UNDP GEF/SGP
PROJECT BRIEF


Project Title and Number: Sensitisation and Monitoring for Permanent Mooring Buoys / MAR/98/G52/II/01

Grant Recipient: Mauritius Marine Conservation Society (MMCS)

Duration: March 2000 to March 2002 extended Dec 2002

Management Arrangement: Project Coordinator MMCS

Budget: GEF/SGP grant: MRu 457,866
Ministry of Environment MRu 44,500
Ministry of Tourism and Leisure: MRu 251,000
Mauritius Scuba Diving Association: Mru. 9,135
In kind Contribution:
MSDA: MRu 82,000
MMCS: MRu 406,000
Shoals of Capricorn Programme: MRu 106,000

Total Budget: MRu 1,356,501

Project Site: Aquarium Grand Baie and Aquarium Péreybère, lagoon around Mauritius




Background:
This project aimed to improve and protect the health of corals at specific sites by supporting the installation of permanent mooring buoys by the Ministry of Tourism and Leisure. The extent of coral degradation by boat anchors at popular snorkeling and diving sites around Mauritius has increased rapidly in the last ten years. It was proposed that successful permanent moorings would ensure that valuable lagoons and coral reef habitats are protected. The grant allocated by GEF/SGP was used for ecological monitoring of the four mooring sites at Aquarium Grand Baie and Aquarium Péreybère in the first phase of the project, as well as to conduct sensitisation campaigns to raise awareness among fishermen, diving and boat operators, community members and other stakeholders to the presence of the buoys. A survey of other proposed sites for the buoys around Mauritius was also carried out under this project as well as training of volunteers in appropriate environmental techniques so as to assist with regular monitoring of the pilot sites and subsequently with the other selected sites.




Project Aim:
Protection of valuable coastal habitats and increase in the sustainability of the tourist snorkeling and diving industry in Mauritius.

General Justification:
Sensitising boat operators, dive operators and fishermen about the damage caused to corals by careless anchorage would encourage them to use moorings where they are provided and to drop their anchor carefully where they are not. Stakeholder support of more sustainable use for snorkeling and diving sites would preserve their health and eliminate the need for operators to move on to new sites when current ones become degraded. Encouraging sustainable use of current dive sites and discouraging stakeholders from dropping their anchors on coral elsewhere in the coastal zone of Mauritius would reduce pressure on all areas of the lagoon and coral reef, therefore protecting the marine biodiversity of Mauritius. This project is based on lessons learnt and best practices from a former GEF/SGP project on ?A Rodrigues Marine Observatory? by the Rodrigues Underwater Group and is an upgraded replication of the Rodriguan project.

Project Outputs:
· Training of a group of volunteers from MMCS, Shoals and other NGOs on environmental monitoring of coral reefs.
· Sensitisation of stakeholders in the damage caused by dropped anchors
· Sensitisation of stakeholders on use of permanent moorings
· Monitoring of coral health at the pilot permanent mooring site
· Assessment of the use of the pilot permanent moorings
· Study of 50 further sites proposed for the installation of moorings.

Status of Programme:
The project is now completed. It started soon after approval by the GEF/SGP National Steering Committee in March 2000. A complete site survey and damage assessment was carried out before beginning the project. Transects have been installed and baseline data collected on the four sites and a regular monitoring of coral reefs was carried out on those 4 sites by the NGO. Mooring Buoys have been placed at Aquarium Pereybere and Aquarium Grand Baie and monitoring was carried out. Awareness raising/capacity-building sessions have been carried out with the fisher community, dive boat operators and other stakeholders. T-shirts, posters and information leaflets on the use and importance of buoys have also been produced as sensitisation materials. A steering committee was set up by the Ministry of Tourism to manage this project. Members of this committee included Ports Authority, Mauritius Scuba Diving Association, Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment, Mauritius Oceanography Institute, MMCS and the National Coordinator UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme. This committee approved the sites proposed for the future deployment of PMBs for the follow on stage of the project.

Following cyclone Dina, the 4 buoys were lost. The choice of buoys was discussed and they were replaced by newly designed ?pencil buoys? which take into account cyclonic conditions. This design is also much cheaper and simpler.

A successful site visit to the project for stakeholders was held in June 2002. The Minister of Environment expressed his support to the extension of the project to other sites around Mauritius. Such a follow-up project was submitted to the UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme by a consortium of NGOs, the Marine Conservation Management Consortium (MCMC), and this was approved in August 2002. 89 other popular diving sites have been identified by the NGO in collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Fisheries. Permanent mooring buoys are to be installed at these sites as well in the near future. This project has been submitted for co-funding to the National Environment Fund of the Ministry of Environment.


Assessment of Lessons Learned

This report was prepared jointly by the grant recipient and the National Coordinator UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme after the completion of the project. It is based on site visits and the final report and participatory evaluation of the project.

The lessons to be learned from this project experience are discussed herewith. This report tries to be as specific, analytical, and didactic as possible. The idea here is to demonstrate how to achieve a certain objective or how to improve project and programme performance based on this project.

§ Describe the effects of this project in relation to the GEF focal areas and operational programs. Explain how the project was able to have an effect on biodiversity, climate change, or international waters. Assess the potential global benefits of this project.

§ This project aimed at protecting globally threatened coral reef through physical intervention in the form of placing Permanent Mooring Buoys (PMBs) on two heavily used dive sites, so as to mitigate damage to the coral by indiscriminate anchoring practices. Two sites were selected as pilot sites to study the benefit of PMBs on coral at dive sites.
§ Degradation of corals at those dive sites stopped from the moment the PMBs were installed and explained to the end-users. Regeneration though slow has been noted thus the positive impact on marine biodiversity is clear. Good coral reefs are also important as wave-breakers protecting the lagoon and sandy beaches from erosion.
§ The global benefits of this project if replicated on a large-scale are quite promising. It would mean a halt in the degradation of the coral reefs and habitat to numerous marine life forms all around the island of Mauritius.
§ The success of this project has led to the development of an extended project to deploy PMBs at sites around the island. As a small isolated oceanic island Mauritius has an important (but often forgotten) role to play in the oceanic ecosystem as well as supporting the unique near shore ecosystems associated with oceanic islands.

§ Did this project link the practice of sustainable livelihoods to a GEF focal area? Describe the strategies employed, indicating what works and what does not.

§ This project is based on sustainable use of dive sites. Dive boat operators thrive on tourism and protecting corals at dive sites is a way to ensure the sustainability of their job. If corals reefs are damaged, the habitats are destroyed and the marine biodiversity that divers seek will be gone, thus the tourists will be inclined to visit other renowned dive sites of the world.

§ The strategy was to sensitize the dive boat operators during this project as they earn a living from exploiting the riches of the sea. Sensitisation tools were chosen very carefully and consisted of small user-friendly brochures both in English and French, T-Shirts and training sessions. Production of a training film was attempted but both time and financial constraints resulted in this effort being aborted. However footage was collected and may be used in future efforts.

§ Is this a community-driven project? How was community implementation and ownership of project achieved? How did this contribute to project success? Also indicate pitfalls and tactics to be avoided.

§ This project is more stakeholder-driven than community driven. The project was recognised by the stakeholders as being an important issue for their future livelihoods and provided a wide range of support for the project. Their support for the project was imperative to its success, in logistical support and demonstrating to the Government the importance of the project, leading to the expanded project being developed.

§ It must be noted that the Ministry of Tourism & Leisure was an important driver in this pilot project as it took the responsibility of calling and chairing the different working sessions under the project and involved all major stakeholders. On the other hand, this also sometimes slowed down the process because of the numerous administrative procedures (e.g., for buoy maintenance contract allocation etc.). Sometimes the NGO had to act quickly and take matters in its hands with regard to repairs to the buoys for example after cyclones etc. which was supposed to be under the responsibility of the contractor. These lessons have been taken into account while devising the full-fledged project.

§ Delays in getting Government support and funding have caused several administrative and logistical problems for the project ? including a 1-year delay in implementation. The SGP aspect of the project could not proceed until the PMBs were deployed and this was the agreed responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism.

§ Other delays occurred due to changes of personnel and lack of sufficient funding to be able to employ suitable support staff to be able to implement the project to its full potential. It is not viable that important environmental and ecological work rely entirely on volunteers. If these issues are ?globally important? then there should be sufficient funds made available to pay for the work to be done. It must be only the environment and care institutes where professional labour is expected to be donated, yet everyone expects to benefit from such labours.


§ Was there a capacity-building component in this project? How were local capacities enhanced? How did it contribute to project success?

§ Training in coral reef monitoring techniques was provided to local divers so as to collect ecological data at the pilot sites. Training was also given to personnel from the various dive centres in how to use the buoys. Discussions and meetings with fishermen were used to explain the importance of the PMBs in conserving and ultimately improving their fish stocks. The expanded project intends to concentrate more on developing this aspect, leading to the PMB sites becoming voluntary marine protected areas.


§ Has this project increased public awareness of local and global environmental problems? Describe how this was done, and whether people are making use of the new knowledge.

§ Public awareness of local environmental issues was raised through workshops and several activities that attracted important press, TV and radio coverage. Brochures were distributed to dive boat operators to be used to sensitize end-users.

§ How did women and men participate in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project? Did project proponents plan a gender focus? Or did it evolve in the course of project implementation? What are some of the issues that came up in this regard?

§ N/A

§ Was this project run by indigenous people or involve significant participation by indigenous people? In this context, discuss ethnic, cultural, and historical factors that affected project design, implementation, and results.

§ N/A

§ Does this project have a sustainability plan and/or prospects? What aspects of the project design, project implementation, or other factors enhanced sustainability? How could other projects or country programmes use this experience to promote sustainability?

§ This was a pilot project and sustainability is therefore dependent on the extension of the project to a full nationwide project. In such a case, project sustainability will be achieved through the direct involvement of the stakeholders who will maintain the PMBs, possibly through funding from the Mauritius Scuba Diving Association (MSDA) and other partners, resulting from a subscription charged to the dive centres for the maintenance of the PMBs.

§ The project design and implementation involved the major stakeholders i.e., dive boat operators, scuba-diving associations, fisher community, etc. and this in turn enhanced ownership of the project. Some dive operators are ready to maintain and look after the PMBs.

§ The project was designed first as a pilot to demonstrate whether the use of PMBs would really stop the degradation of coral reefs. The pilot project was used to test the most appropriate mooring buoy in several conditions, including cyclonic periods. It also served to test the participation of stakeholders. The same approach would be advisable in any other country as this whole process led to the selection of the most appropriate design for the buoys, the best way to achieve ownership through dive centres and it served to train several people in data collection and monitoring techniques. It served to highlight the possible problems with the fisher community and the way to solve them.

§ Did this project receive co-financing? If so, indicate sources and amounts. Which project components did the co-financing support? How was the co-financing obtained? Describe how links to other donors or agencies were made, networking strategies, and negotiations. Also indicate pitfalls and tactics to be avoided.

§ This project started with the concomitant realization of the degradation occurring at dive sites by the tourists and the Mauritian NGOs (Mauritius Scuba Diving Association, Mauritius Marine Conservation Society). Several tourists had apparently informed the Ministry of Tourism of the danger of the continuous degradation of the beautiful dive sites around the island of Mauritius. The initiator of the project is thus the Ministry of Tourism & Leisure and the MMCS on behalf of the NGOs. The Ministry of Tourism & Leisure in collaboration with the MMCS discussed the possibility of setting up permanent mooring buoys at pilot dive sites and the Ministry injected the necessary funds to set up the buoys. The UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme was approached for the data collection, training and awareness components of the project.

§ Apart from the NGOs, the other co-funding agency that also participated in this project is the Ministry of Environment, which is foreseen as a major co-financial partner for the implementation of a full-fledged project.


§ Is this project suitable for replication in other communities or regions? Could it be up-scaled to a medium-sized GEF project? Please indicate any plans in this regard.

§ This project is being proposed for replication through the extension of the project aimed at deploying PMBs around the island and providing associated support systems for this activity through sensitisation, training and ecological monitoring of the selected sites. Major funding agencies approached are the GEF Small Grants Programme and the National Environment Fund of the Ministry of Environment.

§ Were there links between this project and the overall GEF? How were these links achieved? How have they benefited the GEF/SGP? How have they benefited the GEF?

§ This project established links with the World Bank/GEF Project ?Projet regional de suivi de récifs coralliens dans le sud-ouest de L?ocean indien? and the SGP grantee has been using the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network methodology to collect data. These data have are shared with the larger GEF project. These links were achieved following a presentation on SGP projects by the SGP Unit and the grantee during a workshop organised by the Indian Ocean Commission. This enhanced collaboration between GEF/SGP, the grantee, the Coral Reef Network and the COI.


§ Has this project influenced government policy? Explain what the government policy is, how it has been affected, and the role and nature of GEF/SGP influence.

§ A site visit was organized to show the project and this resulted in a great enthusiasm for the project. It convinced the Government about the need for such permanent moorings all around the island not only outside but also inside the lagoon. The Government proposed to the NGO to submit a proposal for full-fledged implementation of the project based on lessons learned in this pilot project. This potentially indicates a shift in policy by the Government towards implementing physical infrastructure environmental projects by NGOs. However it remains to be seen how long this will take to come to fruition.