of skills and background would be sourced including
engineers, scientists, economists, environmental and social specialists.
(v) Through participative dialogue develop long term strategies for the management of the
coastline. Support the formalization of strategy into Government policy.

01 Ind Tacr

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Ind Tacr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Assistance Consultant's Report

INDIA: Sustainable Coastal Protection and

PPTA Final Report

TA 4965-IND: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management

The Asian Development Bank and the Government of India

ASR Marine Consulting and Research, New Zealand

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

P&IWT Ports & Inland Water Transport

I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY 1

II. THE PROPOSAL 5

III. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 5

IV. THE PROPOSED PROJECT 10

VI. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS 21

VII. RECOMMENDED ASSURANCES AND CONDITIONS 25

1. Design and Monitoring Framework 26

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIXES (separate volumes)

A. Analysis of the Coastal Sector

I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Borrower India, States of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka

Classification Targeting classification: General intervention

In parallel to the investment program the project will develop the

The project implementation has been planned based on 3 project

The National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP) estimates that 50% of

The coastline of the three states is increasingly subject to a wide range

pressures on the increasingly disturbed natural coastal environments;

The mandate for coastal erosion mitigation is typically entrusted to state

Whilst it is unlikely that the institutional system can be quickly changed

The project will effect significant changes in philosophy and approach to

The project would support the development of a number of economic

Financing Plan Source Total %

Asian Development Bank 300.0 71.9

Total 417.1 100.0

Source: PPTA Estimate - see Appendix 4 and Supplementary Appendix I for

Period of Utilization Until 31 July 2018

Estimated Project 31 March 2018

A separate parallel program to support the development of policy,

The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) through the Central Water

A third consultancy will be funded under the TA grant funding. This

II. THE PROPOSAL

III. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

A. Performance Indicators and Analysis

B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities

13. Integrated Coastal Protection and Management. Sophisticated technical methods to

IV. THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. Impact and Outcome

Figure 1: Proposed Project Impact, Outcome and Outputs

Outcome -- Protected and managed shorelines meeting the needs of

Component 1: Component 2: Component 3:

2. Component 1: Planning and Design

34. This component will be in three parts:

3. Component 2: Investments for Coastal Protection and Management

37. Sub-Component 2.1 - Physical Investment in Infrastructure: This sub-component will

4. Component 3: Effective Institutions and Project Management

40. Component 3 will be implemented as two parallel but integrated parts:

D. Project Investment Plan

Table 1: Project Investment Plan

Table 2: Financing Plan

Total 417.1 100.0

Table 3: Cost Estimates and Financing Plan for Project 1

Financing charges c 10.28 - 10.28

Total 58.37 18.07 0.16 76.60

60. Consultancy Supported by the Technical Assistance: An additional consultancy package