Republic of Indonesia

Coastal Community Development Project

Project completion report

Main report and appendices

Mission date: 1-13 October 2017

Document Date: 26-Jun 2018
Project No. 1100001621
Report No: 4803-ID

Asia and the Pacific Division

Programme Management Department

This document will be publicly disclosed unless there is written dissent on its disclosure by the Borrower at the
time of this document submission to IFAD or no later than the project closing date.
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Contents
A. Introduction 1
B. Project description 2
B.1. Project context 2
B.2. Project objectives 2
B.3. Implementation modalities 3
B.4. Target groups 4
C. Assessment of project relevance 4
C.1. Relevance vis-à-vis the external context 4
C.2. Internal logic 5
C.3. Adequacy of design changes 8
D. Assessment of project effectiveness 8
D.1. Physical targets and output delivery 8
D.2. Project outcomes and impacts 10
D.3. Targeting and outreach 15
D.4. Innovation, replication and scaling-up 15
E. Assessment of project efficiency 18
E.1. Project costs and financing 19
E.2. Quality of project management 21
E.3. Quality of financial management 23
E.4. Partners' performance 24
E.5. Quality of supervision and implementation support 25
E.6. Project internal rate of return 26
F. Assessment of sustainability 28
G. Lessons learned and knowledge generated 31
H. Conclusions and recommendations 32

i
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Appendices
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of the completion review mission 35
Appendix 2: List of person met and mission's programme 39
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix 41
Appendix 4: Project logical framework 49
Appendix 5: Dates of supervision mission and follow-up missions 59
Appendix 6: Summary of amendments to the financing agreement 61
Appendix 7: Actual project costs 63
Appendix 8: Physical progress table 69
Appendix 9: RIMS data 71
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis) 73
Appendix 11: Environmental assessment (detailed analysis) 93
Appendix 12: Stakeholder workshop findings 95
Appendix 13: Final wrap-up meeting minutes 97

Annexes
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data 115
Annex 2: Success Stories 163

ii
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Currency equivalents
Currency Unit =
US$1.0 =

Weights and measures

1 kilogram = 1000 g
1 000 kg = 2.204 lb.
1 kilometre (km) = 0.62 mile
1 metre = 1.09 yards
1 square metre = 10.76 square feet
1 acre = 0.405 hectare
1 hectare = 2.47 acres

iii
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Abbreviations and acronyms

AOS Annual Outcome Survey

AWPB Annual Work Program and Budget
Bimtek Technical Training
BLM Bantuan Langsung Masyarakat (Community Direct Assistance)
BPI Business Plan and Investment
Bupati District Administrative Head
CBCRM Community Based Coastal Resource Management
CCDP Coast Community Development Project
Desa An Administrative Village
Dinas KP District/City Fisheries Agency
Dirjen Directorate General
DOB District Oversight Board
EA Extension Agent
GOI Government of Indonesia
HH Households
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
JSM Joint Support Mission
KKP Kementrian Kelautan Perikanan (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries)
KM Knowledge Management
Logframe Logical Framework
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
KP3K Marine, Coasts and Small Islands
Pednis CCDP Pedoman Teknis CCDP (CCDP Technical Guidelines)
Pednis BLM Pedoman Teknis Bantuan Langsung Masyarakat
(Community Direct Assistance Guidelines)
PIM Project Implementation Manual
PIRT Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga (Household Food Industry)
PIU Project Implementation Unit
PMO Project Management Office
PMPPU Coastal Community Empowerment and Business Development
RIMS Results and Impact Management System
SK Surat Keputusan (Decision Letter)
SPM Surat Perintah Membayar (Payment Request)
SP2D Surat Perintah Pencairan Dana (Disbursement Ledger)
TOR Terms of Reference
TOT Training of Trainers
TPD Tenaga Pendamping Desa (Community Facilitator)
VIC Village Information Centre
VWG CCDP Village Working Group
Wali Kota Mayor

iv
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Map of the project area

v
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Project at a glance

Country Republic of Indonesia

Project Name Coastal Community Development Project
Key Dates
IFAD Approval Signing Effectiveness Mid-Term Original Actual
Review Completion Completion
September 2012 23 Oct 2012 23 Oct 2012 14 Sept 2015 31 Dec 2017 31 Dec 2017
Mid-term Review Interim Original Loan Actual Loan
Evaluation Closing Closing
14 Sept 2015 30 June 2018 30 June 2018
IFAD Financing
IFAD Loan (I-880- SDR 15,870,000 SDR 13,267,598 84%
ID)
Spanish Trust Fund EUR 6,288,000 EUR 6,062,321 96%
Loan (E-16-ID)
IFAD Grant (I-C- SDR 1,186,000 SDR 1,111,334 94%
1392-ID)
Actual Costs and Financing (USD ‘000)
Component IFAD Co-financing Beneficiaries GOVT Total
(STF)
A. Community 22,637 1,922 2,220 1,585 28,365
Empowerment,
Development and
Natural Resource
Management
B. District Support 7,397 631 20 721 8,768
for Marine Based
Economic
Development
C. Project 2,774 232 0 4,740 7,746
Management
Total 32,808 2,785 2,240 7,046 44,879

Remarks
Indicate co-financing partners, actual amounts, and amount committed for each as at appraisal .

Number of Beneficiaries
Total Direct Indirect Women (village Other Other
group members)
503,500 75,700 427,800 30%
18,925 (HHs)
Project Objectives
Goal: Reduction in poverty and enhanced, economic growth among the active poor in coastal and small island
communities.
Development Objective: Increased household incomes for families involved in fisheries and marine activities in
poor coastal and small island communities.
Country Partners
Executing Agency Government of Indonesia
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
Directorate General of Marine Spatial Management

vi
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Reducing poverty in coastal communities in Indonesia

Coastal Community Development Project

503 500 Duration Budget

2012-2017 43.2 US$
beneficiaries
Objective
Increased household incomes for families involved in fisheries
and marine activities in poor coastal and small island
communities
70% 29%
61% 30%
Results 181 Village Information Centres

570 village infrastructures constructed

1 609 enterprise groups established dealing with
capture fishing, aquaculture, processing , 80 district Infrastructure constructed
marketing, environmental protection and eco-
tourism
33 community-based marine resource
management areas demarcated, declared and
84 MOUs and 151 agreements signed with off- ratified
takers

357 processing enterprise groups with P-IRT (food

safety) certification and 147 with halal
certificates

Food security Human & social

80% decrease in child capital
underweight Training in group
Incomes & assets management, bookkeeping
32% decrease in acute child technologies and compliance
132% increase in income with quality standards
malnutrition
96% of households Creation of market linkages
experiencing productivity 30% decrease in chronic and partnerships
increase child malnutrition
Women’s
Strong income multipliers Natural resources & empowerment
environment Enhanced self-esteem and
Market access confidence
512 processing and
512 processing and marketing groups operational Improved intra-household
marketing groups operational relationships
Improved health of marine
235 third party buyers resources
purchasing on a regular basis

vii
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Lessons learned

Targeting Operational lessons

• Overcoming geographical dispersion: • Smooth start-up:
- Phasing - Fast recruitment
- Use of social media and web-based MIS - Good implementation support
• Successful project management:
- Performance-based management
- High levels of competence and low turn-over
Approaches of staff and consultants
• Design provided for a flexible and adaptive approach - Web-based MIS providing real-time
• Strong community commitment: information
- Demand-driven & participatory - Strong knowledge management
- Community facilitators • Strong partnerships
- Early investments in village infrastructure • Procurement delays were prevented by careful
• Coupling environmental protection & income generating selection of appropriate procurement processes
activities • Short duration of project implementation inhibited
• Missed out on broader financial inclusion solutions and the full development of value chains
opportunities to further enhance the nutritional impact

viii
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Executive Summary1
1. Background The Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP) was approved at IFAD’s
Executive Board in September 2012.The project completion date was 31 December 2017 and
the Project Closing Date is 30 June 2018. The total project financing was US$43.2 million
2. Theory of Change. The overall premise of the CCDP was simple: to develop a model to
empower remote coastal communities to improve their livelihoods through a combined focus on
socio-economic development, sustainable natural resource management, and market access.
The result was an innovative approach to combining sustainable marine and coastal natural
resource management with economic and livelihood development. The project goal was
reduction in poverty and enhanced, sustainable and replicable economic growth among the
active poor in coastal and small island communities, and its development objective was
increased household incomes for families involved in fisheries and marine activities in poor
coastal and small island communities. The project adopted an innovative approach that
combined four main elements: (i) Community empowerment; (ii) a market-focused strategy; (iii)
poverty focus and pro-poor targeting; (iv) replication and scaling up.
3. Project Design. The participatory design process contributed to a strong project design that
was highly consistent with government policies, priorities and local needs. The project had
robust internal logic and the main project design main strengths included: (i) an appropriate
institutional structure; and (ii) good linkages between project components and all activities.
Minor modifications to the project’s approach, adopted after the Mid Term Review were justified
based on the lessons learned by the project up to mid-term and to facilitate the project adjusting
to policy changes from the new Indonesian Government.
4. Results: The CCDP made satisfactory progress towards achieving its goal of reducing poverty
and improving the economic livelihoods of coastal and small island communities, and its
development objective of increasing the incomes of households in poor coastal and small island
communities in eastern Indonesia.
5. CCDP contributed strongly to increasing Households’ incomes and assets, with beneficiaries
improving their incomes by 132 per cent. Most members of enterprise groups experienced
increases in household assets. There was a significant decrease in the poorest income quintile
(from 27.1 per cent in 2013 to 18.9 per cent in 2017) and a significant increase in the richest
quintile (from 15.3 per cent in 2013 to 23.6 per cent in 2017). The activities of the project also
resulted in observable income multipliers.
6. The project had a significant impact on food security through increased fish availability
consumed or sold, increased incomes generated through the processing and marketing of
marine-based products and improvements in processing and value addition reducing post-
harvest losses. The percentage of households experiencing “hungry seasons” decreased
almost to zero. The number of underweight children decreased by 80 per cent, chronic
malnutrition by 30 per cent and acute malnutrition by 32 per cent. Ninety-six per cent of
participating households in project enterprises experienced productivity increases, with an 80
per cent increase for capture fishing groups, 450 per cent for freshwater aquaculture groups, 71
per cent for processing groups, and 42 per cent for marketing groups.

1
PCR mission team composition: Andrew Macpherson, Team Leader (IFAD Consultant); Graeme Macfadyen, fisheries
expert (IFAD Consultant); Steven Jonckheere, M&E Specialist (IFAD, Rome); Enrico Mazzoli, Economist (IFAD
Consultant); Candra Samekto, Climate and Environment Officer (IFAD, Jakarta). The mission was supported by Ron
Hartman, IFAD Country Director, Sarah Hessel, IFAD Programme Officer and Anissa Pratiwi, IFAD Country Programme
Officer. The PCR team was accompanied during field visits by staff and consultants from the PMO, the Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the Ministry of Finance, and BAPPENAS.

ix
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

7. Relevance. Project relevance is considered satisfactory. The project design remains consistent
with the needs of the project target groups and closely aligned and in support of Government
policies and priorities. The project internal logic had a high level of coherence and was
supported by the changes introduced during the course of implementation to respond to
changes in the external and policy environment. The project objectives and activities, with their
focus in eastern Indonesia on income generation, supporting market linkages, village-level
group formation, poverty alleviation, food security, and natural resource conservation, were
highly consistent with Government policies, priorities, and strategies for coastal community
development, poverty reduction and sustainable natural resource management.
8. Effectiveness. Project effectiveness is considered satisfactory. Five of the six log-frame target
outcome indicators were exceeded, often by significant margins, on-time or earlier than
anticipated. The data showed that only the number of ‘community-based marine resource
management areas demarcated, declared and ratified’ was very marginally short of achieving
its target, but there are strong indications this would be achieved by project closing. Also
noteworthy was the creation of eco-tourism areas and the engagement by Community Based
Coastal Resources Management (CBCRM) groups in eco-tourism activities, supporting both
income generation for groups and environmental rehabilitation and conservation. The market
strategies and selection of priority products that were used to underpin the choice of district
level infrastructure and to inform the enterprise group activities increased the success in
creating sustainable market linkages. The output target of 70% of infrastructure financed by the
project being operating/available, being maintained, and used by third party operators was
exceeded. In terms of public-private-producer partnerships, a total of 84 formal agreements
were signed with private sector partners (40 MoUs target) and 151 informal arrangements
reached (109 local, 34 regional and 8 national). The Project also developed business plans for
28 larger infrastructure investments, and supported food safety certification of 357 enterprise
group products and 147 halal certificates.
9. Efficiency. The project efficiency and value for money is considered to be satisfactory. Project
implementation was mostly efficient and the project investments represent good value for
money. The result of cost benefit as well as financial analysis and quantification on the financial
leverage including the beneficiaries’ contributions showed a very high level of efficiency. The
project has achieved almost all of its objectives with disbursements of approximately 85% of
available funds. The CCDP programme has shown positive impact for targeted beneficiaries.
Models elaborated for the ex-post EFA indicated significantly increase in income and in self-
consumption therefore contributing to food security, livelihoods enhancements, gender
empowerment and increased social and economic welfare. CCDP activities were pivotal in
increasing productivity and diversifying economic opportunities through value addition activities
and a more sustainable use of fish stocks and natural resources. In addition, the programme
triggered second-tier benefits through job creation and diversification of local produce,
meanwhile putting into sustainable economic use resources left idle otherwise. The fiscal
analysis also showed that project resources increased social welfare while project cost borne
by the Government were almost fully offset by an increase in tax revenues.
10. Sustainability. Post-project sustainability is considered to be satisfactory founded on the
likelihood that benefits resulting from project implementation will continue after project
completion due to the strong results, financial and economic incentives, and the high level of
beneficiary ownership and government commitment. Project sustainability was supported
through the development of a comprehensive exit strategy to promote post project sustainability
across four distinct dimensions: (i) institutional; (ii) social; (iii) technical; (iv) economic-financial;
and (v) environmental. CCDP developed an effective way to communicate environmental
issues to the community, making them relevant to their interest and need. It successfully
developed models to improve environmental conditions and reduce unsustainable fishing
practices while increasing incomes and livelihoods, and supported a number of new marine
community-based management areas.

x
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

11. Project Management. The quality of project management is considered satisfactory. Strong
project management was a key success factor for the project. There was excellent performance
against Annual Work Plan and Budgets (AWPB) in physical and financial terms, and strong
financial management at both central PMO and district PIU levels. Performance in knowledge
management was outstanding, with more than 150 knowledge products developed. Project
M&E performance was highly satisfactory and can considered as a best practice to be
replicated. The performance-based incentive system adopted utilized project M&E data to
determine the scale of investment and support to each individual district in a transparent
manner. The M&E system allowed corrective management action to be taken when needed.
12. Targeting and Gender. The project's performance in targeting and gender aspects is rated as
satisfactory. The CCDP applied a thorough targeting strategy and screening matrices for village
and group selection to identify and include those from poor households. CCDP had a positive
impact on gender equity and women’s empowerment, mainly by: (i) promoting the economic
empowerment of women; (ii) enabling women and men to have equal voice and influence in
rural institutions and organizations; and (iii) achieving a more equitable workload balance.
Women made up almost 30 per cent of the enterprise group members and reported significant
increases in their incomes, savings, and market skills.
13. Innovation. The project's performance with respect to innovation is rated as satisfactory. The
project tested new innovative approaches to promoting improved livelihoods for poor coastal
communities. Outstanding project innovations included: (i) applying ICTs to ensure continuous
communication and information transparency, and in particular the use of WhatsApp groups; (ii)
mobilizing funding through CSR/private sector collaboration and linkage to other Government
offices to ensure sustainability of progress and results achieved; (iii) a combined commercial
and environmental approach to sustainable use and improvement of natural resources.
14. Replication and Scaling up. The project's performance in replication and scaling up is rated
as satisfactory The project implemented an exit strategy over the last two years, with active
planning by project districts during the final year. Additionally, in 2016, CCDP began active
development of a replication plan to extend the successful elements of the CCDP approach to
at least 12 additional districts. Moreover, many local governments have already replicated the
project design in other villages, and implemented similar approaches using their own budgetary
resources.

xi
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

A. Introduction
1. The Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP) was approved at IFAD’s Executive
Board in September 2012. The project completion date was 31 December 2017 and the closing
date is 30 June 2018.
2. The objectives of the project completion review (PCR) were to: (i) assess the performance of
CCDP in a number of areas, as defined in IFAD’s guidelines for project completion reporting; (ii)
assess the relevance of project interventions at the time of project design and in the current
context; (iii) assess the effectiveness of project implementation, and document the immediate
results and impacts of project interventions; (iv) document performance and achievement of
performance indicators with reference to the logical framework (as revised during the MTR); (v)
demonstrate project benefits through an economic and financial analysis; (vi) assess
performance of all project partners; (vii) document good practices and lessons learned of
relevance for future interventions; (viii) review opportunities for scaling up and make practical
recommendations on the means to achieve this; and (ix) assess the likelihood of sustainability
of project investments and benefits. All of the above are presented in this PCR and attached
Appendices and Annexes.
3. The main processes followed in the preparation of this PCR were: (i) preparation of an initial
draft PCR by the Government of Indonesia, based on available data and analysis; (ii)
verification and validation of the information in the draft PCR by a project completion mission,
termed a Joint Project Completion Mission (JPCM), that was conducted by a joint IFAD/GOI
team working with staff from Kementerian Kelautan Dan Perikanan (KKP/Ministry of Marine
Affairs and Fisheries), the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of National Development
Planning/BAPPENAS; (iii) preparation of a revised draft PCR by the IFAD team, closely
following IFAD guidelines and templates, using the PMO’s draft PCR; (iv) provision of draft
financial and economic analysis by the IFAD team using information provided by the PMO; (v)
subsequent preparation of the final PCR by the PMO/Government, with technical support from
IFAD; and (vi) an internal quality assurance process at IFAD.
4. The rationale for the project at the time of design was that although poverty was endemic
amongst coastal and small island communities, many had demonstrated motivation and
commitment to improve their economic position. At the same time, there were good economic
opportunities emerging for a range marine products. However, there was an urgent need to
address issues of resource degradation that was negatively impacting on coastal and marine
productivity, as well as to ameliorate the effects of climate change. Furthermore, the
Government had expressed a need to develop replicable models for sustainable coastal
development. These reasons for the project intervention remained valid throughout
implementation.
5. There were four main elements central to the project: they represented the core of the project
and provided the foundation for project activities and how they were implemented. Community
empowerment, shaped the way that CCDP was be implemented, providing the main structuring
element of the project and the basis for how project investment activities relate to each other. It
enhanced transparency and accountability in the use of project funds and the project
management functions. While the participatory, demand-driven approach enables communities
and households to participate and decide on their priorities, it was the market focused strategy
and the interventions linked to it that delivered the returns to the fisher/marine households and
enabled them to raise their incomes by increasing the sustainable net returns from fish and
other marine products. The third element was a focus on poverty and targeting. This pro-poor
focus determined the selection of the project communities and the inclusion of the poor.
Replication and scaling-up influenced the selection of districts, in a range of different marine
and social environments, resulting in the physical and social diversity and geographical spread
of the project. This provided an opportunity to test a range of solutions in diverse, but

1
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

predominantly poor communities. This would facilitate replication and scaling up in other areas
and districts in Indonesia.
6. The project start-up was exceptionally prompt, with activities commencing with project
implementation starting in January 2013 after the project entered into force on 23 October
2012. The CCDP Mid-Term Review was conducted in September/October 2015, and the last
full joint review mission was in May 2017.
7. A joint mission to assist with the preparation of the PCR was undertaken from 1 to 13 October
2017. Field work was conducted two provinces Lombok and South Sulawesi, where PIUs, local
government, project partners and project beneficiaries were engaged.

B. Project description

B.1. Project context

8. Indonesia is an economically dynamic, competitive, and decentralized electoral democracy. At
the time of the design in 2010-2011 it had weathered the financial crisis of 2008 and had a
strong performing economy, but there remained substantial challenges in reducing poverty,
especially in the eastern parts of the country and in coastal and small island communities.
9. The main conditions in coastal and small island communities at design were that they: (i) were
generally poor, often among the poorest communities in the country, and in many cases food
insecure; (ii) had demonstrated motivation and commitment to improve their economic position
and take responsibility for development initiatives; (iii) showed good potential for economic
opportunities, particularly for a range of high value marine products, with strong market
potential; (iv) faced high levels of marine and coastal resource degradation; and (v) were
characterised by gender inequality in terms of social status and involvement in economic
activities. Government policy and priorities at the time of the design were changing from an
emphasis on fisheries production increases, towards a greater focus on poverty reduction,
natural resource management and conservation, and a more holistic development of fisheries
and marine value chains. KKP was aware of the potential benefits of a project like the CCDP
since it had defined policy and strategy initiatives for ‘pro-poor, pro-job, pro-growth, and pro-
sustainability’ development.
10. The Project concentrated on 12 coastal districts (hereafter referred to collectively as districts) in
nine provinces, with diverse natural resource settings and resource bases, and a range of
socio/cultural characteristics. Consistent features of the project target area and communities
selected were the dependence on marine resources (generally degraded but with good
potential), the high levels of poverty, and the need and potential for better access to markets.

B.2. Project objectives

11. The CCDP’s overall strategy was to address poverty and improve incomes in the selected
coastal and small island communities through support for: (i) community empowerment; (ii)
improvements in coastal resource management; (iii) a market-focused approach; (iv) a focus on
the active poor; and (v) replication/scaling up. The overall goal of the Project was to reduce
poverty and enhance economic growth in active poor coastal and small island communities.
The project goal was to be achieved through its development objective which was to increase
household incomes for families involved in fisheries and marine activities in poor coastal and
small island communities.
12. The Project had two intended outcomes: (i) for target households to be implementing profitable
marine-based economic activities with no detrimental effect on marine resources; and (ii) the
expansion of economic opportunities in project districts for sustainable, market-based, small-
scale fisheries/marine operations. The desired outputs in support of these outcomes were: (i)
marine and fisheries households’ development priorities identified, agreed and documented; (ii)

2
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

community-based marine resource management areas being managed effectively; (iii)

financially sustainable community enterprises created under the Project; (iv) community
infrastructure implemented under the Project supporting marine-based economic activities in
project villages; (v) improved infrastructure and services supporting small scale fishing and
marine activities established in the project districts; and (vi) increased participation and
earnings by small scale fishers and marine producers from prioritized high potential products in
each project district. Additional outputs expected from project management were: the effective
establishment and operation of the Project Management Office (PMO) at central level and the
Project Implementing Units (PIUs) at district-level, and facilitation for replication and scaling up
of the Project.
13. The project design was innovative in addressing simultaneously, and in a mutually re-enforcing
way, value chain improvements and natural resource management: resource management
improvements were intended to provide the basis for value-chain and market based activities,
while greater value-addition in downstream post-harvest activities and alternative livelihood
activities were intended to reduce pressure on coastal resources. The provision for demand-
driven investments at village and district levels, coupled with a requirement for implementation
within a consistent implementation framework, was also innovative.
14. There were no changes were made during implementation to the specification of the project’s
goal, objective, outcomes and outputs (some modifications and additions to implementation
modalities and specific activities are discussed in Section C.3).

B.3. Implementation modalities

15. Total project financing was US$43.2 million, consisting of an IFAD loan of SDR$15.87 million;
an IFAD grant of SDR 1.186 million; a loan of EUR 6.288 million from the Spanish Food
Security Trust Fund; government contributions of an estimated US$7.1 million; and beneficiary
contributions of an estimated US$2.1 million. Total project funding was not modified during
implementation, although a minor reallocation was made between the cost categories specified
in the Financing Agreement (FA) after the Mid Term Review.
16. The CCDP’s main implementing agency was the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP)
Directorate General of Marine, Coasts and Small Islands, and then the Directorate General of
Marine Spatial Management following a re-structuring of KKP in 2016.
17. At the national level (central) the PMO was responsible for guiding overall project
implementation and providing management support. A Project Steering Committee provided
project oversight and coordination. Twelve PIUs in each of the 12 project districts were
responsible for project implementation activities at the district and village levels, and one
additional PIU (Badung, in Bali) concentrated solely on knowledge management and human
resource development. For all PIUs (except PIU Badung), a District Oversight Board (DOB),
which included provincial representation, was established to provide additional oversight of
district and village-level activities. The PMO and PIUs were housed within the KKP structure
(KKP at central level and Dinas Kelautan Dan Perikanan [DKP] and the district level), and
staffed by a mix of KKP/DKP staff and consultants.
18. The project comprised three investment components. The first component (Community
Empowerment, Development and Resource Management), focussed on the target communities
with project development driven by participatory process and village determination of priorities
for the project’s support for village-based infrastructure, coastal resource management, and
enterprise groups. District-level interventions in support of these village initiatives were part of
the second component (District Support for Marine-Based Economic Development), and aimed
at strengthening technical, institutional and infrastructure to improve access to and the
functioning of markets and value chains. A third component focused on project management
and building the capacity required to scale-up project activities. The design included an
innovative implementation arrangement in the form of a phased approach, starting

3
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

implementation in only three villages per district and subsequently scaling up. This allowed the
Project to work in 12 districts so as to provide the basis to learn lessons about successful
development models that may be appropriate for replication in a wide range of geographical
and cultural contexts in the future, while ensuring that project implementation was not
overwhelmed in its early stages and could mitigate risks during the first year of the project
implementation.

B.4. Target groups

19. The CCDP PIUs were located in the coastal areas of Eastern Indonesia, which are less affluent
and developed than other areas of the country. A screening matrix was used for district
selection that included variables related to the number of poor coastal communities and their
potential for increasing incomes from fishing and marine operations. This was coupled with the
selection of districts to cover a variety of geographic and socio-cultural contexts to better
generate lessons learned for replicating the development models being tested. The Project also
applied a targeting strategy for village and household selection. Around 15 villages in each
district were selected with a total of 180 villages envisaged for inclusion. The household
targeting strategy was designed to include five sub-groups within project-supported villages: (i)
households with assets to access medium-high value marketable marine resources; (ii)
households which provided labour; (iii) households with assets that allowed limited access to
resources; (iv) households with very basic productive assets; the resources available to them
allowed only limited opportunities to raise their incomes; and (v) households with no marine
access-enabling assets and limited/unskilled labour. The Project had a target of 19,800
households as direct beneficiaries and an additional 50 000 households as indirect
beneficiaries, or around 320 000 people as the direct and indirect CCDP beneficiaries. Given
low levels of female empowerment, the CCDP also had specific gender targets seeking: (i) 30%
of project participants at all levels being women; and (ii) at least two enterprise groups in each
village be comprised predominately of women with women involved in key management
decisions within the group.

C. Assessment of project relevance

C.1. Relevance vis-à-vis the external context

20. The project relevance was considered satisfactory (5) in accordance with IFAD's project
completion rating methodology. The project design remains consistent with the needs of the
project target groups, IFAD and government policies and priorities, both at the time of project
design and completion. This rating is also based on the analysis of the coherence and quality of
the project internal logic and on the adequacy of the changes introduced during the course of
implementation to respond to changes in the external and policy environments.
21. The project objectives and activities, with their focus in eastern Indonesia on income
generation, supporting market linkages, village-level group formation, poverty alleviation, food
security, and natural resource conservation, were highly consistent with Government of
Indonesia policies, priorities, and strategies for coastal community development, poverty
alleviation and resource conservation. The design remained highly relevant throughout
implementation, as evidenced by: (i) KKP’s Strategic Plan 2010 – 2014 (and the subsequent
Strategic Plan 2015 – 2019) which articulated four policy themes: ‘pro-poor, pro-job, pro-growth
and pro-sustainability’. The policy was implemented through a series of strategies, including:
entrepreneurship, networking, technology and innovation, empowering, and institutional
strengthening of community groups; (ii) the KKP “Susinisasi” Program, whereby 80% of KKP
resources were directed towards communities; (iii) GoI policy to favor efforts in Eastern
Indonesia given levels of poverty and food insecurity, to promote equity between regions; and
(iv) qualitative feedback to the project completion mission team on the high relevance of the
Project from both staff in the Ministry of National Development Planning/BAPPENAS and staff

4
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

in KKP/DKP at central and district levels. The CCDP is viewed as a national best practice for
internationally financed development projects in Indonesia and a benchmark for high
performance. This qualitative feedback about relevance is further supported by emerging
replication of the CCDP approach by DKP (as discussed later) and BAPPENAS’ intention to
utilise/replicate the CCDP model for community and rural/ marine related activities as part of
the country’s Equity Economic Programme and the new national development plan 2019-2024.
22. The design was highly consistent with IFAD priorities as detailed in its Country Strategic
Opportunities Programme (COSOP), the most recent (2016) of which includes strategic
objectives as: (i) assisting small scale producers to participate in remunerative markets; (ii)
making small scale producers and their families more resilient to risks; and (iii) making rural
institutions more responsive to small scale producer needs.
23. At the time of the project design, approximately 7.9 million Indonesian fishermen were
considered poor, constituting a quarter of the total number of Indonesians loving in poverty. Key
factors generating the observed poverty prevailing at the time of project design in the project
areas included: (i) limited basic facilities (e.g., electricity, clean water supply, sanitation, health
and education); (ii) lack of market knowledge; (iii) limited access to finance; (iv) limited ability of
communities to access markets; (v) coastal ecosystem degradation from over fishing,
destructive fishing, mangrove destruction and coral degradation; and (vi) the limited number
and low capacity of local organizations. The design addressed all these factors, and identified
opportunities for addressing challenges through support for accessing markets, group formation
and capacity developments, technology and skills transfer, and coastal resource management.
24. The design was highly relevant to the needs of the specific target groups. The project's 2013
baseline survey and 2014 Annual Outcome Survey provides strong evidence at the start of the
project of a low prevailing asset base, poor child nutrition status, food insecurity, and limited
livelihoods opportunities in project areas; all factors that the design intended the Project should
address. At a CCDP workshop in September 2017 participants confirmed their top priorities as
access to increased income for their families, education for their children, and resource
sustainability. Other strong evidence that the Project was relevant to beneficiary needs are the
results of the 2017 AOS, which found that nearly all beneficiaries were satisfied that CCDP
addressed their priorities and needs (61.1% were very satisfied; 38.9% were quite satisfied).
This quantitative evidence for the high consistency between the design and beneficiary needs
was further confirmed more qualitatively by: (i) the project completion mission during its
discussions with beneficiaries and through observations in project areas; (ii) text of project
supervision and mid-term review mission reports.

C.2. Internal logic

25. The CCDP’s design was based on a thorough analysis of poverty issues in coastal
communities in Eastern Indonesia and the underlying constraints. Members of fishing
communities are often poor, highly dependent on their eroding natural resources Most are
reliant on small-scale inshore fishing for their livelihood, and in some places the income from
fishing was insufficient to meet basic subsistence needs. Many of these communities had
limited access to boats and fishing gear, practice destructive and illegal fishing methods,
manage aquaculture in a poor manner, and are vulnerable to extreme climatic events and the
impact of climate change.
26. Although there was no specific ‘theory of change’ articulated in the design document to link the
expected outcomes from CCDP’s activities to its development objective, the project’s
interventions were soundly based on the analysis of problems and needs. As such, the project’s
approach was based on four main elements: community empowerment, market-focused,
poverty and targeting, and replication and scaling up. Overall, CCDP’s objective was to
increase incomes by creating sustainable economic opportunities at village level (component 1)
and strengthening integration of the village enterprise groups in the broader value chain

5
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

(component 2), with the two technical components being highly complementary. Overall, the
results flow and logic in the logframe were sound, and the selection of indicators adequate.
During the lifespan of the project, some indicators were slightly modified during supervision
2
missions and by the Mid Term Review (MTR) to make them more SMART .
27. Despite the fact that the budget was commensurate to achieve proposed objectives, the short
duration of project implementation provided some challenges, particularly the further
development of value chains and access to private finance.

2
Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-Bound

6
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Figure 1: Theory of Change

Final Poverty reduction in coastal communities

outcome
Results

Empowerment Sustainable
Intermediate Increased Improved
of poor coastal resource
outcomes income food security
communities base

Sustainable & Enhance Scaling

Assets used more productive Sustained Viable
Sustainabl d natural up good
& use of assets & employment enterprise
e CBOs assets practice
maintained increased creation s
resilience s
productivity
Proposed solution

Assets Access to Employment Community

Infrastructure
created services opportunities ownership

Access to Sustainabl
Skills built
value chains e NRM

Inputs Investments Capacity building, partnerships & KM

Effect Productive stagnation Food deficiency Social concerns

Destructive Lack of
Low and community
Food Mal-
fishing unsustainable participation in
insecurity nutrition
returns fishing development
methods activities

Poor
Limited value
quality
addition
produce

Causes Natural
Production/Productivity Organisation
resources

Limited Lack of No trust Environmental

technical Weak between degradation &
information on
& community value fragility
opportunities
marketing organisations chain discourages
skills actors activity

Limited
Lack of market
access to Limited
focused
assets & voice
infrastructure
finance

Problem Limited income opportunities in coastal communities

7
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

C.3. Adequacy of design changes

28. Only limited changes were made during implementation to the project design and
implementation modalities, further supporting comments made above about the highly relevant
design and internal logic. The changes made, in the form of minor modifications and additions,
were approved during the MTR and were all highly appropriate and relevant. Changes were:
i. Reallocation of some project funds was made from some cost categories/activities (such as
vehicles, consultants, and unallocated) to others (such as investments in community
enterprises and supporting district investments) as needed towards the end of the Project and
based on expenditure up to that point, and increased the proportion of project funds
responding to demand-driven beneficiary needs spent at the community level.
ii. The approach to savings groups at the village level was adjusted to encourage all enterprise
groups to make savings, rather than to have dedicated savings groups (although 20
established early in the Project were maintained). This was relevant to the need to support
and provide for the sustainability of all enterprise groups established by the CCDP, and to
respond to feedback from communities early during implementation that dedicated savings
groups were not strongly supported at the community level.
iii. An improved and better financed knowledge management (KM) programme was introduced
and was appropriate to disseminate the wide range of KM products produced by the CCDP
related to technology, best practices, gender empowerment, project impacts, and lessons
learned.
iv. The inclusion of activities related to integrated coastal management (ICM) at village and
district levels) responded in a timely manner to an increased Government policy emphasis on
ICM, and the fact that the design did not provide sufficiently for funds or staffing to support
logframe targets related to improved natural resource management.
v. The inclusion of ecotourism development responded to increased GoI policy emphasis on
eco-tourism over the course of the project, and the potential that became clear during the
project for eco-tourism development to simultaneously support income generation, increased
environmental awareness, village-based ICM plans, and environmental improvements.
vi. To identifying private sector partners for the operation of all district-level investments, and as
part of a clearly articulated exit strategy, the project expanded its engagement with third party
operators to work with one existing or newly formed cooperative in each district tasked with
supporting the market linkages fostered by the project for village-level enterprise groups.

D. Assessment of project effectiveness

29. Project effectiveness is considered satisfactory(5) as five of the six log-frame target indicators
were exceeded, often by significant margins, on-time or earlier than anticipated. The 2017 AOS
showed that 170 out of those 180 respondents that are still operating (94.44%) and stated that
their businesses are profitable (viable). Implementation of Component 2 has also been highly
impressive, with most component 2 investments and outputs supporting component 1
enterprise groups as envisaged. The market strategies and selection of priority products were
well utilised to underpin the choice of investments made under component 2 and to inform the
enterprise group activities under Component 1 in a way that increases the chances of success
in creating long-term sustainable market linkages.

D.1. Physical targets and output delivery

30. In almost all cases physical outputs and indicator targets across all three of the CCDP’s
components were either met on time or early, allowing the Project to exceed many targets by
considerable margins by the time of project completion. Some contributory factors to the
success were: (i) rapid and intensive mobilization activities that prevented the delays so often
seen in other projects, and ensured that those implementing the Project at PMO and PIU
levels partners were clear about the targets (and their timeframes) to be achieved; (ii) very
high standards of project management, as documented in all supervision mission reports and

8
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

as observed by the project completion mission team; (iii) performance-based evaluation of all
project consultants; (iv) the project’s M&E system being structured based on the logframe,
with performance in moving towards targets updated weekly and reported through the
project’s website via a ‘weekly dashboard’ – this allowed the M&E system to be used as a
management tool, and provided a sense of competition between PIUs and transparency in
performance; (v) an incentive for good implementation performance by PIUs was introduced
with better performing PIUs being allocated additional project funding for activities in their
districts; and (vi) schedules for output delivery were routinely met, as evidenced by
information in supervision mission reports which document strong adherence to both physical
and financial targets in Annual Work Plans and Budgets (AWPBs).
31. Under component 1, the first output, household development priorities identified and agreed,
had targets for 70% of fisheries/marine households in CCDP groups, and 50% of women in
CCDP groups, to consider that CCDP activities represented their priorities. These targets were
exceeded. Surveys covering men and women conducted as part of the AOS 2017 showed that
100% of beneficiaries felt satisfied that CCDP activities represented their priorities (61.1% were
very satisfied and 38.9% were quite satisfied, and none were not satisfied). Focus group
discussions on gender also completed as part of the AOS 2017 by all PIUs documented that
100% of women beneficiaries interviewed were satisfied that CCDP activities represented their
priorities and needs. The second output, community-based marine resource management
areas being managed effectively, had a target of 40 community-based marine resource
management areas demarcated, declared and ratified, which was not quite met with 20
decrees/ordinances, covering 32 villages in place by project completion. A second target for all
12 implementing PIUs to have ICM plans in place in at least 50% of project villages in their
districts was exceeded, with PIUs establishing village-based ICM plans 174 of 181 villages
(96% of all project villages).
32. For the third output, community enterprises created under the project, the target was not quite
met with 1 609 (rather than 1 800) enterprise groups (a mix of capture fishing, aquaculture,
marketing, and processing activities) established based on proposals reviewed by DOBs and
approved by PIUs. The reason was not due to deficiencies in implementation, but was the
result of a Ministerial decision taken towards the end of the Project, despite its successful
implementation performance, to limit funding for some types of project activities. The Project
also formed 181 Village Working Groups (VWGs), 180 Community-Based Coastal Resource
Management (CBCRM) groups, 181 infrastructure groups, and 20 savings groups in addition to
the 1 609 enterprise groups that were formed. For the fourth output, community infrastructure
implemented under the Project supporting marine-based economic activities in project villages,
targets were exceeded: 181 Village Information Centres (VICs) and 570 other village
infrastructure units of different types were provided by the CCDP, and over 90% of community
infrastructure was being operated and maintained at project completion, exceeding the target of
66%.
33. Under component 2, the logframe output target of 70% of infrastructure financed by the project
being operating/available, maintained, and used by third party operators (private operators,
cooperatives, state-owned companies, SMEs), was exceeded. On project completion, PIUs
recorded that 92% of the 80 district level infrastructure investments financed were being
successfully operated and maintained by third party operators. The second component 2 output
indicator for marketing agreements between community groups and buyers (40 Memorandum
of Understanding [MoU] with at least four in each district) was also exceeded, with 83 MoUs
signed in total (45 local, 26 regional, 13 national) and all PIUs had four or more MoUs. There
were in addition 151 informal agreements for sales (109 local, 34 regional, and 8 national).
Evidence from the project’s weekly dashboard, observations in places visited by the project
completion mission, and other supporting documentation, showed that the Project also
developed business plans for the 28 larger infrastructure investments, and supported 357 food
safety (Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga [P-IRT]) certificates for processing enterprise group

9
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

products, and an additional 147 halal certificates, further supporting access to markets for
enterprise group products. Physical progress under the component was effective in terms of
supporting outcomes, as the development of high quality market strategies and selection of
priority products were well utilised to underpin the choice of investments made under
component 2 and to inform the enterprise group activities under component 1 in a way that
increased the chances of success in creating long-term sustainable market linkages.
34. Under component 3, the first output was “PMO and 12 PIUs established and operating
effectively”. This output had three associated targets. The target was met for the PMO and all
12 implementing PIUs to be provided with Surat Keputusan (Decision Letters) by District
Regents (Bupati) or Mayors (Wali Kota) setting out organizational structures, operating
procedures, and staffing. The target was exceeded for 75% of project consultants and
community facilitators (Tenaga Pendamping Desa [TPDs]) to be assessed by PMO and PIUs
as satisfactory: at the end of 2016 100% of PMO and PIU consultant contracts were renewed
for 2017 based on performance evaluation, while 90% of TPD contracts were extended, with a
deliberate small reduction in numbers planned as part of the exit strategy. The third target was
also met: all 12 implementing PIUs were evaluated by the PMO at the end of 2016 and up to
project completion to be either in category 1 (best) or 2 (good) in the project’s reward and
sanction scheme (evaluation was based on a matrix of different performance criteria such as
disbursement against AWBPs and timeliness of reporting data to the PMO). The project
completion mission, based on its discussions and observations, also validated more
qualitatively the high quality and motivation of staff and consultants at both PMO and PIU
levels.
35. Targets for the component’s second output, replication and scaling up of the project facilitated,
were also met. A national level workshop was held as required involving the 12 existing PIUs
and another 13 potential new districts, to discuss CCDP replication and to identify appropriate
new districts for implementation of CCDP models during the last year of the project. All PIUs
held discussions with KKP, local government and relevant partners about how to continue and
scale up CCDP activities in their districts (although specific district level workshops were not
held due to budget restrictions). Additionally, the Project started in 2017 to support replication in
one new district (in Berau in East Kalimantan) using a donor grant (Japan Fund for Poverty
Reduction), KKP and local funds. The project completion mission noted emerging spontaneous
replication activities already taking place at central and district levels prior to project completion.

D.2. Project outcomes and impacts

36. The project followed the RIMS methodology and conducated Annual Outcomes Surveys.
Results of both approaches to impact measurement were utilized to substantiate below project
outcomes and impacts. The Annual Outcome Survey (AOS) was conducted in regular intervals
assessing both project and non-project villages to allow for a comparison with a control group.
37. Households’ incomes and assets. The project's impact on household incomes and assets
was considered to be satisfactory (5). The project generated increases in the incomes and
physical and financial assets owned by rural poor women and men and most targets were
exceeded. The CCDP contributed to increasing households’ incomes and assets, mainly
through: (i) enterprise development activities related to capture fishing, aquaculture,
processing, and marketing; (ii) income generating activities related to environmental protection
and eco-tourism; (iii) savings-based models of community-managed loan funds; (iv) financial
support (non-refundable) for purchase of tools and equipment for fishing, aquaculture, storage,
processing and marketing; and (v) job creation.
38. On average, beneficiaries improved their income by 132 per cent over the implementation
period from 2013 to 2017. Those involved in marine capture fishing and processing showed the
highest increase, while those engaged with seaweed aquaculture saw their income slightly
decreasing, due to the ice-ice disease, a bacterial condition which affects seaweed in certain

10
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

months. Most members of enterprise groups experienced an increase in household assets.

There was a significant decrease in the poorest quintile (from 27.1 per cent in 2013 to 18.9 per
cent in 2017) and a significant increase in the richest quintile (from 15.3 per cent in 2013 to
23.6 per cent in 2017). The activities of the Project also resulted in observable income and
employment multipliers, although these impacts were not quantified.
39. Food security. The project's impact on food security is considered to be satisfactory (5) based
on the project generating improvements in food security within targeted communities by
supporting increased diversification of food availability and consumption and by increasing in
incomes to enable the purchase more nutritiously food. The activities of CCDP that had a
significant impact on food security were: (i) increased fish consumed or sold due to improved
productivity of capture fishing and aquaculture; (ii) increased incomes through the processing
and marketing of marine-based products; and (iii) improvements in fish processing which
reduced post-harvest losses and resulted in improvements in storability and shelf-life of
products.
40. According to the project impact date, a significant improvement in food security in the project
areas was demonstrated. In 2013, 34.2 per cent of households experienced a first hungry
season, and 11 per cent a second hungry season, while in 2017 this number had decreased to
2.2 and 0 per cent respectively. The number of underweight children decreased by 80 per cent,
chronic malnutrition by 30 per cent, and acute malnutrition by 32 per cent (the last two being
slightly below the target of 40 per cent).
41. Human and social capital and empowerment. The project's impact on human and social
capital and empowerment is considered satisfactory (5) as a result of the CCDP's contribution
to building the capacities of poor women and men, individually and collectively, and
strengthening their capabilities. The project has significantly contributed to ensuring that poor
rural women and men have increased control over economic relations, increasingly influence
local decision-making processes, and are now in a stronger position to access to essential
social and productive services than in the pre-project scenario.
42. The Project not only empowered coastal communities to strengthen their capacity and to
improve their resilience, but also promoted stronger social capital among them. In addition to
the increased incomes, the community also could feel a stronger social bonding. The
community perceived the benefits for working together as a group instead of individually. They
could access more resources and gain better access to the markets. The targeted coastal
communities have also received support in accessing wider policy and economic networks, and
many groups have pursued these proactively. Groups were able to benefit directly from
progress in the market linkages and partnerships developed by component 2 investments. The
project has encouraged community group members to become cooperative members to
strengthen these linkages. The project has further created a ‘sustainability path’ for community
empowerment encapsulated within the Exit Strategy.
43. Training was carried out by the Project to strengthen the capacities individually and collectively
of poor coastal communities. Training related to group management, bookkeeping and
accounting, aquaculture technology transfer, fishing processing and storage techniques, eco-
tourism development, and compliance with quality standards and product traceability. In
addition, the CCDP organized coaching clinics with the processing and aquaculture group
enterprises on issues such as aquaculture technologies, standardizing product quality,
improving packaging, branding, etc., and facilitated exchange visits between groups and
villages. About 50 per cent of the beneficiaries adopted new technologies and approaches.
44. A total of 2,181 community groups were formed. Of that total, 181 were responsible for
coordinating CCDP village level implementation, 181 built community infrastructure, 180
managed resources, 20 coordinated savings and 1,609 developed enterprises. Group formation
helped to build social cohesion, resilience and self-help. There are a total of 19,825 group

11
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

members. Each member benefited from training and provided new skills and knowledge.
Village human resources have been upgraded in fields like management, bookkeeping,
technical production and marketing. All the groups, but especially the VWGs and CBCRM
groups, provide input to local government institutions. The Project made 751 investments in
village level small scale infrastructure recommended by communities. This infrastructure is in
daily use and improves life quality for village residents. For example, there were investments
made for clean water, sanitation, pathways and small roads that improved health conditions. In
each village CCDP constructed a village information center. These centers are used not only for
CCDP but serve community needs as meeting halls, recreation areas and education centers.
However, probably the best measure of the extent of human empowerment is that of the 2017
AOS beneficiaries surveyed 61.1% said they were very satisfied with CCDP, 38.9% quite
satisfied and none dissatisfied.
45. Agricultural Productivity. The project's impact on agricultural productivity is considered to be
satisfactory (5) terms of increasing the productivity or production of fisheries and diversification
of products. Ninety-six per cent of the households participating in project-supported enterprises
experienced productivity increase due to CCDP interventions since 2015. There was an 80 per
cent increase for those in capture fishing groups, 450 per cent for freshwater aquaculture
groups, 71 per cent for processing groups, and 42 per cent for marketing groups.
46. Beneficiaries attributed 96% of their productivity gains to CCDP interventions. Capture fisheries
improvements stemmed from both transfer of technology and provision of 80% of the cost of
fishing boats, gear and nets (fishers provided 20% of investments in cash or kind). There was a
transfer of technology to CCDP fishers related to the use of fish aggregation devices (FADs).
CCDP fishers use far more FADs than non-beneficiaries (17% versus 1%). Presumably this
boosts CCDP fisher yields. CCDP supplied boats and motors also assisted the Project’s fishers
to upgrade from canoes to powered boats and thereby improve safety at sea and increase
range and yields. Virtually, all CCDP pond aquaculturists reported large production increases
between 2015 and 2017 (19% of farmers with production up over 50%; 50% of farmers
production up 26% to 50%; 31% of farmers production up 5% to 25%). These numbers far
exceed gains by non-project farmers. CCDP farmers attributed the productivity gains to
technology improvements in water management, seed improvement and culture techniques
passed on to them through CCDP training as well as investments in ponds and related gear.
The huge gain in marine culture productivity is due to the introduction of seaweed culture.
CCDP also inspired marine culture production through transfer of technology resulting in culture
of marine fish, sea cucumbers and crabs, which were not much undertaken by non-beneficiary
culturists. Numerous fish products are produced under CCDP. Products include: (i) salted fish;
(ii) smoked fish; (iii) fish nuggets; (iv) fish balls; (v) shredded fish; (vi) fish paste; (vii) fish
crackers; (viii) dried seaweed; and (ix) others. These represent far more categories of products
than those produced by non-beneficiary processors. Knowledge about these products was
provided through the Project. Productivity increases soared by 90% between 2013 and 2015,
when technologies and funds were introduced by CCDP but has since plateaued.
47. Institutions and policies. The project's impact on institutions and policies is considered to be
satisfactory (5). Community level institutional capacity has improved across the term of project
implementation. At the outset of the Project there were no village level groups. All activities
were undertaken as individuals. The CCDP created 1 609 enterprise groups, of which 91 per
cent were still operating (target 60 per cent) at project completion based on the 2017 AOS data.
Of these, 94 per cent are reported to be financially viable (target 70 per cent). Enterprise
groups were encouraged to join cooperatives.
48. CCDP has formed 512 processing and marketing groups, which involves 4 869 households or
406 households per PIU (target 400 households). A total of 235 third party buyers or on
average 19 per district (target of four) are purchasing enterprise group products on a routine
basis. This includes supermarkets, processing companies, souvenir shops, etc. 84 MoUs have

12
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

been signed and 151 informal agreements have been made between the third-party buyers and
the village level enterprise groups (154 with local buyers, 60 with regional buyers and 21 with
national or international buyers). A total of 147 halal certificates have been awarded, and 357
food safety certificates (Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga (P-IRT)) have been issued for
enterprise group products.
49. The CCDP supported the integration of project communities and their future requirements into
village-level medium-term development plans. According to the 2017 AOS, all beneficiaries felt
that they were satisfied that project activities reflected their priorities. In addition, through ICM
processes, the project has been able to achieve significant impact on local policies resulting in
many villages instituting a conservation area (some are no-take zones/no-fishing, some
mangrove planting/rehabilitation areas), in some cases to be linked to national level legislation
on marine conservation, supported by village decrees and district level regulation. At district
and national level, the CCDP induced the interest of policy makers in replicating its participatory
and market-driven approach.
50. As indicated above, the project has successfully demonstrated a model that carefully blends the
empowerment of remote coastal communities enabling them to improve their livelihoods
through a combined focus on socio-economic development, sustainable natural resource
management, and accesses to markets. The project legacy is that Government of Indonesia
has developed an innovative approach to combining sustainable marine and coastal natural
resource management with economic and livelihood development. Supervision mission reports
document the high appreciation of local policy makers for this approach and the strong
integration with local policy priorities and initiatives.
51. Access to markets. The project contribution to increasing access to markets is rated
satisfactory (5). The project facilitated access to markets in coastal communities, by (i)
developing marketing strategies that identified priority products; (ii) increasing marketing
awareness within enterprise groups; (iii) promoting market-oriented technology transfer; (iv)
providing storage and processing facilities, and transportation; (v) facilitating linkages with sales
outlets for enterprise group products; and (vi) facilitating product certification.
52. Project utilized a sophisticated Marketing Strategy based on a value chain methodology. Based
on the Marketing Strategy Plan, Infrastructure Development, Training and annual Action Plans
2014 to 2017 were made. The result is that virtually all Enterprise Groups and district level
infrastructure producers are able to market their products with relative ease. CCDP formed 512
processing and marketing groups, which involved 4 869 households or 406 households per PIU
(target 400 households). A total of 235 third party buyers, an average 19 per district (target of
four), were purchasing enterprise group products on a routine basis by project completion.
These included supermarkets, processing companies, souvenir shops, etc. 84 MoUs have been
signed and 151 informal agreements have been made between the third-party buyers and the
village level enterprise groups (154 with local buyers, 60 with regional buyers and 21 with
national or international buyers). To strengthen market access a total of 147 halal certificates
have been awarded, and 357 food safety certificates (Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga (P-IRT))
have been issued for enterprise group products, as discussed above in Section D.1 above.
53. Some enterprise groups are also selling their products online, through for example, an online
platform (e.g. in Makassar) or social media (Facebook, twitter). Cooperatives have also been
instrumental in facilitating sales outlets and providing timely access to quality inputs.
54. In the 2017 AOS, 70% of beneficiary report an improved access to a marketing place
(compared to 27% in the control group) and 77% of them indicate that this improvement is due
to the project. Beneficiaries further indicate: an increase in sales (93% of beneficiaries vs 35%
in the control group), that they have entered in direct sales contracts (53% of beneficiaries vs
30% in the control group) which improved their financial condition (93% beneficiaries vs 50% in
the control group).

13
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

55. Natural resources and the environment. The project's contribution to natural resources and
the environment is rated as satisfactory (5). CCDP contributed to positive changes in the
marine and fisheries resource base, especially through: (i) community awareness; (ii)
establishing CBCRM groups; (iii) surveillance activities; (iv) reducing destructive and
unsustainable fishing practices, and (v) the development and implementation of coastal marine
co-management plans, and integrated coastal management plans.
56. The Project supported promoting sustainable fishing practices, mangrove restoration, the
collection and processing of waste, and the establishment of coastal marine resource
management areas (of which 20 have been ratified by local ordinances and another 13 are
expected to be ratified by the end of the project). Innovative income generating activities were
introduced to sustain environmental protection. There are some data to indicate that the health
of marine resources has improved. The Project also maintained a strong stance for
environmentally sustainable aquaculture. In this regard, no support was provided for
aquaculture which reduced mangrove cover. Some enterprise groups benefitted from
environmental improvements, for example harvesting wild crabs and bee-keeping.
57. In addition, 45 community level ecotourism investments have been made thereby protecting
local resources, raising awareness of climate change, negative effects of destructive fishing
practices, environmental issues and boosting local income. CCDP has also undertaken other
environmental activities such as mangrove re planting, establishment and surveillance of sea
protection areas and rubbish clean up.
58. Adaption and mitigation to climate change. The project was rated satisfactory (5) for
adaption to climate change based on the extent to which project beneficiaries and local
communities were empowered to mitigate, prevent, or prepare for climate-related problems and
increase their resilience. Even though the project design did not have an explicit focus on
climate change mitigation or adaptation, it managed to engage during implementation with both
issues in a number of positive ways. The production of seaweed and coral transplantation
supported by the Project will result in carbon sequestration. In addition, the focus of the project
on eco-tourism activities, in many cases coupled with environmental education, raised
awareness of climate change and environmental issues. While some project activities (such as
the provision of fishing-boat engines) may increase carbon emissions, any negative project
impacts in terms of climate change are negligible given the types and scale of inputs being
provided to beneficiaries. The potential for the Project to increase the incomes of beneficiaries
and access to finance, and support for mangrove rehabilitation and preservation, are both
contributing to increase their adaptation and resilience to the impacts of climate change.
59. Gender equity and women’s empowerment. The project's contribution to gender equity and
women's empowerment is rated moderately satisfactory (5). Project made an important
contribution in facilitating the participation of women and ensured that they accounted for a
significant number of beneficiaries. The CCDP had a positive impact on gender equity and
women’s empowerment, mainly by: (i) promoting the economic empowerment of women; (ii)
enabling women and men to have an equal voice and influence in rural institutions and
organizations; and (iii) achieving a more equitable workload balance. The majority of the
women were not involved in any income generating activities before the start of the Project.
60. Women make up almost 30 per cent of the enterprise group members. They are well
represented in the processing (86 per cent) and savings groups (90 per cent), but are
underrepresented in capture fishing groups (six per cent) and infrastructure groups (five per
cent) reflecting the cultural gender-based norms in coastal communities. Women reported
significant increases in their incomes and savings, and improvement of production,
bookkeeping, processing, and marketing skills. Overall, many female participants showed
enhanced self-esteem and confidence, and justifiable pride in their new ability to provide
resources for themselves and their families.

14
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

61. Women’s influence was also strengthened. They constitute 33 per cent of the VWG members
and the 2017 AOS showed that almost all women stated that the CCDP activities addressed
their priorities. Intra-household relationships were reported to also have improved, with the
women’s increased economical contribution.
62. Finally, improved access to basic infrastructure and services, such as water supply, energy,
roads and transport, helped to reduce the daily workload of rural living – especially among
women with their double role of domestic and productive work.

D.3. Targeting and outreach

63. The project's performance in targeting and outreach is rated as satisfactory (5). All project
results data and information indicates that the project interventions have reached the Project’s
intended target group - the coastal, active poor in project villages located in Eastern Indonesia.
There were no deviations from the project design outreach targets except for a strengthened
emphasis on gender equity. Direct project benefits accrued to community members
participating in 1,990 villages groups (not including VWGs) with a total of approximately 18,925
members. This is 96% of the logframe goal for direct beneficiaries of 19,800 households
participating in enterprise groups under the Project, or around 75,700 people based on the
national average of 4. The total direct and indirect beneficiaries are estimated at 503,500
people, 57% more than the target of 320,000 direct and indirect beneficiaries.
64. A screening matrix was applied for village selection that included six variables to identify poor
and vulnerable communities with the potential to benefit. This was a successful approach and
well implemented. The TPDs under the guidance of the Empowerment Consultants in each PIU
worked with national datasets to identify poor households and then conducted a series of both
quantitative and qualitative interviews to determine whether or not the households met the
agreed targeting criteria. The TPDs were rigorous in enforcing criteria; even removing project
participants who they subsequently felt did not fulfil the targeting criteria. Supervision mission
reports and the MTR provide strong evidence that the Project closely followed the targeting
strategy specified at design, and successfully implemented targeting and outreach based on
the project guidelines. It is noteworthy that the Project made improvements to the targeting
process during implementation with PIUs identifying target beneficiaries for second tranches of
project support based on performance. At a project level, targeting of resources between PIUs
through the performance and reward system, as well as the allocation of funds between villages
and groups, was also effective, particularly for incentivizing performance. Client surveys reveal
that respondents at all levels consider that the criteria applied was valid and transparent
65. The Project adopted a gender-sensitive implementation approach by recruiting a Gender
Specialist, establishing guidelines for women’s participation (30%); ensuring at least two
enterprise groups in each PIU had women members, and measured progress through gender-
disaggregated data. Overall, the gender target of 30% participation was achieved, although
there was some minor variability in gender participation in different enterprise groups as
described above in Section D.2.

D.4. Innovation and scaling-up

66. The project's performance with respect to innovation is rated as satisfactory (5). The project
piloted new and innovative approaches for promoting improved livelihoods in poor coastal
communities. CCDP facilitated innovations in both managerial and technical areas. These
innovations were both piloted and then applied during implementation. Many project
innovations have a wider application and were promoted as lessons learned to other GOI and
IFAD projects; widely published and even presented at international conferences. The CCDP
frequently received learning visits from other countries (7 countries visited CCDP) and elements
of the project design has been replicated in at least three other IFAD investments in other
countries.

15
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

67. Project innovations can be grouped into: (i) innovative project management methods; and (ii)
innovation in the project implementation.
68. Innovative project management methods:
 Performance Incentive System: Incentivizing high performance is a challenge for all
international development partners in Indonesia. To mitigate this risk the Project developed
an innovative approach to leverage the M&E system as a management tool. It prepared a
3
weekly dashboard system based on the key performance indicators and transparent
communication of progress and performance to all PIUs. It designed and implemented a PIU
level performance-based incentive system that allocated funds annually based on
performance. The ‘reward and punishment’ system generated a focus on results and
motivated PIU’s to improve their performance. The PMO provided enhanced supervision to
the weaker-performing PIU’s. In the first 2 years of implementation, approximately one third of
PIU’s were in Cluster 1 and one third in Cluster 2. Clusters 2 and 3 were provided added
support. PIU performance gradually improved across time so that by 2017, all PIUs had
attained satisfactory or excellent levels of performance. Application of the system, and the
resultant targeted support, had the effect of fostering a very healthy relationship between
national and local agencies.

 Local Consultant Selection: A lessoned learned during the project implementation was that
local governments and communities responded best to consultants from their own districts,
and worked closely with PIUs to recruit and contract district based consultants. Highly
qualified individuals with strong credentials and appropriate professional expertise were
located. In this manner, the Project was able to provide high quality cost effective support to
villages and project beneficiaries.

 Management Information System (MIS): With IFAD support, the preliminary design for a
4
comprehensive MIS begun in 2013 with the system became operational early 2014. It
provided real time management information related to project implementation. The MIS was
started with basic information and data but was expanded in time to include implementation
status, key documents, publications, marketed products, etc. Information flowed into the
system not only from dedicated M&E personnel but also from other concerned GOI staff and
consultants throughout the Project by email, telephone, SMS and social media and electronic
applications. Since the MIS was web based it was widely accessed by thousands of
stakeholders both inside and outside the Project.

 Knowledge products. CCDP produced a wide range of knowledge products, both internally
by the project or as a result of the extensive media coverage achieved. There were many
products that can easily found in the internet including books, project report, video, blog and
etc. This wide range of knowledge and communication materials that were disseminated
increased the project’s visibility and particularly influence with policy makers.
69. Innovation in the project implementation.
 Fragile Species Management: Although most species captured by CCDP Fisheries Groups
are not over exploited or fragile, an exception was the case of Kubu Raya where many
groups relied on crab production. The local PIU worked with the local Dinas KP to develop
both a Crab Management Strategy and Plan. The entire process of developing and
implementing the Plan helped to improve resource sustainability and raise fishers’
awareness about the resources fragility.
 Partnership Arrangements: The Project extended its reach through the use of partnerships
for operation of district level infrastructure investments and product marketing. Each of the

3
Refer to Annex 13 Lessons Learned in Project Management
4
An illustration of the CCDP MIS is presented in Annex 13

16
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Project’s 80 district level Infrastructure Investments located operating partners, a mix of

private companies, entrepreneurs, cooperatives, enterprise groups and government entities.
CCDP also recruited 72 partners for marketing and 33 for training. The use of these
partners resulted in large gains in both cost and implementation efficiency.
 Commodity Selection: CCDP utilized a strategic method for commodity selection. Firstly a
screening matrix for selection was developed, instructing PIUs in its use, each PIU then
identifying up to 5 high-potential commodities from its area. The PIUs then undertook a
second round of screening, with input from buyers and business groups. Each PIU chose 3
high-potential commodities, and detailed value chain plans were developed, training
provided and recommendations on district level Priority Infrastructure made.
 Strategic Marketing Approach: CCDP developed a comprehensive marketing strategy prior
to developing products to guide training, infrastructure development, production and
marketing plans. This was done by; identification of market opportunities and intervention
strategies; identification and analysis of high potential commodities and their derived
products; and, preparation of a Marketing Strategy Plan. The final Market Strategy Plan
considered all elements of the value chain including raw material availability, comparative
advantages for fishers, downstream producers and businesses, production capacity and
constraints, packaging, market segmentation, distribution networks, demand conditions,
constraints and other issues.
 Health and Halal Certification: Under CCDP, 338 Processing Groups and 174 Marketing
Groups were formed and are operational. All groups are able to sell at the village level
markets, which are often quickly saturated affecting price. However, to upgrade both types
of groups' product marketing, the project assisted Processing and Marketing Groups to
upgrade product marketing by enabling them to obtain local health (P-IRT) and halal
certification. Use of these certificates enabled CCDP group products to enter district,
province, national and even international markets.
 Ecotourism Development: Market assessments conducted by the project identified
ecotourism as an opportunity, both to generate income and to improve the sustainability of
natural resources. At mid-term review it was determined that ecotourism offered excellent
community development opportunities and potential to boost local incomes, protect
resources and raise environmental awareness. Up to 30 September 2017, 35 marine
ecotourism investments had been made in 11 PIUs, and have proven to be effective and
financially viable.
 New Fisheries Products: To identify products, which could significantly boost rural incomes
in a sustainable manner, CCDP utilized a value chain approach. New products CCDP
pioneered included: (i) ikan gastor at PIU Merauke; (ii) ikan serut (hana katsuo) at PIU
Bitung; (iii) tortillas at PIU West Lombok; (iv) sei ikan at PIU Kupang; and (v) ikan asap cair
at PIU Ambon. All of these products were new to market and therefore required the
development of technical production techniques and marketing strategies. After extensive
testing and piloting, all these new products have succeeded and are now being routinely
produced and sold by Enterprise Groups.
 Promotion of project ownership. The Project succeeded to in making itself consistent with
government policy and priorities while remaining relevant to the community needs.
Integration of local initiatives and priorities was used to build ownership among project
participants.
 Resources Mobilization. The total mobilized co-financing significantly exceeded the
amount anticipated in the project design. In addition, mobilizing additional sources of
funding through CSR/private sector collaboration and linkage to other Government offices
provided an avenue to sustainability of interventions and outcomes.

17
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

 Inter-component linkage. The project demonstrated that project components, if integrated

and phased carefully, could complement each other, achieving enhanced outcomes.
 Economic incentives for sustainable natural resource management. Application of a
combined commercial and environmental approach to sustainable use and improvement of
natural resources. Innovative income generating activities were introduced in combination
with environmental protection to improve the health of marine resources in numerous
CCDP supported interventions.
Replication and Potential for Scaling Up
70. The project's performance in terms of replication and scaling up is rated as satisfactory (5).
71. The project design had an in-built scaling up/replication strategy. In 2016, CCDP began active
development of a Replication Plan to extend successful elements of the Project to at least 12
additional districts. Technical support is being provided by the PMO with funds from the Japan
Fund for Poverty Reduction, managed by the Asian Development Bank. This piloting effort is
providing valuable lessons for how to support replication after project completion. Based on
Berau findings and project research, in 2017 the PMO then produced an over 100 page
Replication Manual (Buku Manual Replikasi CCDP-IFAD) with chapters related to coastal
community development, implementation mechanisms, business support/marketing,
management and funding.
72. As part of the completion activities, the Project Management Team held several workshops
informing district governments about outcomes of the project and discussed potential scaling up
with several districts already confirming their interest. Just prior to completion, a pilot scaling up
initiative in Berau in East Kalimantan was conducted with technical support is being provided by
the PMO to manage replication with funds provided by a Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction,
and managed by the Asian Development Bank. This will provide valuable lessons for the
government in how to support replication without IFAD support after the project. In other
districts scaling up is happening, with allocations having been made in village funding for
CCDP-type activities and CCDP modalities being used for targeting and demand-driven
investments. In Makassar, the PIU reported that the DinasKP office has changed its approach
to development planning from a top-down to a bottom-up process, based on and as a result of
the CCDP model, resulting in better outcomes and more effective use of funding. BAPPENAS
is also planning to utilise/replicate the CCDP model for fisheries-related activities as part of
Equity Economic Programme and its yearly planning in 2018 and 2019.

D.5. Assessment of project efficiency

73. The project efficiency and value for money is considered to be satisfactory (5). Project
implementation was efficient and the project investments represent good value for money. The
result of cost benefit as well as financial analysis and quantification on the financial leverage
including the beneficiaries’ contributions showed a very high level of efficiency. The project has
achieved almost all of its objectives with disbursements of approximately 85% of available
funds. The CCDP programme has shown positive impact for targeted beneficiaries. Models
elaborated for the ex-post EFA indicated significant increases in income and in self-
consumption therefore contributing to food security, livelihoods enhancements, gender
empowerment and increased social and economic welfare. CCDP activities were pivotal in
increasing productivity and diversifying economic opportunities through value addition activities
and a more sustainable use of fish stocks and natural resources. In addition, the programme
triggered second-tier benefits through job creation and diversification of local produce,
meanwhile putting into sustainable economic use resources left idle otherwise. The fiscal
analysis also showed that project resources increased social welfare while project cost borne
by the Government were almost fully offset by an increase in tax revenues (Annex 10).

18
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

D.6. Project costs and financing

74. The Project Costs and financing as are presented in detail in Annex 7. The total costs were
estimated to be US$ 44.9 million with a base cost of US$ 41.8 million. Physical and price
contingencies of 3% and 5% of the base costs respectively were used. The total project cost of
US$ 44.9 million was to be financed through an IFAD amount equivalent to US$ 32.8 million
(IFAD Loan, STF Loan, IFAD Grant), GOI contribution of about US$ 7 million including US$ 2.8
million of taxes and duties and beneficiaries’ participation of US$ 2.2 million equivalent. An
additional financing amount of US$ 2.8 million to complete the CCCP financing plan would be
provided on the basis of findings and recommendations of the Mid Term Review mission.
75. The table below compares expected with actual Government and beneficiary contributions,
showing a large increase over the project lifetime, in the case of beneficiary contribution of up
to 242%. This is a testament to the strong ownership and appreciation of the project.
Contribution of Government would likely be higher than the number indicated above. The
project unit was very successful in leveraging programmes run by other Dinas’ or national
government. For example, some of the groups were receiving funding from the Village Law, a
national programme to support village development activities. Further, many of the district units
leveraged CSR funding from private sector companies. Unfortunately, IFAD does not yet have a
methodology to monetize these contributions.

Government contributions (in US$)

Expected APBN APBD APBN + APBD Recurrent Total govt. %
contributions (actual (actual (actual 4 years) costs contributions (against
at design 4 years) 4 years) (actual (actual expected)
(5 years)* 4 years)** 4 years)
7,100,000 2,224,719 789,208 3,013,927 4,745,376 7,759,303 109.3%
Beneficiary contributions (in US$)
Expected %
contributions Actual (against
at design (4 years) *** expected)
(5 years)
2,100,000 5,092,771 242.0%

Table 1: PDR Total Project Costs and Funding Sources

(US$ ‘000)
No. Funding Source US$ '000 Percent
I. Government 7,046 16%
II. IFAD Loan 22,306 50%
III. Spanish Trust Fund Loan 8,502 19%
IV. IFAD Grant 2,000 4%
V. IFAD Loan 2 2,785 6%
VI. Beneficiairies 2,240 5%
Total 44,879
Source: Project Design Report

76. There was some slight divergence in the expenditure from the original design budget envisaged
in the project design. Modifications of the funding are described in Section D.3. Funding was
sufficient for project needs with the allocation of funds adjusted according to the emerging
needs of project implementation and the local implementing context. The IFAD Loan and IFAD
Grant were provided in IMF Special Drawing Rights (XDR), the STF Loan in Euro and the GOI

19
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

and Beneficiary Contributions in Indonesian Rupiah (Rp). Comparisons across time need to
consider exchange rate fluctuations between the 4 currencies. The IFAD Loan was provided as
projected. However, the IFAD 2 Loan was not felt to be required at midterm, the STF was
reduced by +/- US$ 1.0 million and the IFAD Grant reduced by +/- US$ 350,000. Although the
Project was completed largely to design and on time, actual expenditures estimated to
complete the Project are estimated at only US$ 35.5 million, equivalent to about 80% of the
original budget. The savings can be attributed both to conservative project design estimates
and efficiencies in project implementation (e.g., use of individual local consultants, impact of
Rupiah devaluations, greater beneficiary in kind contributions, etc.).
77. Table 1 provides a profile of project finance by funding sources and categories. Based on IFAD
Statement of Funds (SOF) in May 2018, the numbers are considered highly reliable. SOFs
show high rates of funds absorption (IFAD Loan – 84%; STF Loan – 100%; IFAD Grant – 94%).

Table 2: Project Funding and Expenditures per Category

Up to May 2018
Financier Category Currency Allocated amount Amount used Percent used Available
Authorised allocation - 262,190 0.00% -262,190
Technical assistance 1,114,000 849,144 76.22% 264,856
Ifad Grant SDR
Training and workshops 72,000 - 0.00% 72,000
Total 1,186,000 1,111,334 93.70% 74,666
Authorised allocation - 760,644 0.00% -760,644
Training and workshops 4,728,000 4,496,019 95.09% 231,981
Spanish Trust Fund EUR
Studies and surveys 1,560,000 1,018,058 65.26% 541,942
Total 6,288,000 6,269,191 99.70% 18,809
Authorised allocation - 2,193,016 0.00% -2,193,016
Vehicles, materials and
1,380,000 1,137,064 82.40% 242,936
equipment
Training and workshops 3,530,000 1,578,818 44.73% 1,951,182
Consultancy services 870,000 565,597 65.01% 304,403
Ifad Loan SDR
Community enterprise and
8,010,000 5,814,237 72.59% 2,195,763
infrastructure fund
District fund for supporting small
2,080,000 1,978,866 95.14% 101,134
scale fisheries
Total 15,870,000 13,207,178 83.22% 2,662,822
Source: IFAD Statement of Funds May 2018

78. The project monitored costs not only by Expenditure Categories but also by components and
sub components. Table 9 presents the project expenditures by component/subcomponents as
of 15 September 2017. These figures are based on Government's financial information.
Although considered accurate, the figures in Table 6 may differ from IFAD figures as they
include GOI contributions. In addition, there are the many financial documents in transit and
various stages in preparation for the project closing in June 2018. There is also some
expenditure still to be reconciled. Consequently GOI Rupiah and IFAD XDR and Euro figures
will only be able to be fully reconciled at project completion. The figures do reveal that
Component 1 expended 88% of its budgeted amount, Component 2 83% and Component 3
69%. Overall, GOI figures indicate that up to 15 September 2017, 81% of funds allocated have
been spent.

20
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Table 3: Fund Utilization per Component (IDR)

Up To 15 September 2017
No. Component Total Project
Budgeted Actual Percent
1. Community Empowerment
1.1 Community Facilitation 52,632,841,000 41,870,385,462 80%
1.2 Coastal Resource Assessment 34,584,818,000 30,462,081,050 88%
1.3 Market Focused Village Investment 123,739,387,000 112,562,253,805 91%
Subtotal (Component 1) 210,957,046,000 184,894,720,317 88%
2. District Support
2.1 Investment and Capacity Building 44,634,581,000 35,863,624,782 80%
2.2 Market and Value Chain Support 24,527,656,000 21,731,232,588 89%
Subtotal (Component 2) 69,162,237,000 57,594,857,370 83%
3. Project Management 118,782,784,000 82,085,500,838 69%
Total 398,902,067,000 324,575,078,525 81%
Source: GOI Financial Records, SP2Ds

D.7. Quality of project management

79. The quality of project management is considered satisfactory (5). The high quality of project
management was a key factor in the success of the project. There was: (i) excellent
performance against Annual Work Plan and Budgets (AWPB) in both physical and financial
terms; (ii) strong financial management at both PMO and PIU levels; (iii) numerous strong
partnerships fostered by the Project; (iv) good development and then adherence to project
guidelines and implementation manuals; (v) strong communication and successful phasing
across all 12 geographically remote districts; (vi) re-housing of the Project within the KKP’s
institutional structure in 2016 without adversely affecting performance; (vii) effectiveness of
TPDs based in or close to villages they supported, ensuring large amounts of time spent ‘on
the ground’ with beneficiaries; (viii) innovations in project management (“reward and
punishment” system, weekly dashboard, etc.); (ix) strong performance in implementing both the
agreed actions and the ‘softer’ recommendations made by the joint review missions over the
course of the Project; and (x) and good guidance from the National Project Steering Committee.
80. In addition, the approach to project management generated a very strong sense of ownership
and team spirit, and an impressive understanding of the project’s aims and implementation
modalities. These factors were important in the achievements demonstrated by the Project, in
the high levels of beneficiary participation, and in good staff/consultant retention.
Communication and coordination within the PMO, as well as between the PMO and PIUs is
done on a nearly daily basis, with PIUs closely following the direction provided by the PMO.
The PMO (staff, national consultants and strategically invited guests from KKP and other
institutions) met on a weekly basis and travelled regularly to the field for meetings with the PIUs
and beneficiaries. In addition, workshops and trainings brought different experts from all PIUs
together. The PMO uses innovative tools such as MIS to provide access to project data and
documents.
81. Performance of PIUs – while variable at the start of implementation – consistently improved
throughout the project's lifecycle. This was in part due to targeted coaching and PMO support,
with frequent technical backstopping from IFAD. Performance is tracked through the Project’s
“reward and punishment” system, which ranks PIUs in three clusters based on a matrix of
different performance criteria. The first ranking exercise in 2014 resulted in four PIUs each in
clusters 1, 2 and 3. Since then PIU performance has considerably improved so that by 2016, all
PIUs ranked either in cluster 1 or 2.

21
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

82. Monitoring and Evaluation. Based on the project logframe, an extensive M&E Plan was
developed from the start of implementation. Data flowed from the village level (from TPDs),
through the district level (PIUs), and to the national level (PMO). At district level, the Dinas M&E
officer verified and compiled the TPD data sent by the TPDs and sent it on to the PMO. The
M&E unit in the PMO was made up of the GoI M&E Officer, an MIS Consultant, a senior and a
junior computer expert. In 2014, they set up an online web-based Management Information
System (MIS) to provide real time information related to project implementation. RIMS studies
and AOS were carried out in 2013, 2015 and 2017 to monitor the outcomes and impact of the
project. Logframe indicators were slightly modified during supervision missions to make them
5
more SMART . CCDP’s M&E system is considered highly innovative within the Government, as
well as by other IFAD supported projects within Indonesia and abroad.
83. The project’s M&E should be considered as best practice to be replicated elsewhere. This good
performance is all the more impressive given that in 2013, the IOE’s Country Programme
Evaluation (CPE) considered M&E as being a weak area for the IFAD country programme in
Indonesia. The system used by the Project was relatively simple, user-friendly, did not require
excessive human resources, and was very cost-effective. Through its weekly dashboard,
reliable and real-time information was provided on CCDP’s physical and financial progress
accessible at any time from any geographic location. This information was widely shared within
and outside the project using mobile applications like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter. An
innovative performance-based incentive system was introduced that used the M&E data to
determine the scale of investment and support to each individual district targeted under the
project in a transparent manner. The M&E system also allowed management to take corrective
action when needed. Key knowledge was generated through the system.
84. Knowledge management. The project design foresaw that knowledge management would
play an important role in the project. Nevertheless, no explicit knowledge management plan
was developed. During implementation, specific knowledge management staff were assigned at
the national and district levels and a virtual network remotely linking all the project target areas
and staff was created in 2013. The Badung Learning Centre was also officially established as a
learning centre to capitalize on and demonstrate its success in organising producers and
developing markets and market approaches for small-scale fisheries to result in poverty
alleviation. This centre was successful in motivating PIUs to learn and exchange lessons
learned and knowledge. Importantly, at the village level, Village Information Centres were
instrumental in dissemination of knowledge and learning within the communities – and often
acted as a central convening point in communities for discussion, dialogue and dissemination.
The importance of having this simple venue/ mechanism to promote inclusive rural
development cannot be overstated.
6
85. More than 150 knowledge products were produced. The project applied a creative and
extensive mix of modern and traditional tools and channels (WhatsApp, twitter, Facebook,
project website, publications, infographics, videos, traditional media, exchange visits, VICs,
Badung Learning Centre, etc.) to ensure transparent access to and sharing of knowledge and
information among project stakeholders. Effective learning loops that improved the relevance
and performance of the programme were created, and the Project concentrated on the
production of KM outputs from early on during implementation.
86. The CCDP website, and particularly the web-based MIS, contained a wealth of information
ranging from training materials to case studies. Special efforts were made to ensure that these
resources were available in the long term and at different levels (village, district and national) by
integrating it into the KKP and district websites.

5
Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-Bound
6
See Annex 1

22
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

D.8. Quality of financial management

87. CCDP’s performance in financial management is satisfactory (5). At the time of project
completion 84% of the IFAD Loan (SDR 13 million), 94% of the IFAD grant (SDR 1.1 million)
and 100% of the STF (EUR 6.3million) has been expended. A detailed review of the financial
and audit documentation of the last three years concludes that in general, the financial filing
system in PIUs and submission of monthly financial reports to the PMO has been timely,
satisfactory and compliant with procedures. All documentation is easily accessible and
retrievable from the filing systems.
88. In addition, during field visit at the time of the completion, the mission noted an increased
awareness and enhanced practice - at local level - on proper book keeping. In general group’s
practice of recording transactions, volume of production and sales, prices for inputs and outputs
cost has been pivotal to the success and sustainability of businesses and enterprises supported
under CCDP.
89. The processing of Withdrawal Applications for the Loans and Grant has been regular and
effective and the provision of counterpart financing was in line with the project financing
agreement. The PMO proactively attempted to resolve financial management issues, such as:
(i) the timely processing of Withdrawal Applications; (ii) the reconciliation of the Designated
Account (DA). Due to improvements in financial reporting and good overall financial
management performance, the project's FM risk was set to low in 2016. Requirements to
submit supporting documentation with disbursement requests were reduced and liquidity was
increased. These measures facilitated the flow of disbursements and put an end to the
suspension of payments by MoF due to low liquidity, which had caused bottlenecks in 2015 and
2016. The project was effectively audited annually and all reports were unqualified. The audit
management letters drew attention to some cases of ineligibility of expenditure, mostly at
district level. MoF has already refunded these amounts to IFAD up to FY 2016. Any ineligible
expenditure noted in the 2017 and 2018 audit reports, which were not yet due at the time the
PCR were prepared, will similarly be refunded to IFAD, in consultation between the auditors
and MoF.
90. The project design envisaged adequate human resources required to effectively provision for
financial management, administration and procurement. The capacity of financial management
staff at all levels was adequate and supplemented by technical consultants when required. The
provision regular implementation support and training by IFAD assisted the project to build its
fiduciary capacities and address any financial management and procurement challenges
encountered.
91. The project's annual Financial Statements were prepared in a timely manner for the statutory
audits. The Financial Statements were generally well prepared and in conformity with IFAD’s
requirements for cash based accounting. Together with annual Financial Statements, the
project provided regular Financial Management reports as part of semi-annual progress
updates, including: (i) disbursement by financiers; (ii) performance by component and grant
categories; and (iii) cumulative expenditures by financer by categories and components.
92. The project established effective internal controls to ensure a clear segregation of functions and
effective control of project expenditures. The system ensured that financial transactions and
events were correctly processed, recorded and reported. Similarly, record keeping for fixed
assets and inventories was adequate, and a register was properly maintained and regularly
reconciled. With respect to procurement, the internal control system function effectively with
over 100 tenders effectively executed in compliance with Government’s and IFAD’s
procurement requirements.

23
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

D.9. Partners' performance

93. Given the size, focus and broad geographic scope, it was important for the project to facilitate
and to maintain effective partnerships in order to achieve the overall project objectives.
Implementing partners at the village level were primarily the beneficiary groups established by
the CCDP, but also included local government village administrations. Supervision mission
reports throughout the project’s implementation provide evidence for high levels of beneficiary
participation by project groups. Some challenges and risks faced in retaining engagement by
individuals in VWGs, infrastructure groups, and CBCRM groups, were minimised through
involvement of the groups in local/village-level government activities and planning processes,
and the identification of revenue-generating possibilities for CBCRM groups. The CCDP
invested considerable effort and resources in building the capacity of enterprise groups during
implementation, and their high level of motivation to engage with the Project was the result of
the relevance of project activities to their priorities and needs, as already discussed. Local
village government administrations also increasingly engaged with the Project over the course
of implementation, and supervision mission reports noted that support from local government
translated into increased support for the groups (and in some cases additional funding from
local government for investments).
94. At the district level, CCDP utilized third parties to operate its district level infrastructure
investments and assist with marketing and training efforts (44% of third party operators of
investments were village groups, 28% private sector partners, 23% cooperatives, and 5%
government entities). Partners signed MoUs with the CCDP for the operation of all large-scale
district infrastructure investments, and good partner performance was reflected through large
scale district infrastructure utilization rates during the last year of the Project that showed 59%
were operating at a high level, 27% at a moderate level, and only 14% at a low level. The
project completion mission also noted support provided by cooperatives and private sector
parties (through their own funds) for the strengthening of project enterprise groups, for example
through provision of training and capacity developments in product quality. In addition, the
CCDP engaged government agencies at the district level, such as Dinas Tourism and Dinas
Cooperatives, which demonstrated good engagement with the Project (as reported in
supervision mission reports).
95. Assisting with market linkages for village-based enterprise group products to district, regional,
national and even international markets were more than 70 partners, such as vendors,
entrepreneurs-businessmen, and firms with operations reaching at least city and province wide
areas. These partnerships and the partners involved, succeeded in identifying and promoting
many new market opportunities for enterprise groups and showed real commitment to the
Project. For example, PT. Borneo facilitated with the export of crab to the USA, business groups
in Southeast Maluku exported Grouper and Red Snapper from enterprise groups to Taiwan,
and Carrefour in Kubu Raya, and Indomart in West Lombok showed strong collaboration with
the CCDP.
96. CCDP partnered with 33 institutions for the provision of project training. These included: (i)
universities and polytechnics; (ii) financial institutions; (iii) GoI organizations/agencies; (iv)
cooperatives; and (v) private companies. Training institutions were typically selected on a
competitive cost and skills basis, and project training reports and evaluations summarizing
performance provide evidence that the performance of those providing training was typically of
a high standard.
97. Contributions by government outside of KKP’s/DKP’s role in the PMO and PIUs, included active
engagement by KKP, BAPPENAS and the Ministry of Finance in the project design, as well as
in the supervision missions during implementation. Indeed, supervision missions were formally
referred to as ‘joint review missions’ with staff of these agencies joining IFAD teams both in the
field and for key meetings in Jakarta. These other agencies also displayed commitment to
follow-up of the recommendations of supervision and implementation support missions, and

24
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

supervision mission reports routinely noted their good compliance with covenants of the loan
agreement. The Spanish Trust Fund remained an enabling and supportive, but largely silent,
co-financing partner in the Project.
98. Government Performance. The Government's performance is assessed as satisfactory (5).
The Government was responsive to IFAD’s recommendations and in proactively addressing
implementation issues. A positive feature of the project was the active participation of the
Government in the project design and their active participation during project implementation.
The Ministry of Finance, Bappenas, and the KKP and National Planning and the Ministry of
Internal Affairs were active implementing partners. The only issue experienced during
implementation that had a negative effect on project implementation was the Ministerial
decision to withdraw all foreign financed projects from the Ministry. While this was eventually
resolved, it did in effect delay implementation during the project's final year.
99. IFAD Performance. IFAD's performance is considered satisfactory (5). IFAD’s engagement
with the project was consistently high over entire duration of project design and implementation.
The provision of supervision and implementation support was regular, of adequate quality and
timely in accordance with the project financing agreement. The establishment of a local IFAD
office enabled IFAD to engage more closely and to immediately address issues arising. The
follow-up on supervision agreed actions and the provision of targeted implementation support
was particularly effective.

D.10. Quality of supervision and implementation support

100. The quality of supervision and implementation support is considered satisfactory (5). IFAD
support to the Project throughout implementation from its Country Office, visiting missions,
trainings, and communication with IFAD Headquarters was timely, relevant and of a high
quality. The IFAD Indonesia Office personnel were in constant contact with PMO management.
They paid close attention to implementation status and attended important CCDP workshops
and gatherings. Comprehensive and highly applicable training was provided by IFAD for RIMS,
AOS, Procurement and Financial Management. The follow up was also well supported and
readily available through electronic communication, or, in the case of the Country Office,
personal visits. This IFAD guidance was provided about twice per month, with the
preponderance of requests for assistance on procurement, AWPB and loan administration.
IFAD financial advisory support, both from headquarters and the local country office were
provided in a timely and effective manner and were essential in avoiding implementation
bottlenecks from procurement and cash flow constraints. IFAD also worked in partnership with
the Project to assist with annual AWPB and procurement plan development, and to revise
financing plans through reallocation of resources between expenditure categories.
101. IFAD assisted the CCDP to refine its ecotourism activities through provision of technical
assistance; and its knowledge management programme through technical inputs from a media/
communications expertise. The ecotourism technical input was directly utilized by the Project,
while the media support assisted the project receiving good international coverage.
102. GOI/IFAD supervision missions were provided approximately twice per year, which was
consistent with project needs. The missions were consistently comprised of highly skilled team
members, and the same mission members were generally engaged for most missions, with this
consistency enhancing both their effectiveness and efficiency. In addition to ‘agreed actions’
contained in Aide Memoires of the mission, the supervision missions also innovated in providing
to the PMO on completion of each mission a list of ‘softer recommendations’ contained within
the mission reports. These were provided in tabular form for easy use by the Project, with
subsequent mission reports documenting not just progress in implementing the formal agreed
actions, but also the ‘softer recommendations’. These recommendations were readily owned by
the Project and helpful in guiding activities under the project components and subcomponents.

25
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

D.11. Project internal rate of return

103. The project's internal rate of return is considered satisfactory (5). At project design the financial
internal rate of return (FIRR) and the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) are positive, at
15.0 per cent and 19.6 per cent respectively. The ex-post EFA validated the technical and
financial viability of programme activities for targeted beneficiaries, hence examining impact of
main interventions on family labour, cash flow and household incomes as to assess the overall
economic viability of the project. Illustrative models for production and marketing of fish-related
product include: (i) Pelagic fish and shrimp production, (ii) Pelagic and demersal fish
production, (iii) Catfish aquaculture, (iv) Trevally fish production; (v) Seaweed production, (vi)
Fish cracker production; (vii) Marketing fresh fish; (viii) Fish Floss production, (ix) Shrimp paste
production, (x) Marketing of processed fish, (xi) Marine ecotourism. The overall economic
internal rate of return (EIRR) of the project is estimated at 18.4 per cent while the NPV of the
net benefit stream, discounted at eight per cent, is IDR 504 Mil. (USD 37 million).
104. Data used in these models is drawn from the ex-ante EFA (2012), interviews with beneficiaries
and rural communities during completion mission, the M&E system at project level, the RIMS of
CCDP, the CCDP Annual Outcome Survey (AOS), national census and international statistical
sources on Indonesia. In particular, information on labour and input requirements for various
operations, capital costs, prevailing wages, yields, farm gate and market prices of commodities,
input and farm-to-market transport costs were collected during interviews with project
beneficiaries. Conservative assumptions were made for both inputs and outputs to avoid
overestimation of benefits. A cash-flow analysis is finally carried out to present the “with” and
“without” programme analysis. The logical diagram below summarizes the approach used in the
analysis while summary results from the financial models are presented in table 1.

26
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Figure 2: Diagram of the EFA Approach

Table 4: Summary results of financial models

Total Switching
NPV (IDR NPV (USD) B/C Switching
Models number FIRR value
'000) @ 9 % @9% ratio value Costs
of groups Benefits
Pelagic Fish and Shrimp 540 235,250 17,419 20 % 1.34 -25 % 34 %
Pelagic and demersal fish 309 472,422 34,981 57 % 1.92 -48 % 92 %
Catfish Aquaculture 96 220,051 16,294 26 % 1.12 -11 % 12 %
Trevally fish 62 187,814 13,907 107 % 1.77 -44 % 77 %
Seaweed 90 192,549 14,258 119 % 2.42 -59 % 142 %
Fish cracker 33 66,197 4,902 50 % 1.16 -14 % 16 %
Marketing fresh fish 141 58,502 4,332 24 % 1.02 -2 % 2%
Fish Floss 213 1,047 77 10 % 1.04 -4 % 4%
Shrimp paste 86 141,519 10,479 33 % 1.35 -26 % 35 %
Marketing processed fish 33 404,699 29,967 n/a 1.68 -40 % 68 %
Marine ecotourism 45 48,846 3,617 11 % 1.06 -6 % 6%

105. In order to compare this result to the ex-ante analysis results a standardize price level to a
common numeraire has been established. Based on this, the EIRR of the ex-post EFA - in real
terms - is equal to 17.8 per cent and 9.7 per cent over 20 and 15 years respectively. Results
from the ex-ante analysis carried out in 2012 estimated an EIRR of 20.3 per cent in the 15-year

27
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

timeframe while it was estimated at 21.9 per cent over 20 years. Therefore, we can conclude
that the project was economically viable despite performing slightly less than as originally
expected.
Table 5: Results comparison (real values 2012)

15 years 20 years
Ex-Ante EFA Ex-Post EFA Ex-Ante EFA Ex-Post EFA
EIRR (%) 20.3 % 9.7 % 21.9 % 12.8 %
Note: discount rate is set at 9%

106. The fiscal analysis also showed that project resources increased social welfare while project
cost borne by the Government were almost fully offset by an increase in tax revenues, resulting in a
cost recovery index of 72 per cent
Table 6: CCDP Fiscal analysis (IDR M)

Category Society Government Farmers

Income 1,241,719 1,241,719
Costs
Family labour (188,960) (188,960)
Taxes on income 22,172 (22,172)
VAT 280,322 (280,322)
Project costs (491,431) (420,101)
Net benefit 561,328 (117,608) 678,936

E. Assessment of sustainability
107. Post-project sustainability is considered to be satisfactory (5) based on the likelihood that
benefits generated by the project will continue after project completion based on the strong
results, financial and economic incentives created, and the high level of beneficiary ownership
and government commitment. Project sustainability was supported through the development of
a comprehensive exit strategy to promote post project sustainability across four distinct
dimensions: (i) institutional; (ii) social; (iii) technical; (iv) economic-financial; and (v)
environmental. CCDP developed an effective way to communicate environmental issues to the
community, making them relevant to their interest and need. It successfully developed models
to improve environmental conditions while increasing incomes and livelihoods, and supported a
number of new marine community-based management areas.
108. Since the mid-term review in 2015, the Project (both PMO and PIUs) effectively executed an
Exit Strategy. The project's Exit Strategy was comprehensive and focused on multiple
dimensions of sustainability. The strategy aimed to find the means to sustain CCDP
investments and promote replication. For example:
(a) PMO proposed empowerment related activities to other DGs within KKP, and also
coordinated with the Ministry of Village Development on the similar activities;
(b) PMO initiated corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs linking with CCDP
community groups with large private sector companies such as PT Pertamina and PT
Sampoerna;
(c) Dinas KP Makassar replicated the CCDP model to other local locations using its APBD;
(d) For ecotourism, several tourism agencies (i.e., various Dinas Pariwisata) offered funding
and technical support for further ecotourism development (e.g., Kubu Raya, Kupang).

109. The road map for the Project’s Exit Strategy consisted of seven aspects, namely:

28
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

(a) Integrating CCDP activities into Local Government planning and budgeting (Dinas KP or
other Dinas, Wali Kota and Bupati offices, and villages including use of APBD);
(b) Mainstreaming CCDP activities into other executing agency branches within Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP Directorate Generals, etc.);
(c) Assimilating CCDP activities and priorities into village planning and budgeting including
under Village Law (UU Desa No. 6/2014). This law includes provision for a village
enterprise (BUMDES) dedicated to village economic development, agriculture and
natural resource management and a village fund (Dana Desa). Resource inventory and
ICM planning and ecotourism development continues to be integrated into the village
planning system, reinforced on a legal basis by village regulations;
(d) Strengthening the institutional capacity of CCDP community groups, both technically and
managerially to increase business production, saving and innovation of coastal
communities. Improving the savings and bookkeeping of groups is a key aspect of this
item, and is supported by ongoing work by the Project to engage with the private sector
corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, micro-finance institutions and banks.
(e) Wider involvement and cooperation with third-party partners: private sector, cooperative,
GOI (UMKM, Bumdes, etc.) to manage district infrastructures and support marketing
community products.
(f) Further development, operation and utilization of the 12 cooperatives established or used
to support community’s economic activities. The role of cooperatives is important in
accessing, facilitating and also managing private sector (including CSR funds) such as
PKBL Pertamina, CSR KDP Sampoerna, funds KKP LPPMU.
(g) Integration of coastal community empowerment activities into village development
activities undertaken by other Ministries such as Ministry of Village Development
programs (e.g., Village Funds).

110. Sustainability was assessed across five dimensions: (i) institutional; (ii) social; (iii) technical; (iv)
economic-financial; and (v) environmental.
(a) Institutional Sustainability: The project endeavoured to align, integrate and match its
activities with government institutions. During implementation, CCDP worked closely and
mentored local government agencies. As a result, CCDP practices are typically
mainstreamed into existing government activities and related budgets provided. For
example, at KKP outreach is made to socialize CCDP to the various Directorates with
proposals for action. At the Dinas KP level project initiatives such as ecotourism, village
targeting and other community support initiatives are being taken up and funded as new
line items in their work plans and budgets. At the village level, many Village Heads are
already including CCDP groups into financing by the other village funds, thus ensuring
their support beyond project completion. Within the private sector, strong partnerships
rd
were been built between 3 party operators including cooperatives and village groups
and their members. These are functioning well and enhancing institutional sustainability.
Over 80% of Enterprise Groups are running well and expected to continue activities
beyond project completion. The PMO determined that Enterprise Group sustainability
would be strengthened by having existing Enterprise Group members join district level
cooperatives. In this manner, they would then have better access to skills training, input
supplies, marketing and funding. Consequently, CCDP assisted in the development of
cooperatives in all 12 PIUs. In addition, some local governments have already replicated
the project design in other villages, and even implemented similar approaches in other
sectors using their own budget. The approach was adopted into district/city medium-term
development plans and entrenched in some of the agencies structure.

29
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

(b) Social sustainability: The technical, managerial and financial capacities of beneficiaries,
both individually and collectively, were considerably upgraded with project support
through many outreach programs. There was an evident strong buy-in from the target
communities. The Project also enhanced social capital and ensured that communities
were aware of the potential additional benefits of working collectively rather than as
individuals to achieve scale and improved market access. The capacity of poor
households to generate incomes was also developed and their organisations and
communities strengthened. Coastal communities received support in accessing wider
policy and economic networks and many groups pursued these. Considerable work was
been directed towards the creation of a ‘sustainability path’ for community empowerment
with the development of a road map that included 30 different steps towards supporting
the sustainability of progress in empowerment as part of the Exit Strategy. Based on
CCDP results, KKP is developing institutional mechanisms for the approach to be
replicated.
(c) Technical Sustainability: Drawing on the project participatory planning process and a
clear understanding of community beneficiaries’ capabilities, CCDP selected and
introduced appropriate technologies within targeted communities. All technologies
promoted were easily understood and supported with materials locally. Technical
approaches were developed by the PMO and socialized to PIUs, local consultants and
TPDs through personal communications, meetings, manuals and training. Twenty-four
coaching clinics were held to extend appropriate technologies. As a result, CCDP
studies indicated that 86% of enterprise groups were assessed as viable based on a
number of factors, including continued production, market access, credit access and
savings. Going forward these factors promote enterprise group sustainability. The
investments made at the district level were selected to be appropriate to local conditions,
flexible in use and relatively easily managed (e.g., mini ice plants, transport vehicles,
etc.). Most PIU facilities were designed for multi-use so can be easily converted if needs
change thereby enhancing their sustainability potential. Aside from all those
achievements, some technical supports might still be needed for some community
groups to meet the post project market demand and meet infrastructure utility and
durability.
(d) Economic/Financial Sustainability: The project's financial and economic sustainability
largely depends on the viability of Enterprise Groups and district infrastructure
investments. The project applied a thorough screening process for both district and
village-level investments to ensure their financial viability. District level investment
rd
proposals were often made together with the prospective 3 party operators. These
operators were usually very familiar with financial elements related to the proposed
investment. In addition, the PMO provided support of a Business Plan Specialist, who
worked with PIUs and operators to develop detailed business (28) and operating (9)
plans for district investments. In 2017 all district investments were in operation and their
operations are expected to continue. Bookkeeping and record keeping training was also
given to Enterprise Groups. Results are encouraging with over 80% of Enterprise
Groups considered financially sustainable with viable cash flow, all have savings
accounts and 60% already have already made savings. CCDP identified financial
resources available at other ministries and promoted their support of CCDP Groups. For
example, the Project made presentations to the Ministry of Village Development and
encouraged use of Village Funds granted by their ministry to CCDP Groups.
(e) Environmental Sustainability: Project investments are not considered to have had any
significant negative environment impact. The village and district level investments were
small in scale and screened to mitigate environmental impact. The Project did not
support any large scale marine fisheries. Fisheries investments were for small vessels,
which are believed to have a relatively limited impact of resources. To confirm the

30
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

Project’s impact, fisheries resource conditions were monitored by Catch per Unit Effort
(CPUE) measures. In addition, the Project supported environmental sustainability
through the implementation of village and district level integrated coastal management,
which includes protection areas, mangrove replanting and other environmental activities
such as establishment and surveillance of sea protection areas and rubbish clean up.
The production of seaweed being enabled by the Project resulted in carbon
sequestration. In addition, the recent focus of the Project on ecotourism activities, in
many cases coupled with environmental education, served to raise awareness of climate
change and environmental issues. Numerous project interventions led to significant
environmental improvements, as well as improved public environmental awareness.
CCDP successfully communicated environmental issues to the community by making
them relevant to community interests and needs. It successfully developed models to
improve environment conditions while increasing incomes and livelihoods of the
community.

F. Lessons learned and knowledge generated

111. Targeting. Geographical dispersion was identified at design as being a risk, making the project
potentially difficult to implement and to manage with the start-up of project operations in all 12
districts. Nevertheless, project performance has been highly satisfactory. Factors that
contributed to the success included: (i) a phased approach: starting implementation in only
three villages per district and subsequently scaling up, allowed for lessons to be learned and
risks mitigated during the first year of the project implementation; and (ii) the use of electronic
and mobile applications (like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter) and the web-based MIS
facilitated close communication, collaboration and coordination between the PMO and the PIUs
and ensured information transparency and strong local ownership.
112. Project management also applied a thorough targeting strategy and screening matrixes for both
village and group selection that ensured that project poverty targeting was achieved and local
ownership was built. Information and a picture of each beneficiary was included in the project’s
MIS, which allowed it to monitor the implementation of the targeting strategy and increase
transparency.
113. Approaches. Project design provided for a flexible and adaptive approach, which allowed for
modifications and adaptations as required and provided PIUs with sufficient autonomy to drive
projects in their districts based on the specific local needs and opportunities but within the
project framework.
114. Strong community commitment has been witnessed in CCDP. This can be attributed to three
factors: (i) the demand-driven participatory approach to development; (ii) one community
facilitator for each village; and (iii) early small-scale investments in village infrastructure.
115. CCDP was very successful in coupling environmental protection with income generating
activities (e.g. ecotourism, waste collection and processing, former sand winning area now
used for commercial fishing). It facilitated the buy-in from local communities and ensured
sustainability.
116. The project did not include a rural finance (sub) component at design, although after mid-term it
started to encourage the creation of savings and credit groups. By concentrating almost entirely
on agricultural value chain interventions, CCDP missed out on broader financial inclusion
solutions, as well as non-fishing enterprises which are also essential for the development of the
rural economy. A combination of agricultural value chain financing along with financing for non-
fishing enterprises could have been promoted.
117. Malnutrition is a serious concern in Indonesia, where more than one third of the children remain
chronically malnourished despite the high rates of economic growth. According the 2017 RIMS,
CCDP succeeded in reducing child malnutrition. Nevertheless, there were several entry points

31
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

at village level and along the value chain that could have been addressed by CCDP to increase
its impact on reducing malnutrition (especially through diversifying the diet).
118. Operational lessons. Delays at start-up were contained due to: (i) the fast recruitment of
project staff and consultants; (ii) good implementation support (e.g. M&E and financial
management) at the early stages; and (iii) inviting consultants that were involved in the design
to the first supervision mission.
119. One of the biggest successes of CCDP was its performance in project management. Several
factors contributed to this: (i) performance-based management with a reward and punishment
system for PIUs (additional project funds) and also for staff (participation in training and
learning events); (ii) high levels of competence and low turn-over of staff and consultants (e.g.
recruitment of respected semi-retirees with experience and authority, and a part-time
international consultant to provide interface between project and IFAD); (iii) a comprehensive
web-based MIS providing real-time information of physical and financial progress used for
decision-making; and (iv) strong knowledge management not only aimed at documenting
project results, but also at improving project performance.
120. The project succeeded in establishing strong partnerships with other Dinas (local government
authorities), offices of Bupati and Wali Kota (Head of District/ Mayor), BAPPEDA, the Bank of
Indonesia, the Ministry of Cooperatives, the private sector, SMEs, and non-government parties
such as universities, NGOs, and other development partners. This has been important both to
support implementation progress and to provide for part of the exit strategy for sustainability
and replication of project results.
121. Procurement delays were prevented by careful selection of appropriate procurement
processes, and building capacity to enable effective local procurement. Allocating funds directly
to the communities for community procurement, coupled with the necessary supervision,
removed the need to engage with lengthy government procurement processes, and lead to
increased ownership and enabled more rapid and timely project implementation.
122. As mentioned above, the limited duration of project implementation was a challenge,
particularly in reference to more fully developing value chains and access to private finance.

G. Conclusions and recommendations

123. CCDP was an innovative and successful investment for the Government of Indonesia and
IFAD. The CCDP was IFAD’s first coastal community/marine/fisheries investment in Indonesia,
and the partnership with the KKP, the implementing agency, was new. It was also the first time
for KKP to undertake a project based on a value-added poverty alleviation model.
124. CCDP design was very well crafted, and sought to reduce poverty, improve quality of life and
enhance economic livelihoods in targeted coastal communities. It achieved outstanding results
through: (i) community empowerment; (ii) a market-focused approach; and, (iii) focus on the
active poor. It has also provided models for replication/scaling up. The project’s goal and its
objectives, outcomes and outputs have been attained. Furthermore, the Project was completed
on schedule and within budget.
125. The reasons for project success include the following:
(a) Financial Resources. The financial resources available both from the project as well as
from other sources enabled the success of the project. Local governments also allocated
generous co-financing to support the project. It is indicated that the total mobilised co-
financing significantly exceeded the amount expected in the project design.
(b) Strong project management. Strong project management at national and sub-national
levels contributed significantly to the success of the project implementation. A good
balance of staff at the PMO, PIU and Dinas provided solid support to the project. Close

32
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

coordination and collaboration between PMO and PIUs resulted in shared national and
local government responsibilities.
(c) Shared vision. The Project succeeded in disseminating the philosophy of project design
and the targets it wanted to achieve throughout various levels of project implementation
including the community groups as the project beneficiaries. It created a shared vision
among stakeholders that led to a strong spirit for stakeholder to work together towards
achieving the success of the project.
(d) Adaptive design and management. The project also evolved during implementation to
accommodate the needs and changes in conditions on the ground without losing its
orientation to achieve the overall project goals and objectives. It has shown good balance
between prescriptive and participatory approaches. It provided both adequate guidance
on the principles for implementation, as well as flexibility in creating necessary
adjustments based on the local context. It promoted a participatory approach to acquire
more information and understand the local needs that inform the management of project
implementation.
(e) Strong buy-in and ownership. The strong buy-in from the local governments,
community, and private sector was been a critical key success factor. The Project
succeeded to in making itself consistent with government policy and priorities while
remaining relevant to the community's need
(f) Partnerships. Strong partnerships between governments and private sector and among
different levels of government contributed to the success of the project.
126. The Projects’ achievements have been above almost all targets, with the most prominent
including:
(a) A total of 18,925 direct beneficiary households/75,700 people and an estimated 503,500
indirect beneficiaries. On average, beneficiaries improved their income by 132 per cent
since the project started, and food insecurity has almost been eliminated from the target
group.
(b) Some 86% of the Project’s 1,609 Enterprise Groups are operating sustainably and 45
Ecotourism sites are operating and generating revenue.
(c) Eighty district level infrastructure investments were made and 96% have operators. Of
these, 86% are being used at high or moderate levels.
(d) Women’s participation rate across CCDP at all levels was +/- 30%.
(e) The project implemented a highly innovative and effective M&E and KM system, with
over 150 KM materials (print, video, web) made and disseminated, as well as use of an
MIS through electronic media for monitoring and management.
(f) There have been high rates of disbursements, (IFAD Loan – 84%; STF Loan – 96%;
IFAD Grant – 94%).
(g) Both actual Government and beneficiaries’ contributions exceed the amounts planned for
at design, in the case of beneficiary contribution even as high as 242%, is a testament of
the strong ownership by local communities and governments.
(h) A viable exit strategy was developed and implemented to enhance sustainability, and
replication has already extended to 13 new districts.
127. The success of the project interventions has greatly enhanced the prospect of substantial
replication and scaling-up of project activities. It is therefore recommended that preparation of
further success stories, coupled with detailed financial information on the viability of the
activities, be prepared and disseminated. It is to note that IFAD is undertaking additional impact
assessment activities to facilitate further learning about the project and its achievements.

33
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report

128. Given the strong success of CCDP in achieving its objectives, it would be appropriate for the
Government of Indonesia to develop a framework to ensure sustainability and to enable
replication and up-scaling. This would involve the development of national policies that would
encourage:
(a) Deepening of the commercial resilience of the enterprises and commercial activities
already supported by CCDP, through provision of support for their access to financial
services, value chain associations, commodity marketing systems and business
management training;
(b) Provision of information and awareness-building for local authorities throughout the
country to enable them to plan for and support coastal and rural development through
investment micro-enterprises, value chain development and commercial application of
sound environmental management systems;
(c) Provision of financial support, when local commitment is demonstrated, for development
of rural micro-enterprises through investment aimed at rural productivity improvement,
access to markets, processing, and sustainable management of natural resources.

34
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of the completion review mission

Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of the completion review mission

COUNTRY OF ASSIGNMENT/LOCATION: Republic of Indonesia

MISSION NAME: Project Completion Mission for the Coastal Community Development Project (PCR)

MISSION START AND END DATES: 2-13 October 2017 (in-country, plus report writing)

REPORT TO: Ron Hartman, Country Director, APR/PMD

MISSION COMPOSITION:
(Team members full name and specialization)
 Andrew Macpherson, Team Leader
 Graeme Macfadyen, Coastal Development Specialist
 Steven Jonckheere, M&E Specialist
 Enrico Mazzoli, Economist (joining mission from 9-13 October)
 Candra Samekto, IFAD Natural Resource Specialist

BACKGROUND:
The Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP) was approved at IFAD’s Executive Board in September
2012. The total project cost is an estimated US$43.2 million financed through an IFAD loan of US$24.2 million,
IFAD grant of US$2.0 million; US$7.8 million equivalent from a Spanish Trust Fund; government contribution of
about US$7.1 million; and beneficiaries’ contribution of US$2.1 million. The project became effective on the 23
October 2012 and the Project Completion Date is 31st December 2017.

The goal of the CCDP is reduction in poverty and enhanced, sustainable and replicable economic growth among
the active poor in coastal and small island communities. The Project’s development objective is increased
household incomes for families involved in fisheries and marine activities in poor coastal and small island
communities. The Project has three investment components: (i) Community Empowerment, Development and
Resource Management; (ii) District Support for Marine-Based Economic Development, with two sub-components:
District-Level Investment and Capacity Building; and Market and Value Chain Support; and (iii) Project
Management.

The project management team has been preparing for project exit and completion, including through a set of
workshops, assessments and studies. Knowledge products have been developed. While it is the Government’s
responsibility to prepare the Project Completion Report (PCR) IFAD will be fielding a mission to support validation
and finalisation of that report.

MISSION OBJECTIVES AND OUTPUTS:

The Mission will support the implementing agency in validating and reviewing the project completion review and
report. It will assess the performance of CCDP in a number of areas, as defined in IFAD’s guidelines for project
completion reporting. All ratings will be based on sound quantitative data, enriched with qualitative findings.

The Mission will in particular

(i) assess the relevance of project interventions at the time of project design and in today’s context;
(ii) assess the effectiveness of project implementation, or the extent to which project objectives were
met, and to document the immediate results and impacts of project interventions;
(iii) In reference to the logical framework (as revised during the MTR), document performance and
achievement of performance indicators;
(iv) Assess the costs and benefits of the project by re-doing the Economic Financial Analysis undertaken
at design;
(v) Assess performance of all project partners;
(vi) Document good practices and lessons learned for future interventions;
(vii) Review opportunities for scaling up and make practical recommendations on how to enhance the
likelihood of CCDP model and good practices being scaled up in national programmes or by other
development partner; and

35
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of the completion review mission

(viii) Review likelihood of sustainability and make practical recommendations on how to strengthen the
sustainability and continuity of project-initiated activities beyond completion.

The Mission will summarize its findings in an Aide Memoire, to be presented and agreed upon at the Mission’s
wrap up meeting. Following the wrap up, the Mission will prepare the validated PCR, based on the Government’s
PCR and the mission findings. The mission team will also prepare a brief blog summarizing the learnings of CCDP
for publication on IFAD’s website.

The missions will undertake consultations in Jakarta before moving to a sample of two project districts to
undertake field visits to review project activities on the ground and to consult with local stakeholders and
partners.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES, EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND REQUIRED COMPLETION DATES

Andrew Macpherson, Team Leader

The Team Leader will lead and guide the mission work in close collaboration with the IFAD Country Director. He
will ensure broad consultation and participation in mission activities and lead the conversation with the
Government. He leads the preparation of mission outputs, in collaboration with the respective team members,
following IFAD’s guidelines and rating standards.

In particular the Team Leader will undertake the following tasks:

(i) Assess relevance of project within the external context, the internal logic and the adequacy of
adjustments made to the design during the MTR;
(ii) Assess project performance, impact and quality of implementation in line with the defined result
objectives, impact indicators as well as legal and financial agreements; review the quality of project
management, including financial management;
(iii) Review the PCR prepared by the Government of Indonesia and validate its findings;
(iv) Ensure that the PCR is aligned with IFAD’s requirements for Project Completion Reporting. In particular,
ensure that all findings are backed up by solid quantitative numbers and add qualitative findings when
possible;
(v) Review the status and effectiveness of the exit strategy as well as prospective for scaling up of CCDP
good practices through national and local programmes;
(vi) Review the sustainability and likelihood of continuity of project activities beyond project completion;
(vii) Capture and document project lessons, good practices, success stories and innovations;
(viii) Review the value chain linkages and the private sector partnerships that were established by the project
and identify any outstanding issues to be addressed prior to completion;
(ix) Review performance by all implementation partners (incl. against commitments under the Financing
Agreement);
(x) Assess timeliness and adequacy of financing contributions from IFAD, government, domestic and/or
external co-financiers. Note significant revisions to the financing arrangements also highlights any
evidence of cost savings made during implementation, or of expenditures that could have been avoided
or minimized;
(xi) Assign and agree with mission members on division of labor for the required outputs, guide members
during their work and coordinate contribution to the outputs;
(xii) Any other tasks as assigned by the Country Director.
Outputs: The team leader will prepare the aide memoire and project completion report, including required
appendixes. Submission of complete PCR by 23 October.

Graeme Macfadyen, Coastal Development Specialist

(i) Review the overall implementation progress of the project relative to targets set at appraisal/refined at
mid-term, particularly in the areas of fisheries and marine culture as well as community empowerment;
(ii) Assess and document implementation modalities, including lessons learned;
(iii) Review the targeting approach;
(iv) Assess maturity of community organisations and if current exit strategy will support them to sustain
their activities;
(v) Identify and document innovations piloted under the project related to fisheries and marine culture and
document lessons learned related to this area;
(vi) Any other tasks as assigned by the Country Director.
Outputs: Inputs to the aide memoire and project completion report as discussed and agreed with the team
leader. Prepare appendix on logical framework.

36
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of the completion review mission

Steven Jonckheere, M&E Specialist

(i) Review the status of RIMS and other impact studies conducted by the project; make recommendations
on the completion report and presentation of information with regards to key performance indicator;
(ii) Ensure compliance with IFAD’s PCR processes and requirements, including that all ratings are backed up
by quantitative impact data and enhanced with qualitative findings;
(iii) Document the CCDP approach to M&E and KM, as well as how CCDP used these tools for management
decisions (such as the reward and punishment system);
(iv) Discuss with the project how data and information will be stored to ensure accessibility for future
projects.
(v) Document good practices and approaches relevant to other development interventions in Indonesia and
globally;
(vi) Work with the Natural Resource Management Specialist on the review of coastal resource management
practices; and
(vii) Any other tasks as required by team leader.
Outputs: Inputs to the aide memoire and project completion report as discussed and agreed with the team
leader. Prepare a blog post summarizing impact and learnings for IFAD’s website/blog. Prepare appendix on
RIMS data.

Enrico Mazzoli, Economist (joining mission from 9-13 October)

(i) Conduct a detailed economic and financial analysis of project activities, including project IRRs with
sensitivity analysis, discounting, representative production models linked to the selected value chains;
and a return to government;
(ii) Summarize the final project cost;
(iii) Assess the adequacy of the financial projections included in the original design, highlighting significant
cost deviations from original estimates and the reasons for such deviations;
(iv) Compare findings with projections made during project design; and
(v) Any other tasks as required by team leader.
Outputs: Updated EFA for CCDP, other inputs to the aide memoire and project completion report as discussed
and agreed with the team leader. Prepare (i) appendix on actual project cost; and (ii) appendix on EFA.

Candra Samekto, IFAD Natural Resource Specialist

(i) Review the project performance and impacts on coastal resources and management practices;
(ii) Undertake a rapid environmental assessment, to be included in the PCR as annex;
(iii) Support the assessment of project (institutional and knowledge) sustainability;
(iv) Support the review of project management;
(v) Support the mission logistics and arrangements; and
(vi) Any tasks as required by the team leader.
Outputs: Inputs to the aide memoire and project completion report as discussed and agreed with the team
leader. Prepare appendix on environmental assessment.

DOCUMENTATION
The following documentation will be made available to consultants prior to the assignment:

 CCDP Design Document

 CCDP Mid Term Review 2015
 CCDP Mission Reports
 Annual Outcome Surveys
 Impact assessments
 IFAD Project Completion Guidelines

MISSION SCHEDULE:

30 September/1 October Arrival in Jakarta

2 October Kick off and technical meetings
3-8 October Field Work
9-11 October Meetings and report writing in Jakarta
12 October Pre-Wrap up
13 October Wrap up meeting

37
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of the completion review mission

14 October Departure
23 October Report submission to IFAD

Clearance by COM if TORs include communication activities (see section 4.7(iii)):

Name: …………………………………………….…Signature…………………………………………….

Date:……………………….

Clearance by CFS if TORs include financial management responsibilities:

Name: …………………………………………….…Signature…………………………………………….

Date:……………………….

IMPORTANT NOTE:

IFAD will accept only reports that have been properly formatted by using the template, which will be provided
separately. The team leader is responsible for preparing the main report and annexes in the required format, and
ensuring that the working papers submitted by the individual team members are consolidated in one single
document and in the correct format. He will compile the full report, including his own contributions and those of
all the mission members into one consistent final and complete Report and submit it to IFAD on or before the
agreed deadline

38
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 2: List of person met and mission’s programme

Appendix 2: List of person met and mission's programme

Date Activity List of Persons/Groups met

2 Oct 2017 Kick-Off meeting in BAPPENAS BAPPENAS, MoF, KKP. PMO
PM – Travel to Lombok
3 Oct 2017 AM – District Kick-Off Meeting at PIU BAPPENAS, MoF, District Dinas of
 Presentation on CCDP implementation and exit Fisheries and Maritime, Province
strategy Dinas of Fisheries and Maritime,
PMO, TPDs
 Discussion
PM – Site visit in Lombok Barat
 Visited Packaging House (Component 2) to see Third party partner (private sector).
the facilities and witness seaweed jelly, seaweed Capture Fishing Groups
coffee, and seaweed tortilla packaging process.
Processing Groups
Discussed with the Manager
Infrastructure groups
 Visited the Production House. Met and discussed
with Capture Fishing Groups as well as CBCRN Groups
Processing Groups TPDs
 Visited the information centre facility next to the
beach
 Visited Resources Management activities site
(recreational fishing ground) and discussed with
CBCRM Groups
4 Oct 2017 AM – Met and discuss with Bupati Lombok Barat / Bupati Lombok Barat, Head of
District Leader Bappeda, and other district agencies
PM – Site visit in Lombok Barat and Senggigi areas
 Visited Information Centre and Ecotourism in
mangrove areas in Lombok Barat CBCRM groups (eco-tourism), third
 Visited production house (Sasak Baiq) party partner (private sector),
enterprise group (boat maker), TPDs
 Visited boat maker (enterprise groups) in Senggigi
 Visited information centre facility in Senggigi
CBCRM groups, infrastructure
groups, fish processing group,
capture fishing group, TPDs
5 Oct 2017 AM – District wrap-up meeting at PIU BAPPENAS, MoF, District Dinas of
Fisheries and Maritime, PMO, TPDs
PM – Travel to Makassar

6 Oct 2017 AM – District kick-off meeting Deputy Mayor for Makassar Municipal
AM – Meeting with PIU Head of Dinas of Agriculture and
 Presentation on CCDP implementation and exit Fisheries
strategy in Makassar
 Discussion
PM – Site visit in Makassar
 Visited Information Centre and Ecotourism CBCRM groups (eco-tourism and
activities in mangrove areas waste bank)
 Visited infrastructure facilities: jetty Infrastructure groups
 Witnessed milk fish harvest (aquaculture groups) Capture fishing and aquaculture
groups
 Visited information centre facility

39
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 2: List of person met and mission’s programme

Date Activity List of Persons/Groups met

 Visited waste bank activity and facility TPDs

7 Oct 2017 AM – Site visit to Lae-Lae island Infrastructure groups

Capture fishing groups
CBCRM groups (waste recycle)
Fish processing group
TPDs
PM – District wrap-up meeting PIU
Travel back to Jakarta
8 - 10 Oct PCM Team meeting – Aide Memoire writing
2017
11 Oct 2017 Pre Wrap-Up meeting PMO, KKP, BAPPENAS
12 Oct 2017 PCM Team meeting – Aide Memoire revision
13 Oct 2017 Wrap Up meeting in BAPPENAS BAPPENAS, KKP, MoF, PMO, PIU
Lombok Barat, PIU Makassar

40
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix and justification7

PROJECT NAME: Coastal Community Development Project
PROJECT ID:
BOARD APPROVAL DATE: September 2012
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 23 October 2012
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 31 December 2017
LOAN CLOSING DATE: 30 June 2018
IFAD LOAN AND GRANT (USD MILLION): 26.2
TOTAL PROJECT FINANCING: 43.2
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: KKP/Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

Criterion PCR
Rating
Project Performance
 Relevance 5
 Effectiveness 5
 Efficiency 5
 Sustainability 5
Rural poverty impact

 Households’ incomes and assets 5

 Human and social capital and empowerment 5
 Food security 5
 Agricultural productivity 5
 Institutions and policies 5
 Overall rural poverty impact 5
Additional evaluation criteria
 Gender equity and women's empowerment 5
 Access to markets 5
 Innovation 5
 Potential for scaling up 5
 Environment and natural resource management 5
 Adaptation to climate change 5
 Targeting and outreach 5
Partners performance
 IFAD’s performance 5
 Government performance 5
Overall project achievement: 5

7
Justification for ratings is provided overleaf

41
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

Project Performance

Relevance.
Rating: 5
1. Rating Definition: (5) satisfactory. The initial design was highly consistent with the needs of the
target groups as well as IFAD and Government policies and national priorities. Proposed
interventions and implementation modalities were highly appropriate given the context and the
internal project logic was well thought through and fully coherent. The design has remained
highly relevant until project completion, or the necessary adaptations were timely adopted in
order to reflect changes in the environment.
2. (5) Satisfactory. The initial design was mostly consistent with the needs of the target groups
as well as IFAD and Government policies and national priorities. Proposed interventions and
implementation modalities were largely appropriate given the context and the internal project
logic was coherent. The design has remained relevant until project completion, or the
necessary adaptations were adopted in order to reflect changes in the environment.
3. Rationale and justification: The participatory approach used during the design process
contributed to a strong project design that incorporated the government and communities'
needs. CCDP design is inline and highly consistent with IFAD and Government policies and
national priorities in coastal and small islands community development as well as in promoting
job creation and poverty alleviation. The project interventions and implementation were highly
relevant to the nature and context of the challenges and problems.
4. The project design combined participatory and prescriptive approaches. It gave sufficient
guidance for the project to keep the project on-track in achieving its target. At the same time, it
also provided enough participatory process and flexibility to ensure that it reflected the needs of
the coastal community target groups. Some modifications and alterations to the project’s
approach, approved at the Mid Term Review stage, were necessary. These modifications were
justified based on the lessons learned by the project up to mid-term and the evolving national
policy context in which the project operated. Therefore, the project has remained highly relevant
until project completion through some necessary adaptations during the implementation to
accommodate changes in the environment.
Effectiveness
Rating: 5
5. Rating Definition: Satisfactory. The project objective(s) was mostly met and most important
output targets were achieved (over 90% of physical targets met). Most outputs have led to the
desired outcomes and most results were achieved on time.
6. Rationale and justification: The Project has to meet 100% of all targets to be 6. In this case, the
achievements of output targets of Component 1 have been very impressive. Five of the six log-
frame target indicators have been exceeded, often by significant margins, on-time or earlier
than anticipated. Only the number of ‘community-based marine resource management areas
demarcated, declared and ratified’ is short of the target of 40 at the time of the mission, with 20
decrees/ordinances covering 32 villages. Another 13 community-based marine resource
management areas are in the drafting process, the completion of which would meet the target.
The 2017 AOS showed that 170 out of those 180 respondents that are still operating (94.44%)
and stated that their business is profitable (viable). Implementation of Component 2 has also
been highly impressive, with most component 2 investments and outputs supporting component
1 enterprise groups as envisaged. The market strategies and selection of priority products were
well utilised to underpin the choice of investments made under component 2 and to inform the
enterprise group activities under component 1 in a way that increases the chances of success
in creating long-term sustainable market linkages.

42
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

Efficiency
Rating: 5
7. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. Project implementation was efficient and the project
investments represented good value for money. Most project activities were implemented within
schedule, and certain ahead of time and within budget. The internal rate of return was
commensurate with the one calculated at design stage. Project implementation arrangements
and procedures were efficient and output delivery was largely problem-free.
8. Rationale and justification: The result of cost benefit as well as financial analysis and
quantification on the financial leverage including the beneficiaries’ contributions showed a very
high level of efficiency. The project has achieved most of the objectives with disbursements of
approximately 85% of available funds. The output target of 70% of infrastructure financed by
the project being operating/available, being maintained, and used by third party operators
(private operators, cooperatives, state-owned companies, SMEs) was exceeded; by September
2017, and 92% of the 80 district level infrastructure investments financed were being
successfully operated and maintained. The second component 2 output indicator (40 MoUs
with at least four in each district) was also been far exceeded, earlier than expected; 84 MoUs
have been signed (45 local, 26 regional, 13 national), and all PIUs have four or more MOUs.
There are, in addition, 151 agreements for sales (109 local, 34 regional and 8 national). The
mission qualitatively validated these quantitative achievements as stated in the draft PCR. The
Project also developed business plans for the 28 larger infrastructure investments, and
supported P-IRT (food safety) certification of 357 processing enterprise group products and 147
halal certificates.
Sustainability
Rating: 5
9. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The continuation of most project benefits is most likely
ensured beyond project completion, with most important dimensions of sustainability being
positively assessed. There is full beneficiaries’ ownership of project interventions and full
government support and commitment. A realistic post-project sustainability strategy supported
by all project stakeholders had been defined in the course of implementation. The strategy
details most institutional arrangements, legal aspects, ownership and post-project funding.
10. Rationale and justification: There has been strong emphasis given by the project on profitability
of activities. A viable Exit strategy has been defined during course of project with full ownership
of Government, non-Government, private sector, project beneficiaries. Strong beneficiary
ownership and government (at all levels) commitment were acknowledged throughout and until
the end of project implementation. However, the limited project implementation period created
some minor issues for those community groups who joined the project at the later stages.
These communities obviously received less support than the earlier selected communities, but
this did not result in any major negative effects or concerns for sustainability
Rural poverty impact
Households’ incomes and assets
Rating: 5
11. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The project has generated an increase in the incomes and
physical and financial assets owned by rural poor women and men and most targets were met.
Such impact is measured, quantified and documented.
12. Rationale and justification: CCDP has contributed to significant increases in the households’
incomes and assets, mainly through: (i) enterprise development activities related to capture
fishing, aquaculture, processing and marketing; (ii) income generating activities related to
environmental protection and eco-tourism; (iii) savings-based models of community-managed

43
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

loan funds; (iv) financial support (non-refundable) for purchase of tools and equipment for
fishing, aquaculture, storage, processing and marketing; and (v) job creation. On average,
beneficiaries improved their income by 132 per cent since the project started. Those involved in
marine capture fishing and processing showing the highest increase, while a minor isolated
group dealing with seaweed aquaculture saw their income slightly decreasing, due to the ice-
ice disease, a bacterial condition which affects seaweed in certain months. Most members of
enterprise groups have experienced an increase in household assets.
Human and social capital and empowerment
Rating: 5
13. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. Poor rural women and men have been supported to develop
and their organizations were strengthened. They have gained some control over economic
relations and institutions and actively participate in local decision-making processes. They are
now in a better position to gain access to essential social and productive services.
14. Rationale and justification: The Project not only empowered coastal communities to strengthen
their capacity and to improve their resilience, but also promoted stronger social capital among
them. In addition to the increased incomes, the community also could feel a stronger social
bonding. The community perceived the benefits for working together as a group instead of
individually. They could access more resources and gain better access to the markets. The
targeted coastal communities have also received support in accessing wider policy and
economic networks, and many groups have pursued these proactively. Groups were able to
benefit directly from progress in the market linkages and partnerships developed by component
2 investments. The project has encouraged community group members to become cooperative
members to strengthen these linkages. The project has further created a ‘sustainability path’ for
community empowerment encapsulated within the Exit Strategy.
Food security
Rating: 5
15. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The project generated an increase in the food security of
rural poor men and women; most targets were met.
16. Rationale and justification: The activities of CCDP had a significant impact on food security
including: (i) increased number of fish that has been consumed or sold due to improved
productivity of capture fishing and aquaculture; (ii) increased incomes generated through the
processing and marketing of marine-based products; and (iii) improvements in fish processing
supporting reductions in post-harvest losses and improvements of storability of products. The
project has demonstrated improved food security in the project area. In 2013, 34.2 per cent of
the households experienced a first and 11 per cent a second hungry season, while in 2017 this
number decreased to 2.2 and 0 per cent respectively. The number of underweight children
decreased by 80 per cent, chronic malnutrition by 30 per cent and acute malnutrition by 32 per
cent (the last two being below the target of 40 per cent). The project might not achieve 40%
reduction of all indicators of malnutrition. However, the increased income provides better
nutrition to the households.
Agricultural Productivity
Rating: 5
17. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. Project activities have led to a good increase in agricultural
productivity or production in the project target area. Such increase is well measured, quantified
and documented and meets targets.
18. Rationale and justification: Ninety-six per cent of the households participating in project-
supported enterprises experienced productivity increases due to CCDP interventions since
2015, with an 80 per cent increase for those in capture fishing groups, 450 per cent for

44
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

freshwater aquaculture groups, 71 per cent for processing groups, and 42 per cent for
marketing groups
Institutions and policies
Rating: 5
19. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The institutions/organizations supported under the project are
self-managed, transparent and without political interference, but they still require support.
Services to clients/members are likely to continue after project completion. The project has also
managed to influence the policy or institutional framework (changes in important regulations).
20. Rationale and justification: CCDP has created 1 609 enterprise groups of which 91 per cent are
still operating (target 60 per cent) based on AOS data. Of these, 94 per cent are reported to be
financially viable (target 70 per cent). CCDP has supported the integration of project
communities and their future requirements into village-level medium-term development plans.
According to the 2017 AOS, all beneficiaries felt that they were satisfied that project activities
reflected their priorities. In addition, through ICM processes, many villages have a conservation
area (some are no-take zones/no-fishing, some mangrove planting/rehabilitation areas), in
some cases to be linked to national level legislation on marine conservation, supported by
village decrees and district level regulation. At district and national level, CCDP has induced the
interest of policy makers in replicating its participatory market-driven approach.
21. CCDP has formed 512 processing and marketing groups, which involves 4 869 households or
406 households per PIU (target 400 households). A total of 235 third party buyers or on
average 19 per district (target of four) are purchasing enterprise group products on a routine
basis. This includes supermarkets, processing companies, souvenir shops, etc. Eighty-four
MoUs have been signed and 151 informal agreements have been made between the third-party
buyers and the village level enterprise groups (154 with local buyers, 60 with regional buyers
and 21 with national or international buyers). A total of 147 halal certificates have been
awarded, and 357 food safety certificates (Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga (P-IRT)) have been
issued for enterprise group products.
22. CCDP has shown a good practice how a project could influence policy at village and the district
level due to strong institutional buy-in at those levels.
Overall rural poverty impact
Rating: 5
23. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The project has had a good contribution to reducing rural
poverty in the project target area. It has effectively reached out to large numbers of poor rural
women and men, meeting targets. The rural poor, and their communities, have largely benefited
from project implementation and their incomes, livelihood means or food security have
improved as a result of their participation in project activities
24. Rationale and justification: The project has succeeded in promoting job creation and increasing
household's incomes. Some districts acknowledged significant reduction in unemployment and
poverty rate. The project also recorded substantial reduction of the hungry season, the number
of underweight children, as well as chronic and acute malnutrition in the targeted areas.
Additional evaluation criteria
Gender equity and women's empowerment
Rating: 5
25. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. Project made a significant contribution to addressing gender
needs and achieving GEWE, addressing all three gender policy objectives. Procedures and
resource allocations were appropriate. Gender considerations were mainstreamed into

45
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

implementation. Women accounted for a substantial number of beneficiaries. Gender-related

impacts are likely to be sustainable beyond the life of the project.
26. Rationale and justification: CCDP has had a positive impact on gender equity and women’s
empowerment, mainly by: (i) promoting the economic empowerment of women; (ii) enabling
women and men to have equal voice and influence in rural institutions and organizations; and
(iii) achieving a more equitable workload balance. The majority of the women were not involved
in any income generating activities before the start of the project.
27. Women now make up almost 30 per cent of the enterprise group members. They are well
represented in the VWGs (33 per cent), processing (86 per cent) and savings groups (90 per
cent), but are underrepresented in capture fishing groups (six per cent) and infrastructure
groups (five per cent) reflecting the cultural gender-based norms in coastal communities.
Women have reported significant increases in their incomes and savings, and improvement of
production, bookkeeping, processing, and marketing skills.
28. CCDP achieved 29% of women's’ participation instead of the targeted 30%. The project faced a
challenge to increase gender participation due to the nature of capture fishing groups which are
dominated by men. However, in general CCDP has met or exceeded these targets in almost all
cases, and where the performance has fallen short of targets, it has only been by a very small
margin. Significant positive qualitative impact has been perceived on female participants. Many
of them have shown enhanced self-esteem and confidence, and shown justifiable pride in their
new ability to provide resources for themselves and their families. Intra-household relationships
were reported to also have improved, with the women’s increased economical contribution. It is
particularly noteworthy that some female enterprise group members have demonstrated strong
business management skills within a very limited timeframe of project support
Access to markets
Rating: 5
29. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The project has increased farmers’ physical access to
markets or their access to market prices and information. Farmers have improved their
bargaining power over traders and their access to quality inputs. The project has also enhanced
the capacities of rural producers’ groups.
30. Rationale and justification: The project has facilitated access to markets in coastal
communities, mainly by (i) developing marketing strategies identifying priority products; (ii)
increasing marketing awareness within enterprise groups; (iii) promoting market-oriented
technology transfer; (iv) providing storage and processing facilities, and transportation; (v)
facilitating linkages with sales outlets for enterprise group products; and (vi) facilitating product
certification. CCDP has formed 512 processing and marketing groups, which involves 4 869
households or 406 households per PIU (target 400 households). A total of 235 third party
buyers or on average 19 per district (target of four) are purchasing enterprise group products on
a routine basis. This includes supermarkets, processing companies, souvenir shops, etc.
Eighty-four MoUs have been signed and 151 informal agreements have been made between
the third-party buyers and the village level enterprise groups (154 with local buyers, 60 with
regional buyers and 21 with national or international buyers). A total of 147 halal certificates
have been awarded, and 357 food safety certificates (Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga (P-IRT))
have been issued for enterprise group products. Some enterprise groups also sell their
products online, through for example, an online platform (e.g. in Makassar) or social media
(Facebook, twitter). Cooperatives have also been instrumental in facilitating sales outlets and
providing timely access to quality inputs
Innovation
Rating: 5

46
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

31. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The project has tested some new innovative approaches to
rural poverty reduction, but these were mainly adaptations of existing practices. Learning
systems were satisfactory and lessons learned often brought to higher levels. Project
experience with the testing of these adaptations was well documented and there is some
interest from the side of the Government or other partners.
32. Rationale and justification: The project has been very creative and introduced many new
approaches and ideas. The project has piloted and introduced a number of innovations that can
be replicated and scaled up for application in development projects in Indonesia and
internationally. Detailed list of innovation provided in the main text.
Potential for scaling up
Rating: 5
33. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. Development partners have already started to scale-up or
replicate certain elements of the project implementation strategy, project initiatives or
innovations.
34. Rationale and justification: The CCDP has been recognized by the Government of Indonesia as
best practice. At the request of Government, many development partners are now replicating
some of the CCDP innovation and approaches The project has been very successful in terms
of replicability and scaling up with the project being replicated to other provinces and districts
with Government's own resources. Many project districts have already started scaling up the
project at other villages using their own budget even before the project ended. They also
adopted the similar approach to other sector, e.g. empowering upland community and boosting
the production of palm sugar.
Environment and natural resource management
Rating: 5
35. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The environment or the natural resource base has improved
in the project target area. The pressure on the natural resource base has been reduced and the
natural resource base is now used in a more sustainable manner. High-standard environmental
norms were followed for most project activities and there was no negative impact on the
environment.
36. Rationale and justification: CCDP has developed an innovative and effective way to
communicate environmental issues to the community, making them relevant to their interest
and need. It has successfully developed models to improve environment conditions while
increasing incomes and livelihoods, and supported a number of new marine community-based
management areas. The project also noted community awareness increase in related to
environmental / natural resources management issues. Some substantial environment
improvements already could be perceived in some areas even before the end of the project
implementation.
Adaptation to climate change
Rating: 5
37. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. Although adaptation to climate change was not an explicit
project objective, the project has managed to strengthen the resilience of local communities' vi-
à-vis climate-related shocks and stresses. Community members were empowered to mitigate
the most prevalent negative effects of climate change, and/or capitalize on new opportunities
emerging in a changing climate.
38. Rationale and justification: Even though the Project design did not have an explicit focus on
climate change mitigation or adaptation, it managed to engage during implementation with both
issues in a number of positive ways. The focus of the project on eco-tourism activities, in many

47
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 3: PCR rating matrix

cases coupled with environmental education, raised awareness of climate change and
environmental issues. The impact of the Project to increase the incomes of beneficiaries and
access to finance and other alternative resources, and support for mangrove rehabilitation and
preservation, are both contributing to increase their adaptation and resilience to the impacts of
climate change.
Targeting and outreach
Rating: 5
39. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The project has effectively reached out to the intended target
group(s), although quantitative outreach targets may not have been fully reached or reliable
documentation on outreach may be lacking. Targeting performance was monitored with
adequate corrective measures taken when necessary.
40. Rationale and justification: Geographical dispersion was identified at design as being a risk,
making the project potentially difficult to implement and to manage with the start-up of project
operations in all 12 districts. Nevertheless, project performance has been highly satisfactory. It
has effectively met all targeting criteria.
Partner's performance
IFAD’s performance
Rating: 5
41. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. IFAD has provided a strong support during design and
implementation, as recognized by most partners. The quality and timeliness of supervision
mission was satisfactory and their recommendations relevant. Adequate implementation
support was provided when required, including in the area of policy dialogue. Loan
administration and procurement reviews were managed swiftly and funds’ transfers were mostly
timely. IFAD was pro-active in solving most implementation issues.
42. Rationale and justification: The Government of Indonesia recognized that the project
implementation has been enhanced through continuous IFAD support and assistance. IFAD
implementation support was perceived to be extensive and of high quality. The presence of
IFAD country office was also perceived to make a significant difference.
Government performance
Rating: 5
43. Rating Definition: (5) Satisfactory. The performance of the Implementing Agency was
satisfactory throughout implementation. It was usually responsive to IFAD’s recommendations
and proactive in solving implementation issues. The performance of the Ministry of Finance in
managing the Special Account and complying with IFAD’s rules and regulations was also
satisfactory. The Project Steering Committee was usually proactive in providing the required
directions and in steering project implementation. The audit report was usually prepared on
time and met the required quality standards
44. Rationale and justification: Government performance in terms of project management has been
strength in achieving the success of the project. The PMO and 12 PIUs have been operating
effectively. The Government had also successfully replicated and scaled up the Project
approaches in some other areas even before the project ended. In addition, the approach to
project management generated a very strong sense of ownership and team spirit from various
levels of government, and an impressive understanding of the project’s aims and
implementation modalities. These factors have been important in the achievements
demonstrated by the Project, in the high levels of beneficiary participation, and in good
staff/consultant retention.

48
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Logframe at design

Results Hierarchy Indicators Means for Verification Risks (R) & Assumptions (A)

Goal. Reduction in poverty and 1. 9 900 additional HHs with improvement in HH assets ownership Quantitative baseline, mid-term review,
enhanced, economic growth among index project completion survey.
the active poor in coastal and small 2. 40% reduction in the prevalence of child malnutrition Health statistics.
island communities Studies to complement indicator based data
Development Objective. 1. The value of marine and fisheries products sold by participating Baseline, mid-term, completion surveys (A) Cross section of active poor in
Increased household incomes for households has increased by an average of 30%, compared with the Financial records of project enterprise marine and fisher households able to
families involved in fisheries and pre-project level of sales. groups participate in project activities.
marine activities in poor coastal and 2. 13 200 additional households for which food security has Qualitative studies to complement indicators (A) Group based collective economic
small island communities improved. activity is appropriate to social and
market conditions within a large
majority of project villages
Component 1. Community
Empowerment, Development and
Resource Management
Outcome 1. Project communities 1. 1. 60% of the project-funded enterprise groups are assessed to Independent assessment of enterprise (A) Access by project HHs to fishing
implementing profitable and be still operating profitably by the end of the project performance grounds and aquaculture sites
sustainable marine-based economic 2. Health of marine resources maintained or improved in 80% of Enterprise bank records effectively controlled / managed
activities with no detrimental effect areas managed by project and adjacent villages Community perception-based resource (R) Fishing by commercial vessels
on marine resources inventory and assessment limits catches by project fishers
Output 1.1 Marine and fisheries 1. 70% of fisheries/marine HHs state village plans represent their District project quarterly reports (R) Risk of elite capture of the
households’ development priorities priorities (disaggregated by poverty status) Village impact assessments planning/prioritisation process
identified agreed and documented 2. 50% of women state village plans represent their priorities Project M&E records (A) Non-fisher/marine HHs in project
Sample surveys villages do not have a disruptive
influence on the planning processes
Output 1.2 Community-based 1. 40 community-based marine resource management areas District project quarterly reports (R) Management regimes will vary
marine resource management areas demarcated, declared and ratified (through Perdes) and community Project M&E records significantly between villages.
being managed effectively register of resource users established and maintained Reports of co-management committees in (R) Adjacent villages refuse to
2. Fish landing statistics from vessels based in project and adjacent project villages participate in the projects’ marine
villages show no decline in levels of catches Community register of resource users resource management activities,
Output 1.3 Financially sustainable 1. At least 66% of supported enterprise groups and village-based District project quarterly reports (R) Limited HH assets and slow
community enterprises created service enterprises show cumulative growth of their balance sheets Project M&E records build-up of savings, limits
under the project (i.e. net group assets) of at least 10% above the value of initial Financial records of project-supported participation of in enterprise groups
project-supported investment (including beneficiary contribution) enterprise groups (balance sheet and profit A) Ratio between prices of input
three years after the group receives the initial project grant & loss statements) factors and fish remains favourable

49
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Results Hierarchy Indicators Means for Verification Risks (R) & Assumptions (A)
disaggregated by poverty ranking of member households (A) Sufficient viable economic
opportunities to attract interest in
developing enterprise groups.
Output 1.4 Community 1. Two thirds of project financed community infrastructure operating Project M&E records (A) Infrastructure linked to improving/
infrastructure implemented under and being used by fisher/marine HHs, assessed 1 and 3 years after Project impact assessments supporting marine based economic
the project supporting marine-based establishment Survey of enterprise groups to determine activities given priority in CCDP
economic activities in project effectiveness of the infrastructure development plans
villages (R) Government priorities override
community agreed decisions on the
project infrastructure
Component 2. District Support for
Marine-Based Economic
Development
Outcome 2. Expansion of 1. 5% increase in net returns by mid-term review and 10% by end of Impact survey of small-scale fishing landings (A) Economic opportunities and
economic opportunities in project project from small-scale fisheries/marine based activities in terms of and net returns investments appropriate and
districts for sustainable, market- fish/marine products sold by project districts on local, national and Financial records from larger fishing vessels accessible by project HHs.
based, small-scale fisheries and export markets (volumes marketed/prices received) Project M&E records (R) Larger scale fishing operations
marine operations influence investments decisions
Output 2.1 Improved infrastructure 1. 70% of facilities, services and infrastructure financed by the Survey of fishing/marine HHs in project (A) District staff are motivated and
and services supporting small scale project operating/available and used by small-scale fishers/marine villages actively commit their time to
fishing and marine activities operators in support of fishing production and marketing. Project M&E records implementation of the project
established in the project districts 2. 20 projects financed by District Fund for Supporting Small Scale Audits of project enterprises and
Fisheries driving new business models and benefiting target villages infrastructure
Output 2.2 Increased participation 1. An average of 300 additional households in each project district Surveys of sales by village fishers/marine (A) Small-scale fishers and marine
and earnings by small scale fishers actively participating in the prioritized high potential product value operators producers are able to compete at a
and marine producers from chains two years after initial involvement and are continuing to do so Market surveys national level in terms of quality and
prioritized high potential products in 2. At least 4 buyers actively buying products in each district within at Project M&E records price
each project district least two thirds of the prioritized value chains

Component 3. Project
Management
Outcome 3. Project is managed 1. 80% of project funds are disbursed in a timely manner in line with Participatory village evaluation of project (A) Political and management
efficiently and transparently for the targets set in AWPBs and to the satisfaction of project marine/fishers performance commitment to the development and
benefit of the project’s target HHs HHs. Reports from district stakeholder forums on reduction in poverty in project
and communities project management communities through a market based
Project financial records approach

50
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Results Hierarchy Indicators Means for Verification Risks (R) & Assumptions (A)
Output 3.1 PMO and 12 PIUs 1. Performance of 75% of key project staff (including PMO and PUI District project quarterly reports (A) Sufficient numbers of motivated
established and operating Project Directors, PMO and PIU Executive Secretaries, District Project M&E records staff work with the PIUs and are
effectively Consultants and Village Facilitators) judged satisfactory at mid-term Staff performance evaluation and incentive changed when necessary
review payments records (A) District leaders fully understand
the project and are committed to its
goals and facilitating its activities
Output 3.2 Replication and scaling 1. At least 24 additional districts have commenced implementation of Project M&E, audit and supervision records (A) Government and districts in the
up of the project facilitated CCDP approach and activities by the end of the project. participating provinces motivated to
2. The Project has been extended to at least 60 additional villages in extend and take up project approach
the 12 project districts. and activities.
(A) Funding is available from GOI for
scaling up activities

51
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Logframe at completion

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

Goal:

Reduction in poverty and 1. 9 900 HHs with improvement in HH 1. RIMS 1. Improvement in HH assets.
enhanced, economic assets (this represents 50% of the RIMS 2017 survey data showed
growth among the active anticipated 19,800 HH in enterprise 2. RIMS and studies to complement
indicator-based data e.g. Annual improvements from 2013 and 2015 in all
poor in coastal and small groups or savings groups).* asset categories (% of HH with electricity,
island communities Outcome Surveys (AOS)
2. 40% reduction in the prevalence of radio, TV, refrigerator, motorbikes, other
child malnutrition. vehicles, other electrical appliances,
telephones).
The project provided assets to 1,609
enterprise groups prior to the 2017 RIMS
survey. This equates to 15,300 HH (9.51
persons per group in average) having
experienced an increases in assets.
2. Child malnutrition
Underweight children - weight for age
2013: 24.0% Girls, 23.0% Boys
2015: 22.5% G, 19.9% B
2017: 0.0% G, 9.2% B

Chronic malnourished children - height for

age
2013: 48.0% Girls, 44.0% Boys
2015: 34.9% G, 34.9%
2017: 28.1% G, 35.9% B

Acute malnourished children - weight for

height
2013: 9.5% Girls,15.8% Boys
2015: 17.1% G, 20.5% B
2017: 4.2% G, 13.0% B

52
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

Project Development Objective:

Increased household 1. The value of marine and fisheries 1. RIMS 1. Previous year Annual Sales (RIMS)
incomes for families products sold by participating < IDR 2 million: 2013, 21.81%; 2015;
involved in fisheries and households has increased by an 27.05%; 2017: 7.67%
marine activities in poor average of 30%, compared with the IDR 2 - 5 million: 2013 29.66%; 2015
coastal and small island pre-project level of sales. 16.73%; 2017: 19.33%
communities IDR 5 - 10 million: 2013, 18.52%; 2105,
1.
26.16%; 2017: 23.33%
2. Food security has improved, as > IDR 10 million: 2013 13.01%; 2015
measured by a decrease in the level 30.07%;
of food shortage in the first period to 2. RIMS and qualitative studies to complement 2017: 49.56%
17.5% (from 34.2% at baseline) and indicators e.g. Annual Outcome Surveys
to 5% in the second period (from 11% (AOS)
The 2017 AOS showed that participating
at baseline).*
households’ average monthly income
increased from 2013 to 2017 by 281%
for marine capture fisheries, 91% for
pond aquaculture, -11% for marine
culture, 224% for processing and 76%
for marketing.
2. Food security: RIMS data show
First ‘hungry season’: 2013 308 HHs
(34.2%); 2015, 107 HH (11.8% (duration
3.5 Month); 2017: 22 HH (2.4%),
(duration 2 months)
Second ‘hungry season’: 2013 99 HHs
(11.0%); 2015, 18 HH (2.0%) (duration
2.5 month); 2017: none
AOS 2017 showed that HH unable to
have 3 meals a day decreased from
13.3% in 2013 to 0.5% in 2017

53
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

Outcome 1: 1. 60% of the project-funded enterprise 1. To be assessed as part of project completion Over the 4 year implementation period,
Project communities groups are operating by the end of review for all groups. ‘Operating’ defined for the Project has formed 1,609 enterprise
implementing profitable the project.* groups as follows (and as reflecting seasonal groups of which 86% (i.e., 1,348 groups)
and sustainable marine- limitation and issues): Processing and are operating. This exceeds by 25% the
based economic handicraft groups: have made savings or Logframe target of 1,080 groups (60% of
activities with no completed at least an average of one group 1,800 groups). The 2017 AOS survey
detrimental effect on processing or handicraft activity per week provided information that 180
marine resources during the three months up to the date of respondents out of total 198
assessment. Capture fishing groups: have respondents (90.91%) are still operating.
made savings, or have organised sales as a
group to traders/middlemen each week, for 3
months up to the date of assessment.
Aquaculture and seaweed groups: have made
savings or have fish in ponds or seaweed in
the sea at the time of the survey or have
harvested product during the 6 months up to
the date of assessment. Marketing groups:
have made savings or at least an average of
one sales activity per week during the three
months up to the date of assessment.
Savings groups: have made loans or
collected funds into group savings during the
three months up to the date of assessment.
2. Analysis of enterprise group activities
show that >70% of operational groups 2. To be assessed as part of project completion The 2017 AOS showed that 170 out of
(in indicator 1) are financially viable.* review using a stratified random sample of those 180 respondents that are still
different enterprise groups by enterprise operating (94.44%) and stated that their
group type and district, based on a sample business are profitable (viable).
size of 20% of the total number of operational
enterprise groups. PMO to do random
sampling and instruct PIUs on the names of
3. Health of marine resources groups to be assessed. Financial viability
maintained or improved in 80% of defined as groups either making savings or 2017 AOS found that 89 out of 121
areas managed by project. (as operating profits based on an assessment of members of capture fisheries groups
measured in terms of catch per unit of revenues and costs recorded in group records (75.55%) stated that their incomes are
effort (CPUE) data).* over the 3 months prior to the survey. still increasing during the CCDP
intervention period. This may imply that
3. CPUE district level data for gear types being fisheries resource is still supporting to
used in the CCDP villages for the years 2012 their activities. The Project also has
to 2016 (or 2015 if 2016 data not available at CPUE data available.
the time of the project completion review).

54
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

Outputs: 1 & 2. Based on the AOS 2017, which

1. 70% of fisheries/marine HHs in CCDP 1. To be assessed by inclusion of a specific covered both men and women, virtually
1.1 Marine and fisheries groups state CCDP activities (e.g. question in the AOS in 2017. ‘To what extent all beneficiaries felt satisfied with CCDP
households’ ICM plans, group proposals, village do CCDP village investments/activities (61.1% were very satisfied and 38.9%
development investments) represents their represent your priorities (not at all, only to a were quite satisfied).
priorities identified priorities. limited extent, to a satisfactory extent, to a 2. In May 2017, as part of the AOS,
agreed and great extent, completely).’ ‘Representing Focus Group discussions on gender
documented 2. 50% of women in CCDP supported priorities’ to take top 3 of 5 categories.
HHs state CCDP activities represent issues were conducted in all PIUs.
their priorities. 2. To be assessed as part of the AOS in 2017, Almost 100% of women beneficiaries
using analysis of the question above by interviewed were satisfied that CCDP
gender of respondent. activities represented their priorities and
needs.
1.2 Community-based 1. District project quarterly reports; project M&E 1. Up to September 2017, there were 20
1. 40 community-based marine resource records; Perdes, ordinances, Perda, decrees/ ordinances, covering 31
marine resource management areas demarcated,
management areas documented adat. Should be noted if villages. The other 13 community-based
declared and ratified (through Perdes, management areas were existing before the marine re-source management areas
being managed village ordinance, Perda, Peraturan
effectively project or are the result of project activities. are in the drafting process with the
wali kota/bupati, peraturan/keputusan
expectation they can be completed in
lurah, or adat).* the near future.
2. All PIUs have Integrated Coastal 2. ICM plans assessed during the completion 2. PIUs have established ICM plans for
Management Plans in place in at least review 96% of villages. Of the total 181 villages
50% of all project villages.* covered by CCDP, 174 have village ICM
plans.
1.3 Community 1,609 enterprise groups have been
1. 1,800 enterprise groups established 1. District reports and project M&E records established based on proposals
enterprises created by the project following submission of
under the project reviewed by DOBs and approved by
proposals, review by DOBs and PIUs.
approval by PIUs.*

1.4 Community 1. Two thirds of project-financed 1. Project M&E records A total of 181 Village Information
infrastructure community infrastructure operating, Centres (VICs) and other 570 village
implemented under being maintained, and being used by infrastructures have been constructed
the project fisher/marine HHs, assessed 1 and 3 financed by over 20% beneficiaries’
supporting marine- years after establishment. contributions. Most (>90%) items are
based economic 2. being utilised and maintained. On
activities in project nd
average they are in their 2 year of
villages operations (1 year and 3 years after
establishment assessment date
depends on construction dates).

55
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

Outcome 2: 1. An average of 300 additional 1. Project M&E records and/or AOS. Each PIU 1. Up to September 2017, 512
Expansion of economic households in each project district to confirm that 300 households engaged with processing and marketing groups have
opportunities in project actively participating in product value activities/products they were not doing been formed with participation approx.
districts for sustainable, chains * before the project. Should include CCDP HH 4,869 HH. This equates to over 406 HH
market-based, small- and non CCDP HH as intention of the per PIU participating in value chains not
scale fisheries and component is to support both in existence prior to project inception.
marine operations

2. At least 4 third party buyers (e.g. 2. PIUs to detail the names of 3rd party buyers 2. PIUs average having 19 third party
supermarkets, processing companies, in districts buying from CCDP groups. buyers with all PIUs having a minimum
souvenirs shops, etc) routinely buying ‘Routinely buying’ to be defined by the PMO of 9 third party buyers.
CCDP products in each district, which in a guideline based on the commodity e.g.
were not doing so before the project.* seaweed every 45 days, tortilla chips once
per week, etc.

Outputs: PMO/PIU records. Measured separately for Up to September 2017, of a total of 80

1. 70% of facilities, services and priority and secondary investments, and for each district infrastructure investments had
2.1 Improved infrastructure financed by the project investment whether: i) not used at all during 3 been made. Of the total 91% are
infrastructure and operating/available, being maintained, months before survey, ii) partially used (defined operating. 56% (45 investments) are
services supporting and used by third party operators as on average 1-3 days per week during 3 highly utilized, 30% (24 investments)
small scale fishing (private operators, cooperatives, months before survey); or iii) fully used (defined moderately and 3% (2 investments) are
and marine state-own companies, SMEs). as 4-5 days per week during 3 months before not yet in use.
activities survey). Information on any specific investments
established in the not expected to be used regularly for particular
project districts reasons and with different criteria used, to be
noted.40
2.2 Increased PMO/PIU records
1. 48 MoUs signed (4 in each district) Up to September 2017, 84 MOUs have
participation and between village level enterprise been signed by PIUs with third party
earnings by small groups and third party buyers.* operators on behalf of enterprise groups.
scale fishers and All PIUs now have at least 4 MoUs each.
marine producers
from prioritized high
potential products in
each project district
Outcome 3: Project financial records
1. 80% of project funds are disbursed in For the 2013 AWPB 80.5% of budgeted
Project is managed a timely manner in line with targets funds were
efficiently and set in AWPBs.
transparently for the disbursed.

56
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

benefit of the project’s

target HHs and For the 2014 AWPB 88.6% of budgeted
communities funds were disbursed.
For the 2015 AWPB 87.6% of budgeted
funds were disbursed.
For the 2016 AWPB 93.3% of budgeted
funds were disbursed.
2017 expenditures are on target to meet
the AWPB.
Overall the Project will spend an
estimated 90% of funds. IFAD
Statement of Funds (SOF) dated 15
September 2017 show high rates of
funds absorption (IFAD Loan – 84%;
STF Loan – 96%; IFAD Grant – 94%).
Outputs: 1. PMO and 12 PIUs have SKs and 1. SKs, NOL AWPB and procurement plans, 1. PMO and all PIUs have SKs; and
3.1 PMO and 12 PIUs implement AWPBs and procurement weekly dashboard, audit reports, withdrawal have successfully implemented AWPBs
established and plans as accepted by the GOI and applications and disbursements. and procurement plans.
operating effectively IFAD, in a financially responsible and
timely manner.*
2. 75% of project consultants and TPDs
with contracts up for renewal, or 2. In 2017 all PMO and PIU consultant
reviews of performance on completion 2. Yearly performance evaluation of consultants
and TPDs, contracts. contracts were renewed. At the end of
of contract assignments, assessed by 2016, there were 175 TPDs. In 2017
PMO and PIUs as satisfactory.* contracts were extended for 90% of
3. All PIUs (excluding Badung Learning TPDs (157). There was a reduction due
Centre) evaluated by PMO to be to planned Exit Strategy reductions.
3. PMO annual assessment of PIU performance
either in category 1 (best) or 2 (good)
based on matrix of performance indicators
in the project reward and sanction
scheme.*

3.2 Replication and 1. A national level workshop held with 1. Workshop reports and minutes 1. PMO held a national workshop in
scaling up of the relevant partners to identify Badung, in September 2017 involving 12
project facilitated appropriate new districts for existing PIUs and other 13 potential new
implementation of CCDP models

57
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 4: Project logical framework

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Means of Verification Aggregated Progress

during the last year of the project. districts.

2. All 12 PIUs hold a district level 2. Workshop reports and minutes 2. All PIUs have been in discussions
workshop with relevant partners to with KKP, local government and relevant
discuss potential replication of CCDP partners about how to continue and
models in existing CCDP districts scale up CCDP model activities in their
during the last year of the project. districts. However, specific district level
3. PMO records workshops were held due to budget
3. PMO to support actual replication in restrictions.
at least 1 new district
3. Project has started support for
replication in Berau district.

Indicators, where relevant, will be disaggregated by gender. Indicators with an * represent those modified during the MT

58
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 5: Dates of supervision mission and follow-up missions

Appendix 5: Dates of supervision mission and follow-up missions8

No Date Mission Mission Team
1 10-30 June 2013 Early Implementation Ron Hartman, Country Programme
Support Mission Manager; Howard Johnson, Economist
2 9 – 19 Sept 2013 Supervision mission Ron Hartman, Country Programme
Manager; Howard Johnson, Economist;
Pari Baumann, Sociologist; Sumaryo
Soemardjo, Financial Management,
Procurement and Audit; and Charles
Greenwald, Implementation Advisor.
3 28 April to 12 May Second joint review Ron Hartman, Country Programme
2014 mission Manager; Anissa Pratiwi, Country
Programme Facilitator; Graeme Macfadyen,
Marketing/Fisheries Specialist; Pari
Bauman, Sociologist; Sumaryo Soemardjo,
Financial Management, Procurement and
Audit.
4 14 to 22 May 2015 Implementation Ron Hartman, Country Director, Graeme
Support Mission (Pre- Macfadyen, Marketing/Fisheries Specialist;
MTR) Sumaryo Soemardjo, Financial
Management, Procurement and Audit.
PMO, Ms. Anissa Lucky Pratiwi, Country
Presence Facilitator,
4 12 September to 1 Mid-Term Review Ron Hartman, Country Director, Graeme
October 2015 (MTR) Macfadyen, Team Leader; Richard Abila,
IFAD Senior Technical Specialist –
Fisheries & Aquaculture; Pari Baumann,
Sociologist; Sumaryo Soemardjo, Financial
Management; Sarah Hessel, Programme
Officer; and Isabel de la Pena, Nutrition.
5 28 April to 13 May Joint Review Mission Ron Hartman, Country Director, Graeme
2016 (JRM) Macfadyen, Team Leader; Richard Abila,
IFAD Senior Technical Specialist –
Fisheries & Aquaculture; Sumaryo
Soemardjo, Financial Management,; Sarah
Hessel, IFAD Programme Officer; and
Anissa Pratiwi, IFAD Country Programme
Facilitator.
6 25 August to 9 Joint Support Mission Ron Hartman, Country Director, Graeme
September 2016 (JSM) Macfadyen, Team Leader and fisheries
expert; Sumaryo Soemardjo, Financial
Management; and Ms. Virginia Cameron,
Senior Financer Officer and Team Leader
Asia and Pacific Region, IFAD Rome.
7 7–19 May 2017 Joint Review Mission Ron Hartman, Country Director, Graeme
(JRM) Macfadyen, Team Leader and fisheries
expert; Richard Abila, IFAD fisheries sector
specialist; Sarah Hessel, IFAD Programme
Officer; Sumaryo Soemardjo, Financial
Management; and Pari Bauman,
Sociologist.

8
Note that continuous implementation support was provided in 2013 and 2014

59
 Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 6: Summary of amendments to the loan agreement

Appendix 6: Summary of amendments to the financing agreement

45. The Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP) was approved at IFAD’s Executive
Board in September 2012. The total project financing is US$43.2 million, which consisted of: an
IFAD loan (No. I-880-ID) of SDR 15,870,000 (US$24.2 million); an IFAD grant (No. I-C-1392-ID)
of SDR 1,186,000 (US$2.0 million); a EURO 6.288 million loan from the Spanish Food Security
Trust Fund (No. E-16-ID); government contributions of an estimated US$7.1 million; and
beneficiary contributions of an estimated US$2.1 million. The Financing Agreement (FA)
entered into force on 23 October 2012 with project implementation starting in January 2013.
46. Following a Mid-Term Review in 2015, the Government of Indonesia requested a budget
reallocation in order to channel more funds to activities at the village level. This was driven by a
central policy decision to ensure that more project resources were directly targeted to project
beneficiaries. It involved reallocating funds from Expenditures Categories I (vehicle, material
and equipment), V (Consultancies services) and “Unallocated” to Expenditure Categories II
(Training and workshops); VI (Community enterprise and infrastructure fund) and VII (District
fund for supporting small scale fisheries). This reallocation supported an increase in the number
of participating villages and local communities. This budget reallocation was advised based on
recommendations made during the 2016 joint review mission. The MOF request for a Financing
Agreement reallocation was sent to IFAD on 4 October 2016. On 28 October 2016, an IFAD
formal letter from IFAD agreeing to the requested Financing Agreement reallocation was
issued. Details on the changes and the amounts are provided here below.
Original Proposed reallocation
Category Loan Grant STF Loan Grant STF
(SDR) (SDR) (EUR) (SDR) (SDR) (EUR)
Vehicles, materials and
I equipment 2,850,000 - - 1,380,000 - -

II Training and workshops 2,570,000 - 3,850,000 3,530,000 72,000 4,728,000

Studies and
III surveys - - 1,800,000 - - 1,560,000

IV Technical assistance - 1,186,000 - - 1,114,000 -

Consultancy
V service 2,400,000 - - 870,000 - -
Community enterprise and
VI infrastructure fund 5,350,000 - - 8,010,000 - -
District fund for supporting
VII small scale fisheries 1,100,000 - - 2,080,000 - -

Unallocated 1,600,000 - 638,000 - - -

Total 15,870,000 1,186,000 6,288,000 15,870,000 1,186,000 6,288,000

61
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 7: Actual project costs

Appendix 7: Actual project costs

Financial: Actual financial performance by financier; by component and disbursements by category (as at May 2018)

Table 5A: Financial performance of international financiers

Financier Category Currency Allocated amount Amount used Percent used Available
Authorised allocation - 262,190 0.00% (262,190)
Technical assistance 1,114,000 849,144 76.22% 264,856
Ifad Grant SDR
Training and workshops 72,000 - 0.00% 72,000
Total 1,186,000 1,111,334 93.70% 74,666
Authorised allocation - 760,644 0.00% (760,644)
Spanish Trust Training and workshops 4,728,000 4,496,019 95.09% 231,981
EUR
Fund Studies and surveys 1,560,000 1,018,058 65.26% 541,942
Total 6,288,000 6,269,191 99.70% 18,809
Authorised allocation - 2,193,016 0.00% (2,193,016)
Vehicles, materials and equipment 1,380,000 1,137,064 82.40% 242,936
Training and workshops 3,530,000 1,578,818 44.73% 1,951,182
Ifad Loan Consultancy services SDR 870,000 565,597 65.01% 304,403
Community enterprise and infrastructure fund 8,010,000 5,814,237 72.59% 2,195,763
District fund for supporting small scale fisheries 2,080,000 1,978,866 95.14% 101,134
Total 15,870,000 13,207,178 83.22% 2,662,822

63
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 7: Impact on the environment

Government contributions (in US$)

Expected APBN APBD APBN + APBD Recurrent Total govt. %
contributions (actual (actual (actual 4 years) costs contributions (against
at design 4 years) 4 years) (actual (actual expected)
(5 years)* 4 years)** 4 years)
7,100,000 2,224,719 789,208 3,013,927 4,745,376 7,759,303 109.3%
Beneficiary contributions (in US$)
Expected %
contributions Actual (against
at design (4 years) *** expected)
(5 years)
2,100,000 5,092,771 242.0%

Figure 5 A: Disbursement performance over time by international financiers

64
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 7: Actual project costs

Figure 5 B: IFAD grant spending performance by category and year (‘000 USD equivalent)

65
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 7: Impact on the environment

Figure 5 C: IFAD Loan spending performance by category and year (‘000 USD equivalent)

66
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 7: Actual project costs

Figure 5 D: Spanish trust fund loan spending performance by category and year (‘000 USD equivalent)

67
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 8: Physical progress table

Appendix 8: Physical progress table

Component/ Indicator Cumulative Appraisal/Logframe %

Unit
Sub-component or Output Actual Target
Component 1
Sub-component 1.1 Marine and 70% of fisheries/ marine HHs in CCDP groups' state CCDP activities (e.g.
% 100% 70% 143%
fisheries households’ development ICM plans, group proposals, village investments) represent their priorities.
priorities identified, agreed and 50% of women in CCDP supported HHs state CCDP activities represent
% 100% 50% 200%
documented their priorities.
40 community-based marine resource management areas demarcated,
Sub-component 1.2 Community-
declared and ratified (through Perdes, village ordinance, Perda, Peraturan No. 20 40 50%
based marine resource
wali kota/bupati, peraturan/keputusan lurah, or adat).
management areas being managed
PIUs have Integrated Coastal Management Plans in place in at least 50%
effectively No. 174 90 193%
of the 181 project villages.
Sub-component 1.3 Community
1 800 enterprise groups established by the project following submission of
enterprises created under the No. 1 609 1 800 89%
proposals, review by DOBs and approval by PIUs
project
Sub-component 1.4 Community
infra-structure implemented under Two thirds of project-financed community infrastructure operating, being
the project sup-porting marine- maintained, and being used by fisher/marine HHs, assessed 1 and 3 % 90%+ 66% 136%+
based economic activities in project years after establishment
villages
Component 2
Sub-component 2.1 Improved
infrastructure and services 70% of facilities, services and infrastructure financed by the project
supporting small scale fishing and operating/available, being maintained, and used by third party operators % 92% 70% 131%
marine activities established in the (private operators, cooperatives, state-own companies, SMEs).
project districts
Sub-component 2.2 Increased
participation and earnings by small
48 MoUs signed (4 in each district) between village level enterprise
scale fishers and marine producers No. 83 48 173%
groups and third party buyers
from prioritized high potential
products in each project district

69
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 8: Physical progress table

Component/ Indicator Cumulative Appraisal/Logframe %

Unit
Sub-component or Output Actual Target
Component 3
PMO and 12 PIUs have SKs and implement AWPBs and procurement
plans as accepted by the GOI and IFAD, in a financially responsible and No. 13 13 100%
timely manner
Sub-component 3.1 PMO and 12 75% of project consultants and TPDs with contracts up for renewal, or
PIUs established and operating reviews of performance on completion of contract assignments, assessed % 90%+ 75% 120%+
effectively by PMO and PIUs as satisfactory
All PIUs (excluding Badung Learning Centre) evaluated by PMO to be
either in category 1 (best) or 2 (good) in the project reward and sanction No. 12 12 100%
scheme
A national level workshop held with relevant partners to identify
appropriate new districts for implementation of CCDP models during the No. 1 1 100%
last year of the project
Sub-component 3.2 Replication and All 12 PIUs hold a district level workshop with relevant partners to discuss 12 (discussions
scaling up of the project facilitated potential replication of CCDP models in existing CCDP districts during the No. rather than 12 100%
last year of the project workshop)
PMO to support actual replication in at least 1 new district
No. 1 1 100%

70
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 9: RIMS Data

Appendix 9: RIMS data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Unit AWP&B Actual Total AWP&B Actual Total AWP&B Actual Total AWP&B Actual Total AWP&B Actual Total
progress progress progress progress Progress
community development
Environmental management plans number 0 36 32 32 72 70 102 6 5 107 (59%) 72 73 180
formulated (89%) (97%) (57%) (83%) (101%) (100%)
Number of groups involved in number 102 102 6 5 107 (59%) 72 73 180
climate risk management, natural (57%) (83%) (101%) (100%)
resources management (NRM) or
disaster risk reduction (DRR)
activities
Number of individuals (*) involved number 0 0 0
in climate risk management,
natural resources management
(NRM) or disaster risk reduction
(DRR) activities(men)
Number of individuals (*) involved number 0 0 0
in climate risk management,
natural resources management
(NRM) or disaster risk reduction
(DRR) activities(women)
Number of individuals (*) involved number 1041 1041 60 29 1070 720 730 1800
in climate risk management, (58%) (48%) (59%) (101%) (100%)
natural resources management
(NRM) or disaster risk reduction
(DRR) activities(men/women)
Village/community plans number 0 36 36 36 (20%) 72 72 108 0 0 108 (60%) 72 73 181
formulated (100%) (100%) (60%) (101%) (101%)
fisheries/marine conservation
Other productive infrastructure number 0 72 72 144 216 41 257 122 313 570
constructed/rehabilitated (257%)
Other social infrastructure/facilities number 0 36 36 72 72 108 0 0 108 72 73 181
constructed/rehabilitated (100%) (101%)
micro-enterprises
Enterprises accessing facilitated number 0 0 143 286 286
non-financial services
management/coordination
Government officials and staff number 0 0 0 0 0
trained(men)
Government officials and staff number 0 0 0 0 0
trained(women)
Government officials and staff number 0 321 321 642 321 963 963
trained(men/women)

71
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 9: RIMS data

Outreach indicators
Groups receiving project services number 0 360 376 376 1080 648 1024 432 464 1488 553 711 2199
(104%) (21%) (60%) (57%) (107%) (83%) (129%) (122%)
Households receiving project number 0 7000 3092 3092 21000 12687 15779 10500 9821 25600 20000 31400 57000
services (44%) (4%) (60%) (23%) (94%) (37%) (157%) (81%)
Individuals receiving project number 0 7885 7885 67200 29117 37002 22890 59892 73184 133076
services(men) (43%)
Individuals receiving project number 0 7575 7575 28800 27975 35550 21992 57542 70314 127856
services(women) (97%)
Individuals receiving project number 0 15460 15460 15460 47985 (0%) 15460 91400 143498 158958
services(men/women) (157%)

72
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

A. Introduction and Background

1. The Costal Community Development Programme (CCDP) was implemented in the Republic of
Indonesia from 2012 to 2017. The programme targeted poor coastal and small island communities in
twelve districts within nine provinces of eastern Indonesia. Selection of districts and targeted groups
was based on poverty level, potential for marine and fisheries production and value addition so as
ability (past and future) to successfully participate in project activities.
2. The main goal of CCDP was reduction in poverty and enhanced, sustainable and replicable
economic growth among the active poor in the target area. The Programme achieved increased
household incomes for families involved in fisheries/marine activities in poor coastal communities
through: a) community empowerment; (ii) a market-oriented approach; (iii) focus on the active poor;
and (iv) replication/scaling up of successful initiatives. In addition, CCDP increased local employment
and second tier benefits such as diversification of income sources, expanded business opportunities
for indirect beneficiaries and a more sustainable management of natural resources, hence increased
adaptation capacity to climate change and resilience to climate shocks.
3. The Project has three investment components: (i) Community Empowerment, Development and
Resource Management; (ii) District Support for Marine-Based Economic Development, with two sub-
components: District-Level Investment and Capacity Building; and Market and Value Chain Support;
and (iii) Project Management
4. This Annex presents the ex-post economic and financial analysis (EFA) at the date of
programme completion. This work is based on illustrative models representing the main activities
supported during the implementation of the CCDP. The key indicators used to carry out the analysis
are net present values (NPVs), the internal rates of return (IRR) and the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)
calculated over the project duration (5 years) and its capitalization phase (other 15 years)

B. Approach, Assumptions and Data

5. The primary objective of the analysis is to validate the technical and financial viability of
programme activities for targeted beneficiaries, and hence to examine the impact of the proposed
interventions on family labour, cash flow and household incomes as to assess the overall economic
viability of the project. Illustrative models for production and marketing of fish-related product include:
i) Pelagic fish and shrimp production, ii) Pelagic and demersal fish production, iii) Catfish aquaculture,
iv) Trevally fish production; v) Seaweed production, vi) Fish cracker production; vii) Marketing fresh
fish; viii) Fish Floss production, ix) Shrimp paste production, x) Marketing of processed fish, xi) Marine
ecotourism.
6. Data used in these models is drawn from the ex-ante EFA (2012), interviews with beneficiaries
and rural communities during completion mission, the M&E system at project level, the RIMS of
CCDP, the CCDP Annual Outcome Survey (AOS), national census and international statistical
sources on Indonesia. In particular, information on labour and input requirements for various
operations, capital costs, prevailing wages, yields, farm gate and market prices of commodities, input
and farm-to-market transport costs were collected during interview with beneficiaries. Conservative
assumptions were made for both inputs and outputs to avoid overestimation of benefits. A cash-flow
analysis is finally carried out to present the “with” and “without” programme analysis. The logical
diagram here below summarize the approach used in the analysis while summary results from the
financial models are presented in table 1

73
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Figure 1: Diagram of the EFA Approach

Table 7: Summary results of financial models

Total Switching
NPV (IDR NPV (USD) B/C Switching
Models number FIRR value
'000) @ 9 % @9% ratio value Costs
of groups Benefits
Pelagic Fish and Shrimp 540 235,250 17,419 20 % 1.34 -25 % 34 %
Pelagic and demersal fish 309 472,422 34,981 57 % 1.92 -48 % 92 %
Catfish Aquaculture 96 220,051 16,294 26 % 1.12 -11 % 12 %
Trevally fish 62 187,814 13,907 107 % 1.77 -44 % 77 %
Seaweed 90 192,549 14,258 119 % 2.42 -59 % 142 %
Fish cracker 33 66,197 4,902 50 % 1.16 -14 % 16 %
Marketing fresh fish 141 58,502 4,332 24 % 1.02 -2 % 2%
Fish Floss 213 1,047 77 10 % 1.04 -4 % 4%
Shrimp paste 86 141,519 10,479 33 % 1.35 -26 % 35 %
Marketing processed fish 33 404,699 29,967 n/a 1.68 -40 % 68 %
Marine ecotourism 45 48,846 3,617 11 % 1.06 -6 % 6%

7. Programme target group and beneficiaries. The CCDP has benefitted 503,500 people with
an approximate direct participation of 19,800 households involved in commercial activities and
enterprises for a total of 1,648 groups. Overall, the programme benefitted women, youth and men
directly involved in the fishing and marketing activities. Phasing of activities - as well considered for
the project results aggregation - is described below.

74
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 8: phasing of activities – phase I and II

MODELS Unit 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total
Pelagic Fish and Shrimp Group 59 2 229 202540 47
Pelagic and demersal fish Group 34 1 131 116309 27
Catfish Aquaculture Group 11 0.4 41 36 96 8
Trevally fish Group 7 0.2 26 23 62 5
Seaweed Group 10 0.4 38 34 90 8
Fish cracker Group 2 9 10 12 33 1
Marketing fresh fish Group 7 37 41 50 141 6
Fish Floss Group 10 56 62 76 213 9
Shrimp paste Group 4 23 25 31 86 4
Marketing processed fish Group 2 9 10 12 33 1
Marine ecotourism Group 2 12 13 16 45 2
1,648
8. Numeraire and prices. The numeraire adopted in the analysis is the domestic price level
expressed in domestic currency. The financial prices for programme inputs and products are current
prices for the second half of 2017 derived from market and government statistical sources, adjusted
where necessary to represent farm gate prices. Economic prices for traded goods have been
estimated based on World Bank commodity price of March 2017.
9. Exchange rate. The exchange rate used in the analysis is fixed at 1 USD : IDR 13,505
computed as an average of the exchange rate prevailing during the completion mission.
10. Labour. Family labour has been valued both in financial and economic analysis accounting for
9
the unemployment rate in the country estimated at around the 5.2per cent . It has been assumed that
-1
labour is often provided by households (unskilled labour) and is valued at IDR 70,000 day (USD 5).
-1
Hired labour (skilled) is priced at IDR 100,000 day (USD 7), which is the prevailing market rate in the
target area.
11. Opportunity cost of capital. A discount rate of 9 per cent has been used in this analysis to
assess the financial and economic viability and robustness of the investments. In order to consider the
profitability of the foreseen investments with market alternatives, the selected value is calculated as
an average of the passive interest rates on saving accounts, long term deposit and short/long treasury
bonds.

C. Production and Marketing Models

12. Different models have been elaborate to determine the impact of the project for the
communities involved. Particular focus has been given to fishing and productive activities as well as
marketing of produce and processed products. In general, groups benefitting from such activities
reported increases in production, self-consumption and sales. Simultaneously, this increase in
production and the development of related business activities triggered second-tier multipliers in the
economy. In the following sections, details on the models included in the EFA are provided.
13. Pelagic fish and Shrimps. Prior to the implementation of project activities, fishing activities
were conducted individually. Fishers lacked adequate fishing gear, boats and engines as well as
knowledge on marketing and business management. Thanks to the programme, fishers groups were
formed and trained on technical and business topics (such as marketing and book-keeping). In
addition, CCDP supported the newly formed groups with financial resources required for purchasing
fishing boats, equipment, engines and gears. As a result, both production and sales increased
meanwhile stimulating competition, social upward mobility and an overall improvement in social
welfare at community and household level.

9
Indonesian Central Bureau of statistics retrieved on March 2017

75
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

14. The model describes a group of fishers endowed with 10 boats. Initial investment costs
concerns acquisition of boats, engines, rod/lies and nets required for starting the activity, which
amounts to IDR 585 M (USD 43,000). Operating costs for the replacement and/or maintenance of
gears plus operating inputs (boxes, fuels etc.) tools would sum up to an average IDR 64 M per year
(USD 5,000). Labour costs, both hired and sourced in the family is instead valued at about IDR 18 M
(about USD 1,300).
15. Increased fish catch has been reported overtime thanks to new equipment. It is considered that
-1
production can reach 13 tons year for a total value of about IDR 245 M (USD 18,500) on average. In
the without project scenario (WoP), fishers lacked of adequate equipment and used only hand lines.
Due to a lack numerical estimation of WoP production the analysis includes considers the forgone
income of employed labour force, so as to avoid benefit overestimation. Labour has been valued at
the skilled labour wage for a total value of IDR 19 M (USD 1,400).
16. The NPV of the model is equal to IDR 235 M (USD 17,000) with an FIRR of 20 per cent and a
B/C ratio equal to 1.34.
17. Pelagic and demersal fish. This model describes a similar situation to the previous model,
though different fish species and working modalities are considered. Initial investment costs for boats,
engines and rod/lies amounts to IDR 202 M (USD 15,000). Operating costs are equal to IDR 55 M
-1
year on average (USD 5,000). Labour costs, skilled and unskilled amounts to at about IDR 16.4 M
(USD 1,200).
18. Even in this case, given the lack of reliable data to describe the counterfactual, the WoP is
measured through the forgone labour income of those labourers employed in the activity, which could
be employed in the second best work alternative otherwise. The latter sums to IDR 17.5 M (USD
-1
1,300). Increased production capacity can reach up to 10 tons year for a total value of about IDR 9
M (USD 18,500) on average.

19. The model’s cash flow discounted at 9per cent, produces a NPV of IDR 253 M (USD 19,000)
with an FIRR of 21 per cent. Each dollar invested in the activity will generate an extra USD 0.35 worth
(B/C ratio is equal to 1.35).

20. Catfish aquaculture. A successful CCDP activity aimed at reclaiming idle land and put it to
economic use through pond creation for aquaculture production. The initiative assisted in expanding
economic opportunities for men - mostly employed as agricultural day laborers and cattle herders
otherwise - and for women that were mostly housekeepers with no other sources of income. Once
identified the location, group members were trained in aquaculture, marketing and bookkeeping.
Subsequently, groups elaborated a technical proposal and received financial support to implement
their ideas.

21. The model describes the creation of eight ponds dedicated to catfish aquaculture. Investment
cost entails expenses related to the excavation of the pond plus the installation of water pipes and
pumps. The initial outlay amounts to IDR 296 M (USD 22,000 or USD 2,700 per pond). Operating
costs for the acquisition of fish fingerlings, fish feed, replacement and/or maintenance of nets and
-1
water pumping system sums up to an average IDR 408 M year (USD 30,000 or USD 3,800 per
pond). Family labour is instead valued at about IDR 22.4 M (about USD 1,700).

22. Ponds can be used for both fish production and recreational fishing. In this model only
production and selling of catfish is considered. Production at full capacity can reach up to 56 tons
-1 -1 -1
year (7 tons year pond ) with gross revenues equal to IDR 594 M (USD 44,000 or USD 5,500). In
the WoP the unskilled forgone income is valued at IDR 22.4 M (USD 1,700).

23. Profitability results are positive. The NPV of catfish aquaculture is equal to IDR 220 M (USD
16,300) with an FIRR of 26 per cent and a B/C ratio equal to 1.12.

76
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

24. Trevally aquaculture. Aquaculture groups have been formed in all project districts. This model
represents a different technique for marine fish cage culture of golden trevally. The activity can be
started with an initial outlay of about IDR 35 M (USD 2,600). The expenses include purchase of two
boat engines plus basic tools required for the site structure. Operating cost at full development stage -
mainly related inputs acquisition (i.e. fish feed and fish fingerlings) and maintenance - will average
-1
IDR 39 M year (USD 2,900). Revenues from sales of about 3.2 tons of fish would average IDR 114
M (USD 8,400).
25. Given the data on the costs and benefits of the activity and considered the timeframe of the
analysis, the FIRR of the model is 107 per cent. Despite the result can appear on the high-end side, it
is important to recall that IRR is affected by the dynamics of benefits and cost flows, hence tends to
be biased by the latter. Indeed, by looking and NPV and B/C ratio, results appear reasonable. The
cash flow of golden trevally aquaculture produces a NPV of IDR 187 M (USD 14,000). In addition,
each dollar invested in the activity will generate an extra USD 0.77 worth (B/C ratio is equal to 1.77).

26. Seaweed culture. The CCDP successfully introduced new marticulture/ aquaculture practices
such as seaweed production, drying and processing. In addition to the immediate benefits related to
production sales, this activity generates several secondary benefits. In facts, seaweed “farms”
provides a safe and healthy nursery ground for various marine species meanwhile contributing to
repopulation of overfished areas. In addition, seaweed farming contributes to consolidating coastal
areas and sea floors while also mitigating pollution and ocean acidification. Seaweeds are actually
capable of absorbing and storing up to five times more carbon dioxide than land-based plants.
Unfortunately, the monetary evaluation of such environmental benefits was beyond the scope and
capacity of this analysis during the completion mission.
27. The investment cost of the activity pertain the installation of the structure where weeds can
grow and is quantified at IDR 46 M ( USD 3,500) Operating cost mainly related to the maintenance of
the structure for an average yearly value of IDR 11 M (USD 800). Revenues from sales attain an
average of about 12.3 tons for average gross revenue of IDR 75 M (USD 5,500).
28. Profitability results are largely positive given the low input costs. The NPV of catfish aquaculture
is equal to IDR 192 M (USD 14,200) with an FIRR of 119 per cent and a B/C ratio equal to 2.42.
29. Fish floss. Fish floss is a common Indonesian snack and topping derived from fish meat, which
is normally fried and mixed with herbs and spices. This model describes the average scenario of a
group of women involved in this fish processing business.
30. The activity would mainly require cooking tools for a total investment of IDR 37 M (USD 2,700).
Operating cost for inputs acquisition (i.e. fish, oil, herbs and spices), utilities, and
-1
maintenance/replacement of tools sum up to an average IDR 72 M year (USD 5,400). Labour is fully
sourced within the group and amounts to IDR 7.7 M (USD 570) per year. Production capacity is
-1
estimated at 750 kg year at full development stage bringing total gross revenues up to IDR 105 M
(USD 7,800).
31. The model’s cash flow discounted at 9per cent, produces a NPV of IDR 1 M (USD 77) with an
FIRR of 10 per cent and a B/C ratio just above one (1.04). Despite profitable, these results are not
particularly high. It is worth noting though that - while carrying out this analysis - all costs and benefits
have been carefully accounted for in their corresponding optimal measure. This implies that some of
10
the costs imputed in the model might not occur in reality . Nonetheless, the actual profitability of this
activity can also be perceived by looking at the daily return to labour (IDR 220,000) which is twice as
much the skilled opportunity cost of labour (IDR 100,000).
32. Shrimp paste. Another processing activity linked to fish product is shrimp paste. This is a
fermented condiment also known as “terasi” in Indonesian. It is normally done with dry crushed shrimp

10
This is particularly true for the replacement of the processing, cooking and packaging tool taking place every two -
three years.

77
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

and krill mixed with salt and then left fermenting for several weeks until completed. The paste is then
dried and cut into brick and sold. Being a dry fermented product, it does not require refrigeration,
which makes the product easy to store, transport and sell.
33. The investment cost for starting the activity amounts to about IDR 1 M (USD 75) for the
purchase of basic cooking tools and a gas stove. In addition, another IDR 77 M (USD 5600) is
required for production inputs (species and shrimps), fuel, utilities and O&M expenses. The activity is
labour intensive and requires full time availability of three/four workers. Labour cost valued at the
unskilled labour opportunity cost equals IDR 175 M (USD 13,000).
34. The NPV of this activity is equal to about IDR 142 M (USD 10,500) with an FIRR of 33 per cent.
The BCR ratio is equal to 1.35.
35. Fish crackers. The CCDP project has successfully supported processing/marketing groups in
acquiring technical knowledge and enhanced production capacity through training on processing
technology and the aid of equipment to get the added value from the fishery product. Fish cracker is a
common snack particularly known and commonly available in Southeast Asia. It consists of deep fried
crackers made of fish meat and residues, prepared with different flavours and ingredients.
36. Basic inputs for its production are flour (tapioca and wheat) plus salt, sugar and the like. Total
operating cost at full-development stage amounts to IDR 40 M (USD 3,000). The low initial investment
is equal to about IDR 2 M (USD 140) required for the purchase of cooking tools and equipment.
Group members provide unskilled labour for a total value of IDR 26 M (USD 2,000). Groups have
been formed in all project districts. Gross revenues from sales would reach up to IDR 115 M (USD
8,500).
37. The NPV of the model is equal to IDR 66 M (USD 5,000) with an FIRR of 50 per cent and a B/C
ratio equal to 1.16.
38. Marketing fresh and processed fish. Through the CCDP, producers groups were organized
and trained on marketing through workshops, manuals and meetings. The programme trained
beneficiaries on common issues and elements of any value chain, including - among others -
identification of market opportunities and high potential commodities, intervention strategies,
assessment of comparative advantages, packaging, market segmentation, distribution networks,
demand conditions, constraints and preparation of a marketing strategy plan.
39. Two models were prepared to describe the impact of project activity on marketing of fresh and
processed fish products. Investment costs in the two models concerned the procurement of storage
-1
and transportation equipment. Costs ranged between IDR 13 M year (USD 950) and IDR 38 M (USD
2,800), where the buying of a three-wheel motorcycle contributes to the gap. Storing perishable food
can be expensive and in fact, operating costs for marketing fresh products are particularly higher than
those of processed food storing. On average, marketing fresh product requires an annual expense of
IDR 358 M (USD 27,000) while the operation cost for marketing processed food is just less than IDR
93 M (USD 7,000). Revenues from sales of fresh fish and processed fish product are of IDR 429 M
(USD 32,000) and of IDR 202 M (USD 15,000) respectively.
40. Both activities are profitable with remarkable difference due mainly to the cost structure of the
businesses. The NPV of fresh fish marketing is equal to IDR 58 M (USD 4,332) while the same
indicator for the processed fish product is of IDR 404 M (USD 30,000). Notwithstanding such
differences, when comparing results per dollar spent, the variance in the performance is less evident.
In fact, the B/C ratio for the two models are equal to 1.02 (fresh fish) and 1.68 (marketed fish). Finally,
the FIRR for the fresh fish product model is of 24 per cent. The FIRR for marketing processed fish
model is instead mathematically incomputable due to the inexistence of negative values in the cash
flow.
41. Marine Ecotourism. Mangrove forests play a significant role in the economic and
environmental safety of local populations. The existence of well-preserved mangrove areas can result
in increased protection of coastal areas from floods and storms, reduced abrasion and intrusion of sea

78
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

water inland, and also increased preservation of local flora and fauna - being these areas natural
animal nurseries. The CCDP programme, through the integrated coastal management plan,
highlighted the potential for the development of marine ecotourism therefore promoting sustainable
management of existing forest and replantation of depleted mangrove areas.
42. This model represents the economic evaluation of a rehabilitated mangrove forest now
dedicated to ecotourism. Investment cost included building of kiosks, pathways and mangroves
replantation for a total amount of IDR 282 M (USD 21,000). Operating costs mainly pertained to
ordinary and extraordinary maintenance of wooden structures and replacement of damaged pathways
for an average yearly amount of IDR 25 M (USD 2,000). Labour cost - concerning salaries of local
dwellers involved in the maintenance of the forest as well as attending tourists - equals IDR 36 M
(USD 2,700).
43. Revenues from this activity - coming mainly from ticket sales and payments for parking lots -
amounts to an average annual value of IDR 130 M (USD 10,000). In order to avoid double counting of
benefits, the direct use and monetary values of forest by-products and services were disregarded in
the calculation, being those captured already in other models. The NPV of the model is IDR 49 M
(USD 3,600) with a FIRR of 11 per cent and a BCR of 1.06.

D. Economic Analysis
44. The objectives of the economic analysis are: (i) to evaluate the overall project viability, and (ii)
to assess the project’s impact and the overall economic NPV and IRR.
45. Key Assumptions. The physical inputs and productions established in the financial analysis
provided the basis to determine the viability of the programme investment in terms of opportunity
costs and quantifiable benefits to the economy as a whole. The estimate of the economic returns from
CCDP interventions are based on the following assumptions: (i) project benefits will sprawl over 20
years, in light of the nature of main activities; (ii) the economic conversion of financial prices is carried
out through the use of the Shadow Exchange Rate Factor (SERF) equal to 1.01 and (iii) the economic
discount rate of eight per cent is calculated as an average of the interest rates and bond yields
prevailing in the market.
46. Project Costs. The economic analysis includes investment and incremental recurrent costs of
programme components. The programme financial costs have been converted to economic values by
removal of price contingencies, taxes and duties. In order to avoid overestimation of results, recurrent
costs have been sprawled all through the analysis timespan after project closure.
47. Benefits aggregation, results and comparison. The incremental benefits stream comprises
the economic net values of all the several models developed in the financial analysis. These benefits
are aggregated upon the activity uptake pace, experienced during the implementation period (table 2).
48. The overall economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of the project is estimated at 18.4 per cent
while the NPV of the net benefit stream, discounted at eight per cent, is IDR 504 Mil. (USD 37 Mil.).
This value is estimated at 2017 constant prices.
49. With the purpose of ensuring comparability across the ex-post and the ex-ante analysis, we
would adjust prices, discount rates and analysis lifespan to a common level. In fact, different set of
results for the EIRR are obtained when - so as to calculate the economic performance indicators from
today’s point of view and compare it to the ex-ante analysis - we deflate the cash flows calculated at
11
2017 price level to that of the ex-ante analysis carried out with 2012 prices .

11
The mix of historical and forecast data affects the choice of the prices to be used. A standard approach in performing
the calculation is to use constant prices. This requires the following adjustments: i) Data from today onwards should be
estimated in real terms (constant today prices, no inflation); ii) data up to and including the last reference year are
historical and therefore expressed in nominal terms. In order to align the two levels of analysis, and to have only one
price basis, the historical prices should be reflated (or today’s prices deflated) to turn them into prices at today (past)
numeraire.

79
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

50. By considering this approach, we would obtain an EIRR of the ex-post EFA - in real terms - of
17.8 per cent and 9.7 per cent over 20 and 15 years respectively. Results from the ex-ante analysis
carried out in 2012 estimated an EIRR of 20.3 per cent in the 15-year timeframe while it was
estimated at 21.9 per cent over 20 years. Therefore, through a direct comparison between the ex-ante
and ex-post analysis results - we can conclude that the project was economically viable despite
performing not as good as originally expected.
Table 9: Results comparison (real values 2012)

15 years 20 years
Ex-Ante EFA Ex-Post EFA Ex-Ante EFA Ex-Post EFA
EIRR (%) 20.3 % 9.7 % 21.9 % 12.8 %
Note: discount rate is set at 9%

E. Fiscal analysis

51. Presenting a fiscal analysis helps describing the fiscal impact of the project on the government
budget and it provides an insight into the incentives that each of the stakeholders might have - and
had - in seeing the project through.
12
52. Project costs for the Government of Indonesia were IDR 420,101 M (USD 31 M ) and project
taxes - direct and indirect - were IDR 302,493 M (USD, resulting in a cost recovery index of 72 per
cent. Table 4 shows the estimated present value of the income, costs, and taxes of CCDP at
completion. Farmers receive the total income on the project, IDR 1.2 billion. Family labour, taxes on
incomes and Value Added Taxes (VAT) are costs borne by farmers. Taxes, which from the farmer’s
viewpoint is a cost and from the government’s viewpoint an income, amount to IDR 302,403 M (USD
23 M). From society’s viewpoint, the transaction is a transfer that nets out and hence is not included in
the project costs. Finally, the project’s nonrecurring costs - IDR 420,101 M (USD 31 M) - are borne by
the government. Farmers increase their income by IDR 678,936 M (USD M), and society as a whole
enjoys an income increase of about IDR 561,328 M (USD 42 M). The fiscal cost of the project is IDR
117,608 (USD 9 M).
Table 10: CCDP Fiscal analysis

(IDR M)
Category Society Government Farmers
Income 1,241,719 1,241,719
Costs
Family labour (188,960) (188,960)
Taxes on income 22,172 (22,172)
VAT 280,322 (280,322)
Project costs (491,431) (420,101)
Net benefit 561,328 (117,608) 678,936

(USD M)
Category Society Government Farmers
Income 92 92
Costs

12
This estimate considered the cost of borrowing an repayment minus the grant and own government contribution to
the project

80
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Family labour (14) (14)

Taxes on income 2 (2)
VAT 21 (21)
Project costs (36) (31) (5)
Net benefit 42 (9) 50
Cost recovery index 72%

F. Conclusions

53. The CCDP programme has shown positive impact for targeted beneficiaries. Models elaborated
for the ex-post EFA - through information collected during field visits, M&E system, AOS and RIMS
data - indicated significantly increase in income and in self-consumption therefore contributing to food
security, livelihoods enhancements, gender empowerment and increased social and economic
welfare.
54. As shown in models’ results, CCDP activities were pivotal in increasing productivity and
diversifying economic opportunities through value addition activities and a more sustainable use of
fish stocks and natural resources. In addition, the programme triggered second-tier benefits through
job creation and diversification of local produce, meanwhile putting into sustainable economic use
resources left idle otherwise.
55. The fiscal analysis also showed that project resources increased social welfare while project
cost borne by the Government were almost fully offset by an increase in tax revenues.
56. The ex-post EFA presents lower results in comparison with the ex-ante analysis performed in
2012. This is mainly related to: i) overestimation of project benefits during project appraisal, ii)
change in key parameters of the EFA; iii) different set of project costs affecting actual investment
performances; iv) inaccurate and incomplete calculation of shadow prices to be used in the economic
analysis.

81
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

EFA supporting tables

Table 11: Pelagic fish and shrimp model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS UNIT PRICE ('000 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IDR)
Main production
Various species of fish kg 21 9,100 9,750 10,400 11,700 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Selfconsumption kg 91 98 104 117 130 130 130 130 130 130
Post harvest losses % 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%
Total Production kg 0 8,190 8,775 9,464 10,647 11,830 11,960 11,960 11,960 12,090 12,090

Investment inputs
Boat no. 6,500 10
Machine no. 3,500 10
Rods/lines no. 400 30
Nets no. 350 40

Operating inputs
Fuel lt 8 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Bait kg 25 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Boxes no. 3 455 488 520 585 650 650 650 650 650 650
Ice kg 0.8 1,365 1,463 1,560 1,755 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950
O&M Boat lumpsum 650 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
O&M Machine lumpsum 350 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
O&M Rod/lines lumpsum 40 30 30 30 30 30 30
Nets no. 350 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Replacement machine no. 3,500 10 10
Replacement Rods/lines no. 400 30 30 30

Labour
Manpower pers. day 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175
Sub-total labour days 0 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175
Skilled labour (S) pers. day 100 0 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Family labour (F) pers. day 70 0 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

FINANCIAL BUDGET ('000 IDR) WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Various species of fish 0 191,100 204,750 218,400 245,700 273,000 273,000 273,000 273,000 273,000 273,000
Selfconsumption 0 1,911 2,048 2,184 2,457 2,730 2,730 2,730 2,730 2,730 2,730
Post harvest losses 0 19,110 20,475 19,656 22,113 24,570 21,840 21,840 21,840 19,110 19,110
Total revenue 0 170,079 182,228 196,560 221,130 245,700 248,430 248,430 248,430 251,160 251,160
incben 170,079 182,228 196,560 221,130 245,700 248,430 248,430 248,430 251,160 251,160
Investment input costs
Boat 0 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machine 0 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rods/lines 0 195,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nets 0 260,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 585,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating inputs
Fuel 0 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Bait 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Boxes 0 1,365 1,463 1,560 1,755 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950
Ice 0 1,092 1,170 1,248 1,404 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560
O&M Boat 0 0 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500
O&M Machine 0 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 0 3,500
O&M Rod/lines 0 0 1,200 0 1,200 1,200 0 1,200 1,200 0 1,200
Nets 0 0 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000
Replacement machine 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 35,000 0
Replacement Rods/lines 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 0
Sub-total operating costs 0 31,457 56,833 67,808 57,359 89,210 68,510 57,710 57,710 100,010 57,710

Labour costs
Skilled labour costs 0 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000
Family labour costs 0 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450
Sub-total labour costs 0 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450
Total production costs 0 632,907 73,283 84,258 73,809 105,660 84,960 74,160 74,160 116,460 74,160
Net Benefits (after labour costs) 17,500 -462,828 108,945 112,302 147,321 140,040 163,470 174,270 174,270 134,700 177,000
Net Incremental Benefits (NIB) -480,328 91,445 94,802 129,821 122,540 145,970 156,770 156,770 117,200 159,500
inccos 632,907 73,283 84,258 73,809 105,660 84,960 74,160 74,160 116,460 74,160
Net Benefits (before labour costs)* 0 -446,378 125,395 128,752 163,771 156,490 179,920 190,720 190,720 151,150 193,450
*Farm liquidity= Net benefits from sales plus family labour
Return to labour* ('000 IDR/day) 717
*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 253,925
IRR 21%
NPVb 1,407,978
NPVc 1,041,744
B/C ratio 1.35
Switching values Benefits -26%
Switching values Costs 35%

82
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 12: Pelagic and demersal fish

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS UNIT PRICE ('000 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IDR)
Main production
Various species of fish kg 30 5,600 6,000 6,400 7,200 8,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Selfconsumption kg 560 600 640 720 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Post harvest losses % 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%
Total Production kg 0 5,040 5,400 5,824 6,552 7,280 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,300 9,300

Investment inputs
Boat no. 4,700 10
Machine no. 4,250 10
Rods/lines no. 450 23

Operating inputs
Fuel lt 8 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600
Bait kg 25 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Boxes no. 3 280 300 320 360 400 500 500 500 500 500
Ice kg 0.8 840 900 960 1,080 1,200 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
O&M Boat lumpsum 470 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
O&M Machine lumpsum 425 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
O&M Rod/lines lumpsum 45 23 23 23 23 23 23
Replacement machine no. 4,250 10 10
Replacement Rods/lines no. 450 23 23 23

Labour
Manpower pers. day 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190
Sub-total labour days 0 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190
Skilled labour (S) pers. day 100 0 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152
Family labour (F) pers. day 70 0 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

FINANCIAL BUDGET ('000 IDR) WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Various species of fish 0 168,000 180,000 192,000 216,000 240,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Selfconsumption 0 16,800 18,000 19,200 21,600 24,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Post harvest losses 0 16,800 18,000 17,280 19,440 21,600 24,000 24,000 24,000 21,000 21,000
Total revenue 0 134,400 144,000 155,520 174,960 194,400 246,000 246,000 246,000 249,000 249,000
incben 134,400 144,000 155,520 174,960 194,400 246,000 246,000 246,000 249,000 249,000
Investment input costs
Boat 0 47,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machine 0 47,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rods/lines 0 108,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 202,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating inputs
Fuel 0 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800
Bait 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Boxes 0 840 900 960 1,080 1,200 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Ice 0 672 720 768 864 960 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
O&M Boat 0 0 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700
O&M Machine 0 0 4,250 4,250 4,250 0 4,250 4,250 4,250 0 4,250
O&M Rod/lines 0 0 1,035 0 1,035 1,035 0 1,035 1,035 0 1,035
Replacement machine 0 0 0 0 0 42,500 0 0 0 42,500 0
Replacement Rods/lines 0 0 0 10,350 0 0 10,350 0 0 10,350 0
Sub-total operating costs 0 35,312 45,405 54,828 45,729 84,195 55,800 46,485 46,485 94,050 46,485

Labour costs
Skilled labour costs 0 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200
Family labour costs 0 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660
Sub-total labour costs 0 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860
Total production costs 0 255,272 63,265 72,688 63,589 102,055 73,660 64,345 64,345 111,910 64,345
Net Benefits (after labour costs) 19,000 -120,872 80,735 82,832 111,371 92,345 172,340 181,655 181,655 137,090 184,655
Net Incremental Benefits (NIB) -139,872 61,735 63,832 92,371 73,345 153,340 162,655 162,655 118,090 165,655
inccos 255,272 63,265 72,688 63,589 102,055 73,660 64,345 64,345 111,910 64,345
Net Benefits (before labour costs)* 0 -103,012 98,595 100,692 129,231 110,205 190,200 199,515 199,515 154,950 202,515
*Farm liquidity= Net benefits from sales plus family labour

Return to labour* ('000 IDR/day) 1,001

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 472,422
IRR 57%
NPVb 1,239,425
NPVc 645,068
B/C ratio 1.92
Switching values Benefits -48%
Switching values Costs 92%

83
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 13: Catfish aquaculture

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS UNIT PRICE ('000 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IDR)
Main production
Catfish kg 12 39,375 42,188 45,000 50,625 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250
Selfconsumption kg 1,969 2,109 2,250 2,531 2,813 2,813 2,813 2,813 2,813 2,813
Post harvest losses % 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%
Total Production kg 0 35,438 37,969 40,950 46,069 51,188 51,750 51,750 51,750 52,313 52,313

Investment inputs
Pond construction no. 1,724 8
Submergible pump no. 1,000 3
Hose mt 8 65
Nets mt. 5 96

Operating inputs
Feed kg 215 875 938 1,000 1,125 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250
Catfish fingerling no. 0.70 175,000 187,500 200,000 225,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
Boxes and tools lumpsum 150 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O&M Pond lumpsum 172.40 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
O&M pump lumpsum 100 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
O&M hose lumpsum 0.80 65 65 65 65 65 65
Replacemnt Nets no. 5 96 96 96
Replacement pump no. 1,000 3 3
Replacement hose no. 8 65 65 65

Labour
Manpower pers. day 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Sub-total labour days 0 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Skilled labour (S) pers. day 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour (F) pers. day 70 0 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320

FINANCIAL BUDGET ('000 IDR) WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Catfish 0 472,500 506,250 540,000 607,500 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000
Selfconsumption 0 23,625 25,313 27,000 30,375 33,750 33,750 33,750 33,750 33,750 33,750
Post harvest losses 0 47,250 50,625 48,600 54,675 60,750 54,000 54,000 54,000 47,250 47,250
Total revenue 0 401,625 430,313 464,400 522,450 580,500 587,250 587,250 587,250 594,000 594,000
incben 401,625 430,313 464,400 522,450 580,500 587,250 587,250 587,250 594,000 594,000
Investment input costs
Pond construction 0 13,792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Submergible pump 0 5,172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hose 0 112,060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nets 0 165,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 296,528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating inputs
Feed 0 188,125 201,563 215,000 241,875 268,750 268,750 268,750 268,750 268,750 268,750
Catfish fingerling 0 122,500 131,250 140,000 157,500 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
Boxes and tools 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
O&M Pond 0 0 1,379 1,379 1,379 1,379 1,379 1,379 1,379 1,379 1,379
O&M pump 0 0 300 300 300 0 300 300 300 0 300
O&M hose 0 0 52 0 52 52 0 52 52 0 52
Replacemnt Nets 0 0 0 480 0 0 480 0 0 480 0
Replacement pump 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0
Replacement hose 0 0 0 520 0 0 520 0 0 520 0
Sub-total operating costs 0 310,775 334,694 357,829 401,256 448,331 446,579 445,631 445,631 449,279 445,631

Labour costs
Skilled labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour costs 0 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400
Sub-total labour costs 0 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400
Total production costs 0 629,703 357,094 380,229 423,656 470,731 468,979 468,031 468,031 471,679 468,031
Net Benefits (after labour costs) 22,400 -228,078 73,219 84,171 98,794 109,769 118,271 119,219 119,219 122,321 125,969
Net Incremental Benefits (NIB) -250,478 50,819 61,771 76,394 87,369 95,871 96,819 96,819 99,921 103,569
inccos 629,703 357,094 380,229 423,656 470,731 468,979 468,031 468,031 471,679 468,031
Net Benefits (before labour costs)* 0 -205,678 95,619 106,571 121,194 132,169 140,671 141,619 141,619 144,721 148,369
*Farm liquidity= Net benefits from sales plus family labour

Return to labour* ('000 IDR/day) 440

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 220,051
IRR 26%
NPVb 3,327,184
NPVc 2,963,377
B/C ratio 1.12
Switching values Benefits -11%
Switching values Costs 12%

84
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 14: Trevally fish model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS UNIT PRICE ('000 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IDR)
Main production
Various species of fish kg 45 2,240 2,400 2,560 2,880 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200
Selfconsumption kg 112 120 128 144 160 160 160 160 160 160
Post harvest losses % 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%
Total Production kg 0 2,016 2,160 2,330 2,621 2,912 2,944 2,944 2,944 2,976 2,976

Investment inputs
Guard House no. 945 1
Engine for Small Boat no. 2,000 2
Buoy no. 20 8
Nets no. 130 4
Coolbox no. 125 1
Stavol no. 250 1
Cable no. 150 1
Generator no. 4,000 1
Fish Tank no. 300 1
Coconut Trunks no. 250 15
Wall Pack no. 5,000 2

Operating inputs
Feed kg 10 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Trevarly fingerling no. 2 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
O&M initial investment lumpsum 3,497 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement engine no. 2,000 2
Replacement Buoy no. 20 8
Replacement nets no. 130 4
Replacement coolbox no. 125 1
Replacement cable no. 150 1
Replacement generator no. 4,000 1
Replacement fish tank no. 300 1
Coconut trucks no. 250 15 15 15 15
Replacement of stravol no. 250 1
Replacement of wall pack no. 5,000 2

Labour
Manpower pers. day 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
Sub-total labour days 0 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
Skilled labour (S) pers. day 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour (F) pers. day 70 0 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270

FINANCIAL BUDGET ('000 IDR) WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Various species of fish 0 100,800 108,000 115,200 129,600 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000
Selfconsumption 0 5,040 5,400 5,760 6,480 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200
Post harvest losses 0 10,080 10,800 10,368 11,664 12,960 11,520 11,520 11,520 10,080 10,080
Total revenue 0 85,680 91,800 99,072 111,456 123,840 125,280 125,280 125,280 126,720 126,720
incben 85,680 91,800 99,072 111,456 123,840 125,280 125,280 125,280 126,720 126,720
Investment input costs
Guard House 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Engine for Small Boat 0 1,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buoy 0 7,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nets 0 3,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coolbox 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stavol 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cable 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Generator 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fish Tank 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coconut Trunks 0 14,175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wall Pack 0 1,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 34,965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating inputs
Feed 0 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Trevarly fingerling 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
O&M initial investment 0 3,497 3,497 3,497 3,497 0 3,497 3,497 3,497 3,497 3,497
Replacement engine 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement Buoy 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement nets 0 0 0 0 0 520 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement coolbox 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement cable 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement generator 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement fish tank 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0
Coconut trucks 0 0 0 3,750 0 3,750 0 3,750 0 3,750 0
Replacement of stravol 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement of wall pack 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total operating costs 0 35,497 35,497 39,247 35,497 55,255 35,497 39,247 35,497 39,247 35,497

Labour costs
Skilled labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour costs 0 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900
Sub-total labour costs 0 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900
Total production costs 0 89,362 54,397 58,147 54,397 74,155 54,397 58,147 54,397 58,147 54,397
Net Benefits (after labour costs) 18,900 -3,682 37,404 40,926 57,060 49,685 70,884 67,134 70,884 68,574 72,324
Net Incremental Benefits (NIB) -22,582 18,504 22,026 38,160 30,785 51,984 48,234 51,984 49,674 53,424
inccos 89,362 54,397 58,147 54,397 74,155 54,397 58,147 54,397 58,147 54,397
Net Benefits (before labour costs)* 0 15,219 56,304 59,826 75,960 68,585 89,784 86,034 89,784 87,474 91,224
*Farm liquidity= Net benefits from sales plus family labour

Return to labour* ('000 IDR/day) 333

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 187,814
IRR 107%
NPVb 709,799
NPVc 400,691
B/C ratio 1.77
Switching values Benefits -44%
Switching values Costs 77%

85
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 15: Seaweed cultivation model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS UNIT PRICE ('000 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IDR)
Main production
Seaweed Eucheuma Cottonii kg 7 9,450 10,125 10,800 12,150 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500
Selfconsumption kg 473 506 540 608 675 675 675 675 675 675
Post harvest losses % 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%
Total Production kg 0 8,505 9,113 9,828 11,057 12,285 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,555 12,555

Investment inputs
Betel no. 40 10
Stakes no. 1 1,000
Crowbar no. 40 10
Raffia String kg 30 40
Nylon String kg 40 100
Tarpaulins no. 50 10

Operating inputs
Seaweed seeds kg 1 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
O&M initial investment lumpsum 4,680 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement of Betel no. 40 10
Replacement of stakes no. 1 1,000 1,000 1,000
Replacement of crowbar no. 40 10 10 10 10 10
Replacement of raffia string no. 30 40 40 40
Replacement of Nylon string no. 40 100 100 100 100 100
Replacement of tarpauling no. 50 10 10 10 10 10

Labour
Manpower pers. day 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180
Sub-total labour days 0 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180
Skilled labour (S) pers. day 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour (F) pers. day 70 0 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

FINANCIAL BUDGET ('000 IDR) WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Seaweed Eucheuma Cottonii 0 66,150 70,875 75,600 85,050 94,500 94,500 94,500 94,500 94,500 94,500
Selfconsumption 0 3,308 3,544 3,780 4,253 4,725 4,725 4,725 4,725 4,725 4,725
Post harvest losses 0 6,615 7,088 6,804 7,655 8,505 7,560 7,560 7,560 6,615 6,615
Total revenue 0 56,228 60,244 65,016 73,143 81,270 82,215 82,215 82,215 83,160 83,160
incben 56,228 60,244 65,016 73,143 81,270 82,215 82,215 82,215 83,160 83,160
Investment input costs
Betel 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stakes 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crowbar 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Raffia String 0 1,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nylon String 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tarpaulins 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 46,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating inputs
Seaweed seeds 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
O&M initial investment 0 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680 4,680
Replacement of Betel 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0
Replacement of stakes 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 1,000 0 0 1,000 0
Replacement of crowbar 0 0 400 0 400 0 400 0 400 0 400
Replacement of raffia string 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 1,200 0 0 1,200 0
Replacement of Nylon string 0 0 4,000 0 4,000 0 4,000 0 4,000 0 4,000
Replacement of tarpauling 0 0 500 0 500 0 500 0 500 0 500
Sub-total operating costs 0 7,680 12,580 9,880 12,580 7,680 15,180 7,680 12,580 9,880 12,580

Labour costs
Skilled labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour costs 0 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600
Sub-total labour costs 0 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600
Total production costs 0 67,080 25,180 22,480 25,180 20,280 27,780 20,280 25,180 22,480 25,180
Net Benefits (after labour costs) 12,600 -10,853 35,064 42,536 47,963 60,990 54,435 61,935 57,035 60,680 57,980
Net Incremental Benefits (NIB) -23,453 22,464 29,936 35,363 48,390 41,835 49,335 44,435 48,080 45,380
inccos 67,080 25,180 22,480 25,180 20,280 27,780 20,280 25,180 22,480 25,180
Net Benefits (before labour costs)* 0 1,748 47,664 55,136 60,563 73,590 67,035 74,535 69,635 73,280 70,580
*Farm liquidity= Net benefits from sales plus family labour

Return to labour* ('000 IDR/day) 372

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 192,549
IRR 119%
NPVb 465,806
NPVc 192,394
B/C ratio 2.42
Switching values Benefits -59%
Switching values Costs 142%

86
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 16: Fish floss production model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
PRICE ('000
ITEMS UNIT IDR) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production
Fish floss kg 150 563 600 638 675 750 750 750 750 750 750
Total Sales kg 563 600 638 675 750 750 750 750 750 750
Selfconsumption kg
Processing losses % 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6%
Investment inputs
Hand sealer no. 428 3
Blender no. 560 2
Stove no. 500 2
Spinner no. 4,950 5
Basin no. 76 2
Storefront Cabinet no. 2,000 4
Frying Pan no. 76 2
Frying Stick no. 15 5
Tray no. 45 4
Knife no. 25 3

Operating inputs
Tuna Fish kg 35 1,125 1,200 1,275 1,350 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Herbs and Spices Package 225 23 24 26 27 30 30 30 30 30 30
Miscelaneous Package 50 23 24 26 27 30 30 30 30 30 30
Packaging no. 98 56 60 64 68 75 75 75 75 75 75
Electricity (0.5KWh / 1 kg of product) Kwh 1 281 300 319 338 375 375 375 375 375 375
Water lumpsum 2,500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hygiene IDR/ton 1,500 0.34 0.44 0.57 0.68 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
O&M of investment cost lumpsum 1,839 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement of Packaging tools lumpsum 1,464 1 1 1
Replacement of Processing tools lumpsum 26,202 1
Replacement of Cooking tools lumpsum 1,302 1 1 1 1 1
Transportation ton 13 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Tools/equipment lumpsum 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Labour
Manpower pers. day S/F 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
Sub-total labour 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
Skilled (paid) labour (S) pers. day 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour pers. day 70 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

FINANCIAL BUDGET WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue

Fish floss 0 84,375 90,000 95,625 101,250 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500
Sales 0 84,375 90,000 95,625 101,250 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500
Selfconsumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Post-porcessing losses 0 8,438 9,000 7,650 8,100 9,000 7,875 7,875 6,750 6,750 6,750
Totalrevenues
Incremental revenue 0 75,938
68,238 81,000
73,300 87,975
80,275 93,150
85,450 103,500
95,800 104,625
96,925 104,625
96,925 105,750
98,050 105,750
98,050 105,750
98,050
Investment input costs
Hand sealer 0 1,284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blender 0 1,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stove 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spinner 0 24,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Basin 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storefront Cabinet 0 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frying Pan 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frying Stick 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tray 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Knife 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 36,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating input costs
Tuna Fish 0 39,375 42,000 44,625 47,250 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500
Herbs and Spices 0 5,063 5,400 5,738 6,075 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750
Miscelaneous 0 1,125 1,200 1,275 1,350 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Packaging 0 5,513 5,880 6,248 6,615 7,350 7,350 7,350 7,350 7,350 7,350
Electricity (0.5KWh / 1 kg of product) 0 234 250 265 281 312 312 312 312 312 312
Water 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Hygiene 0 506 658 861 1,013 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125
O&M of investment cost 0 0 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839
Replacement of Packaging tools 0 0 0 1,464 0 0 1,464 0 0 1,464 0
Replacement of Processing tools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,202 0 0
Replacement of Cooking tools 0 0 1,302 0 1,302 0 1,302 0 1,302 0 1,302
Transportation 0 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Tools/equipment 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Sub-total operating costs 0 54,348 61,062 64,848 68,259 73,911 76,677 73,911 101,415 75,375 75,213
Labour costs
Skilled (paid) labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour 0 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700
Sub-total labour costs 0 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700
Total production costs 0 98,836 68,762 72,548 75,959 81,611 84,377 81,611 109,115 83,075 82,913
Gross Income (after labour costs) 0 -22,898 12,238 15,427 17,191 21,889 20,248 23,014 -3,365 22,675 22,837
Taxes (10%) 0 0 1,224 1,543 1,719 2,189 2,025 2,301 0 2,267 2,284
Insurance on labour (22%) 0 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694 1,694
Net Income (after labour costs) 7,700 -24,592 9,320 12,191 13,778 18,006 16,529 19,018 -5,059 18,713 18,859
Incremental net income -32,292 1,620 4,491 6,078 10,306 8,829 11,318 -12,759 11,013 11,159
incremental costs 98,836 68,762 72,548 75,959 81,611 84,377 81,611 109,115 83,075 82,913
Net income (before labour costs) 7,700 -16,892 17,020 19,891 21,478 25,706 24,229 26,718 2,641 26,413 26,559

Return to family labour* 220

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 1,047
IRR 10%
NPVb 555,669
NPVc 534,414
B/C ratio 1.04
Switching values Benefits -4%
Switching values Costs 4%

87
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 17: Shrimp past production model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
PRICE ('000
ITEMS UNIT IDR) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production
Shrimp paste kg 70 6,572 7,010 7,448 7,886 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762
Total Sales kg 6,572 7,010 7,448 7,886 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762
Selfconsumption kg
Processing losses % 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Investment inputs
Basin no. 35 1
Gas Stove no. 450 1
Gas Tube no. 150 1
Frying Pan no. 150 1
Sealer no. 200 1

Operating inputs
Small shrimp kg 40 450 480 510 540 600 600 600 600 600 600
Salt kg 4 375 400 425 450 500 500 500 500 500 500
Fuel for cooking (0.125 lt / 1kg of product) lt 18 493 641 838 986 1,095 1,095 1,095 1,095 1,095 1,095
Sugar (0.05kg/ 1 kg of product) kg 13 329 350 372 394 438 438 438 438 438 438
Garlic (0.003kg/1kg of product) kg 70 19.7 21.0 22.3 23.7 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3
Electricity per month 250 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Water per month 80 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Hygiene IDR/ton 1,500 4 5 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9
O&M machinery and equipment lumpsum 99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement of cooking tools lumpsum 300 1 1 1 1
Replacement of processing tools lumpsum 685 1 1 1
Paper bags no. 0.4 26,286 28,038 29,791 31,543 35,048 35,048 35,048 35,048 35,048 35,048
Transportation ton 13 6.6 7.0 7.4 7.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
Tools/equipment lumpsum 850 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Labour
Family labour pers. day S/F 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Sub-total labour 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Skilled (paid) labour (S) pers. day 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour pers. day 70 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

FINANCIAL BUDGET WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue

Shrimp paste 0 460,005 490,672 521,339 552,006 613,340 613,340 613,340 613,340 613,340 613,340
Sales 0 460,005 490,672 521,339 552,006 613,340 613,340 613,340 613,340 613,340 613,340
Selfconsumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Post-porcessing losses 0 46,001 49,067 41,707 44,160 49,067 49,067 42,934 42,934 42,934 42,934
Totalrevenues
Incremental revenue 0 414,005
239,005 441,605
266,605 479,632
304,632 507,846
332,846 564,273
389,273 564,273
389,273 570,406
395,406 570,406
395,406 570,406
395,406 570,406
395,406
Investment input costs
Basin 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas Stove 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas Tube 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frying Pan 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sealer 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating input costs
Small shrimp 0 18,000 19,200 20,400 21,600 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Salt 0 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Fuel for cooking (0.125 lt / 1kg of product) 0 8,625 11,213 14,663 17,250 19,167 19,167 19,167 19,167 19,167 19,167
Sugar (0.05kg/ 1 kg of product) 0 4,271 4,556 4,841 5,126 5,695 5,695 5,695 5,695 5,695 5,695
Garlic (0.003kg/1kg of product) 0 1,380 1,472 1,564 1,656 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840
Electricity 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Water 0 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960
Hygiene 0 5,914 7,689 10,054 11,829 13,143 13,143 13,143 13,143 13,143 13,143
O&M machinery and equipment 0 0 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
Replacement of cooking tools 0 0 0 300 0 300 0 300 0 300 0
Replacement of processing tools 0 0 0 685 0 0 685 0 0 685 0
Paper bags 0 10,514 11,215 11,916 12,617 14,019 14,019 14,019 14,019 14,019 14,019
Transportation 0 85 91 97 103 114 114 114 114 114 114
Tools/equipment 0 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850
Sub-total operating costs 0 55,101 61,945 71,129 76,889 85,187 85,572 85,187 84,887 85,872 84,887
Labour costs
Skilled (paid) labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour 0 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
Sub-total labour costs 0 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
Total production costs 0 231,086 236,945 246,129 251,889 260,187 260,572 260,187 259,887 260,872 259,887
Gross Income (after labour costs) 0 182,919 204,660 233,503 255,957 304,086 303,701 310,219 310,519 309,534 310,519
Taxes (10%) 0 18,292 20,466 23,350 25,596 30,409 30,370 31,022 31,052 30,953 31,052
Insurance on labour (22%) 0 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500
Net Income (after labour costs) 175,000 126,127 145,694 171,653 191,861 235,177 234,831 240,697 240,967 240,081 240,967
Incremental net income -48,873 -29,306 -3,347 16,861 60,177 59,831 65,697 65,967 65,081 65,967
incremental costs 231,086 236,945 246,129 251,889 260,187 260,572 260,187 259,887 260,872 259,887
Net income (before labour costs) 175,000 301,127 320,694 346,653 366,861 410,177 409,831 415,697 415,967 415,081 415,967

Return to family labour* 164

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 141,519
IRR 33%
NPVb 2,163,627
NPVc 1,607,063
B/C ratio 1.35
Switching values Benefits -26%
Switching values Costs 35%

88
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 18: Fish cracker production model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
PRICE ('000
ITEMS UNIT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IDR)
Main production output (yields)
Fish cracker kg 100 575 748 1,035 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150

Sales kg 0 565 738 1,025 1,140 1,140 1,140 1,140 1,140 1,140 1,140
Selfconsumption kg 41 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Investiments
Gas Cost no. 500 1
Blender no. 500 1
Frying Pan no. 150 1
Basin no. 40 5
Crackers Forming Machine no. 145 2
Frying Stick (Sodet) no. 30 2
Spatula no. 15 1
Knife no. 25 2
Filter Spoon no. 35 1
Tray no. 40 2

Operating inputs
Fish Bone Kg 2 43 56 78 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Wheat Flour kg 12 86 112 156 173 173 173 173 173 173 173
Tapioca Tepung kg 5 48 62 86 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Sugar kg 13 38 50 69 77 77 77 77 77 77 77
Egg pcs 1 384 499 691 768 768 768 768 768 768 768
Frying Oil liter 22 480 624 864 960 960 960 960 960 960 960
Recipies kg 3 13 17 23 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Gas Tube 15 48 62 86 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Packaging package 98 58 75 104 115 115 115 115 115 115 115
O&M investment lumpsum 188 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement cooking tools lumpsum 600 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement processing machine lumpsum 1,080 1 1 1
Bags no. 0.4 2,300 2,990 4,140 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600

Labour
Skilled (paid) labour (S) pers.day
Family labour (F) pers.day 70 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380

FINANCIAL BUDGET WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Fish cracker 0 57,500 74,750 103,500 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000
Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selfconsumption 0 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411
Total revenue 0 57,089 74,339 103,089 114,589 114,589 114,589 114,589 114,589 114,589 114,589
30,489 47,739 76,489 87,989 87,989 87,989 87,989 87,989 87,989 87,989
Investment cost
Gas Cost 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blender 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frying Pan 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Basin 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crackers Forming Machine 0 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frying Stick (Sodet) 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spatula 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Knife 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filter Spoon 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tray 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 1,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating cost
Fish Bone 0 86 112 156 173 173 173 173 173 173 173
Wheat Flour 0 1,037 1,348 1,866 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074
Tapioca Tepung 0 240 312 432 480 480 480 480 480 480 480
Sugar 0 499 649 899 998 998 998 998 998 998 998
Egg 0 461 599 829 922 922 922 922 922 922 922
Frying Oil 0 10,560 13,728 19,008 21,120 21,120 21,120 21,120 21,120 21,120 21,120
Recipies 0 39 51 70 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Gas 0 720 936 1,296 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440
Packaging 0 5,635 7,326 10,143 11,270 11,270 11,270 11,270 11,270 11,270 11,270
O&M investment 0 0 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188
Replacement cooking tools 0 0 600 0 600 0 600 0 600 0 600
Replacement processing machine 0 0 0 1,080 0 0 1,080 0 0 1,080 0
Bags 0 920 1,196 1,656 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840
Sub-total operating inputs costs 0 20,197 27,044 37,623 41,182 40,582 42,262 40,582 41,182 41,662 41,182

Labour
Skilled (paid) labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour costs 0 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600
Sub-total labour costs 0 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600
Total production costs 0 48,677 53,644 64,223 67,782 67,182 68,862 67,182 67,782 68,262 67,782
Income (after labour costs) 26,600 8,412 20,694 38,866 46,806 47,406 45,726 47,406 46,806 46,326 46,806
Incremental net income -18,188 -5,906 12,266 20,206 20,806 19,126 20,806 20,206 19,726 20,206

Income (before labour costs) 26,600 34,600 46,883 65,055 72,995 73,595 71,915 73,595 72,995 72,515 72,995

Return to family labour* 189.25

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV @ 0.09 66,197
IRR 50%
NPVb 469,172
NPVc 402,975
B/C ratio 1.16
Switching values Benefits -14%
Switching values Costs 16%

89
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 19: Marketing fresh fish

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
PRICE
ITEMS UNIT ('000 IDR) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production
Fresh fish kg 25 14,175 15,120 16,422 17,766 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950
Post-marketing losses % 10% 10% 8% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Investment inputs
Box Fiber 100 Ltr no. 935 1
Styrofoam no. 80 30
Weighing scale no. 450 3
Tarpaulins 2 x 2 meter no. 100 1
Plastic Piles no. 30 5
Freezer no. 3,400 2
Jumbo no. 200 3
Motorcycle Container no. 500 1

Operating inputs
Fish Kg 15 15,750 16,800 17,850 18,900 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000
Plastic Package pack 10 158 168 179 189 210 210 210 210 210 210
Ice Kg 1 7,875 8,400 8,925 9,450 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
O&M investment (10% of invest. Cost) Lumpsum 1,284 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement of freezer no. 3,400 2 2 2
Replacement of weighing scale no. 450 3 3 3 3 3
Transportation cost per kg 0.12 14,175 15,120 16,422 17,766 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950
Replacement of tools and miscellaneous Lumpsum 4,535 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Electricity (2.5KWh / 1 kg of product) Kwh 0.83 39,375 42,000 44,625 47,250 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500
Water Lumpsum 2,500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Labour
Operations pers. day S/F 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Sub-total labour 0 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Skilled (paid) labour (S) pers. day 100 0 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Family labour (F) pers. day 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FINANCIAL BUDGET WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Asparagus F1 0 354,375 378,000 410,550 444,150 498,750 498,750 498,750 498,750 498,750 498,750
Sales 0 354,375 378,000 410,550 444,150 498,750 498,750 498,750 498,750 498,750 498,750
Selfconsumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Post harvest losses 0 35,438 37,800 32,844 26,649 24,938 24,938 24,938 24,938 24,938 24,938
Total revenue 0 318,938 340,200 377,706 417,501 473,813 473,813 473,813 473,813 473,813 473,813
291,438 312,700 350,206 390,001 446,313 446,313 446,313 446,313 446,313 446,313
Investment input costs
Box Fiber 100 Ltr 0 935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Styrofoam 0 2,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Weighing scale 0 1,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tarpaulins 2 x 2 meter 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastic Piles 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Freezer 0 6,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jumbo 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Motorcycle Container 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 12,835 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating input costs

Fish 0 236,250 252,000 267,750 283,500 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000
Plastic Package 0 1,575 1,680 1,785 1,890 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
Ice 0 7,875 8,400 8,925 9,450 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
O&M investment (10% of invest. Cost) 0 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284 1,284
Replacement of freezer 0 0 0 6,800 0 0 6,800 0 0 6,800 0
Replacement of weighing scale 0 0 1,350 0 1,350 0 1,350 0 1,350 0 1,350
Transportation cost 0 1,701 1,814 1,971 2,132 2,394 2,394 2,394 2,394 2,394 2,394
Replacement of tools and miscellaneous 0 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535 4,535
Electricity (2.5KWh / 1 kg of product) 0 32,681 34,860 37,039 39,218 43,575 43,575 43,575 43,575 43,575 43,575
Water 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Sub-total operating costs 0 288,401 308,423 332,588 345,858 381,888 390,038 381,888 383,238 388,688 383,238

Labour costs
Skilled (paid) labour costs 0 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500
Family labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total labour costs 0 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500
Total production costs 0 328,736 335,923 360,088 373,358 409,388 417,538 409,388 410,738 416,188 410,738
Income (after labour costs) 27,500 -9,798 4,277 17,618 44,143 64,425 56,275 64,425 63,075 57,625 63,075
Incremental net income -37,298 -23,223 -9,882 16,643 36,925 28,775 36,925 35,575 30,125 35,575

Income (before labour costs) 27,500 -9,798 4,277 17,618 44,143 64,425 56,275 64,425 63,075 57,625 63,075

Return to labour* 204.64

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 58,502
IRR 24%
NPVb 2,495,630
NPVc 2,437,128
B/C ratio 1.02
Switching values Benefits -2%
Switching values Costs 2%

90
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 20: Marketing processed fish

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
PRICE ('000
ITEMS UNIT IDR) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production
Various Processed Products kg 45 3,930 4,192 4,454 4,716 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240
Total Sales kg 3,930 4,192 4,454 4,716 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240
Selfconsumption kg
Processing losses % 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Investment inputs
Basin no. 35 3
Three wheel motorcycle no. 26,850 1
Balance no. 350 4
Spinner no. 3,000 3
Sealer no. 200 3

Operating inputs
Tortila of Seaweed kg 32 300 320 340 360 400 400 400 400 400 400
Seaweed Coffee kg 10 113 120 128 135 150 150 150 150 150 150
Shrimp Paste (powder form) (Terasi Tabur) kg 60 150 160 170 180 200 200 200 200 200 200
Fish Crackers kg 30 188 200 213 225 250 250 250 250 250 250
Seaweed Crackers kg 30 188 200 213 225 250 250 250 250 250 250
Fried Dried Rice (Rengginang) lt 35 150 160 170 180 200 200 200 200 200 200
Seaweed Stick kg 55 15 16 17 18 20 20 20 20 20 20
Fish Floss kg 120 75 80 85 90 100 100 100 100 100 100
Shrimp Paste (Terasi) pack 4 300 320 340 360 400 400 400 400 400 400
Electricity (2.5KWh / 1 kg of product) Kwh 0.83 9,825 10,480 11,135 11,790 13,100 13,100 13,100 13,100 13,100 13,100
Fuel for cooking (12 kg cylinder) no. 150 4 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Water lumpsum 2,500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hygiene IDR/ton 1,500 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
O&M building (10% of investment cost) lumpsum 3,796 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Packaging (250 gr) no. 0.4 15,720 16,768 17,816 18,864 20,960 20,960 20,960 20,960 20,960 20,960
Transportation ton 297 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
Replacement of processing tools lumpsum 3,550 1 1 1
Labour
Operations pers. day S/F 118 126 134 141 157 157 157 157 157 157
Sub-total labour 118 126 134 141 157 157 157 157 157 157
Skilled (paid) labour (S) pers. day 100 118 126 134 141 157 157 157 157 157 157

FINANCIAL BUDGET WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue

Various Processed Products 0 176,850 188,640 200,430 212,220 235,800 235,800 235,800 235,800 235,800 235,800
Sales 0 176,850 188,640 200,430 212,220 235,800 235,800 235,800 235,800 235,800 235,800
Selfconsumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Post-porcessing losses 0 17,685 18,864 16,034 16,978 18,864 18,864 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506
Totalrevenues
Incremental revenue 0 159,165
147,375 169,776
157,986 184,396
172,606 195,242
183,452 216,936
205,146 216,936
205,146 219,294
207,504 219,294
207,504 219,294
207,504 219,294
207,504
Investment input costs
Basin 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Three wheel motorcycle 0 26,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balance 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spinner 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sealer 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 37,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating input costs
Tortila of Seaweed 0 9,600 10,240 10,880 11,520 12,800 12,800 12,800 12,800 12,800 12,800
Seaweed Coffee 0 1,125 1,200 1,275 1,350 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Shrimp Paste (powder form) (Terasi Tabur) 0 9,000 9,600 10,200 10,800 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Fish Crackers 0 5,625 6,000 6,375 6,750 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Seaweed Crackers 0 5,625 6,000 6,375 6,750 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Fried Dried Rice (Rengginang) 0 5,250 5,600 5,950 6,300 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Seaweed Stick 0 825 880 935 990 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100
Fish Floss 0 9,000 9,600 10,200 10,800 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Shrimp Paste (Terasi) 0 1,200 1,280 1,360 1,440 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600
Electricity (2.5KWh / 1 kg of product) 0 8,178 8,723 9,268 9,813 10,904 10,904 10,904 10,904 10,904 10,904
Fuel for cooking (12 kg cylinder) 0 600 780 1,020 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Water 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Hygiene 0 3,537 4,598 6,013 7,074 7,860 7,860 7,860 7,860 7,860 7,860
O&M building (10% of investment cost) 0 0 3,796 3,796 3,796 3,796 3,796 3,796 3,796 3,796 3,796
Packaging (250 gr) 0 6,288 6,707 7,126 7,546 8,384 8,384 8,384 8,384 8,384 8,384
Transportation 0 1,168 1,246 1,324 1,402 1,558 1,558 1,558 1,558 1,558 1,558
Replacement of processing tools 0 0 0 3,550 0 0 3,550 0 0 3,550 0
Sub-total operating costs 0 69,521 78,750 88,147 90,030 99,201 102,751 99,201 99,201 102,751 99,201
Labour costs
Skilled (paid) labour costs 0 11,790 12,576 13,362 14,148 15,720 15,720 15,720 15,720 15,720 15,720
Sub-total labour costs 0 11,790 12,576 13,362 14,148 15,720 15,720 15,720 15,720 15,720 15,720
Total production costs 0 119,266 91,326 101,509 104,178 114,921 118,471 114,921 114,921 118,471 114,921
Gross Income (after labour costs) 0 39,899 78,450 82,887 91,064 102,015 98,465 104,373 104,373 100,823 104,373
Taxes (10%) 0 3,990 7,845 8,289 9,106 10,202 9,847 10,437 10,437 10,082 10,437
Insurance on labour (22%) 0 2,594 2,767 2,940 3,113 3,458 3,458 3,458 3,458 3,458 3,458
Net Income (after labour costs) 11,790 33,315 67,838 71,658 78,845 88,355 85,160 90,477 90,477 87,282 90,477
Incremental net income 21,525 56,048 59,868 67,055 76,565 73,370 78,687 78,687 75,492 78,687
incremental costs 119,266 91,326 101,509 104,178 114,921 118,471 114,921 114,921 118,471 114,921
Net income (before labour costs) 11,790 45,105 80,414 85,020 92,993 104,075 100,880 106,197 106,197 103,002 106,197

Return to family labour* 642

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV ('000 IDR) @ 0.09 404,699
IRR #NUM!
NPVb 1,187,922
NPVc 707,434
B/C ratio 1.68
Switching values Benefits -40%
Switching values Costs 68%

91
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 10: Project internal rate of return (detailed analysis)

Table 21: Marine ecotourism model

YIELDS AND INPUTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
PRICE ('000
ITEMS UNIT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-20
IDR)
Main production output (yields)
Visitors Tickets no. 6 9,759 10,456 11,522 12,674 13,942 15,336 15,336 15,336 15,336 15,336
Prewedding/Photography no. 150 20 22 24 26 29 32 32 32 32 32
Hobbiest Fishing no. 25 847 908 1,000 1,100 1,210 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331
Parking Lot no. 2 5,082 5,445 6,000 6,600 7,260 7,986 7,986 7,986 7,986 7,986

Investiments
Mangrove replantation no. 32,500 1
Kiosk Building no. 50,000 1
Mangrove Pathways no. 200,000 1

Operating inputs
Painting lumpsum 2,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Wooden Board lumpsum 3,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Environmental Maintenance lumpsum 2,500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O&M main investment lumpsum 14,125 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Replacement pathways lumpsum 10,000 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Labour
Skilled (paid) labour (S) pers.day
Family labour (F) pers.day 100 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360

FINANCIAL BUDGET WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

ITEMS 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Main production revenue
Visitors Tickets 0 58,555 62,737 69,132 76,045 83,650 92,015 92,015 92,015 92,015 92,015
Prewedding/Photography 0 122 131 144 158 174 192 192 192 192 192
Hobbiest Fishing 0 5,082 5,445 6,000 6,600 7,260 7,986 7,986 7,986 7,986 7,986
Parking Lot 0 30,492 32,670 36,000 39,600 43,560 47,916 47,916 47,916 47,916 47,916
Sales 0 94,251 100,983 111,276 122,404 134,644 148,108 148,108 148,108 148,108 148,108
Total revenue 0 94,251 100,983 111,276 122,404 134,644 148,108 148,108 148,108 148,108 148,108
58,251 64,983 75,276 86,404 98,644 112,108 112,108 112,108 112,108 112,108
Investment cost
Mangrove replantation 0 32,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kiosk Building 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mangrove Pathways 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total investment costs 0 282,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating cost
Painting 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Wooden Board 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Environmental Maintenance 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
O&M main investment 0 0 14,125 14,125 14,125 14,125 14,125 14,125 14,125 14,125 14,125
Replacement pathways 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000
Sub-total operating inputs costs 0 7,500 31,625 21,625 31,625 21,625 31,625 21,625 31,625 21,625 31,625

Labour
Skilled (paid) labour costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family labour costs 0 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000
Sub-total labour costs 0 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000
Total production costs 0 326,000 67,625 57,625 67,625 57,625 67,625 57,625 67,625 57,625 67,625
Income (after labour costs) 36,000 -231,749 33,358 53,651 54,779 77,019 80,483 90,483 80,483 90,483 80,483
Incremental net income -267,749 -2,642 17,651 18,779 41,019 44,483 54,483 44,483 54,483 44,483

Income (before labour costs) 36,000 -195,749 69,358 89,651 90,779 113,019 116,483 126,483 116,483 126,483 116,483

Return to family labour* 323.56

*cons i der ful l devel opment yea r fa mi l y l a bour requi rements
Discount rate 9%
NPV @ 0.09 48,846
IRR 11%
NPVb 878,909
NPVc 830,063
B/C ratio 1.06
Switching values Benefits -6%
Switching values Costs 6%

92
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 11:Environmental assessment

Appendix 11: Environmental assessment (detailed analysis)

1. At project design, the CCDP was classified as Environmental Category ‘B’ and as such no
formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was needed at the inception of the project.
2. There were some concerns raised during the project design phase including in the aspects of:
(a) Overexploitation of capture fisheries. CCDP has been mindful of environmental
impacts as the Project Logframe calls for the “health of marine resources to be
maintained or improved in 80% of areas managed by project”. The Project has not
supported any large scale marine fisheries. Fisheries investments have been only for
small vessels, which are believed to have a relatively limited impact on resources. The
project also promoted more sustainable fishing gear and practices such as for the
release of egg-bearing female crabs and promoted the elimination of the use of
unsustainable fishing practices dynamite and poisons. To confirm the Project’s impact,
fisheries resource conditions were monitored by CPUE measures. There was no
substantial conflict related to fisheries shared with other (non-village) users perceived
during project implementation.
(b) Aquaculture. There were several potentially negative environmental consequences of
aquaculture investments identified. However, the project design included in-built
mechanisms to mitigate risk including such as the enterprise grant approval process that
assessed risks and ensured effective mitigation. Moreover, some interventions have
shown successful examples where the aquaculture activities could generate financial
profit for the community groups and at the same time improve environmental conditions.
For instance, CCDP developed a specific Crab Management Plan at PIU Kubu Raya to
promote resource sustainability. In addition, the Project has supported environmental
sustainability through the implementation of village and district level integrated coastal
management, which included protection areas, mangrove replanting and other
environmental activities such as establishment and surveillance of sea protection areas
and rubbish clean up. The production of seaweed that was enabled by the Project will
result in carbon sequestration.
(c) Infrastructure. There were no major civil works undertaken by the project. The village
level investments for both infrastructure and groups were small in scale; and the district
investments were screened to mitigate environmental impacts. In a number of target
areas some infrastructures were designed to protect the environment such as river
embankment protection and jetties in mangrove areas. In addition, the recent focus of the
Project on ecotourism activities which were also supported by infrastructure
interventions, in many cases coupled with environmental education, have served to raise
awareness of climate change and environmental issues
3. In summary, Project investments were not considered to have had any significant negative
environment impact. Some activities with the CBCRM groups in the project did intervene
directly in environmental protection or natural resource management improvement. The overall
impact on the environment is considered to have been broadly positive.

93
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 12: Stakeholder workshop findings

Appendix 12: Stakeholder workshop findings

1. A series of stakeholder workshops were conducted in late 2017 as a part of the project exit
strategy. The focus of these workshops was to sensitize local government authorities and
ensure the post-project sustainability of results and investment. A national project closing
workshop is planned for July 2018.
2. The project's Exit Strategy focused on multiple dimensions of sustainability. The strategy aimed
to find the means to sustain CCDP investments and promote replication. For example:
(a) PMO proposed empowerment related activities to other DGs within KKP, and also
coordinated with the Ministry of Village Development on the similar activities;
(b) PMO initiated corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs linking with CCDP
community groups with large private sector companies such as PT Pertamina and PT
Sampoerna;
(c) Dinas KP Makassar replicated the CCDP model to other local locations using its APBD;
(d) For ecotourism, several tourism agencies (i.e., various Dinas Pariwisata) offered funding
and technical support for further ecotourism development (e.g., Kubu Raya, Kupang).
3. The road map for the Project’s Exit Strategy consisted of seven aspects, namely:
(a) Integrating CCDP activities into Local Government planning and budgeting (Dinas KP or
other Dinas, Wali Kota and Bupati offices, and villages including use of APBD);
(b) Mainstreaming CCDP activities into other executing agency branches within Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP Directorate Generals, etc.);
(c) Assimilating CCDP activities and priorities into village planning and budgeting including
under Village Law (UU Desa No. 6/2014). This law includes provision for a village
enterprise (BUMDES) dedicated to village economic development, agriculture and
natural resource management and a village fund (Dana Desa). Resource inventory and
ICM planning and ecotourism development continues to be integrated into the village
planning system, reinforced on a legal basis by village regulations;
(d) Strengthening the institutional capacity of CCDP community groups, both technically and
managerially to increase business production, saving and innovation of coastal
communities. Improving the savings and bookkeeping of groups is a key aspect of this
item, and is supported by ongoing work by the Project to engage with the private sector
corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, micro-finance institutions and banks.
(e) Wider involvement and cooperation with third-party partners: private sector, cooperative,
GOI (UMKM, Bumdes, etc.) to manage district infrastructures and support marketing
community products.
(f) Further development, operation and utilization of the 12 cooperatives established or used
to support community’s economic activities. The role of cooperatives is important in
accessing, facilitating and also managing private sector (including CSR funds) such as
PKBL Pertamina, CSR KDP Sampoerna, funds KKP LPPMU.
(g) Integration of coastal community empowerment activities into village development
activities undertaken by other Ministries such as Ministry of Village Development
programs (e.g., Village Funds).

95
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

Appendix 13: Final wrap-up meeting minutes

Aide memoire
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Joint Project Completion Mission: 1 – 13 October 2017

A. Introduction13
1. The Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP) was approved at IFAD’s Executive
Board in September 2012. The total project financing is US$43.2 million, which consists of: an
IFAD loan (No. I-880-ID) of SDR 15,870,000 (US$24.2 million); an IFAD grant (No. I-C-1392-ID)
of SDR 1,186,000 (US$2.0 million); a EURO 6.288 million loan (Approx. USD 7.8 million) from
the Spanish Food Security Trust Fund (No. E-16-ID); government contributions of an estimated
US$7.1 million; and beneficiary contributions of an estimated US$2.1 million. The Financing
Agreement (FA) entered into force on 23 October 2012 with project implementation starting in
January 2013. The project completion date is 31 December 2017 and the closing date is
30 June 2018. The goal of the CCDP is reduction in poverty and enhanced, sustainable and
replicable economic growth among the active poor in coastal and small island communities.
The Project’s development objective is increased household incomes for families involved in
fisheries and marine activities in poor coastal and small island communities. The Project has
three investment components: (i) Community Empowerment, Development and Resource
Management; (ii) District Support for Marine-Based Economic Development, with two Sub-
Components: District-Level Investment and Capacity Building; and Market and Value Chain
Support; and (iii) Project Management.
2. A Joint Project Completion Mission (JPCM) by IFAD, Kementerian Kelautan Dan Perikanan
(KKP/Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries), the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of
National Development Planning/BAPPENAS was undertaken from 1-13 October 2017.
3. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has prepared a comprehensive Draft Project Completion
Report (PCR), with inputs from Project Management, Partners, Beneficiaries and Local and
Central Government institutions. This report has been provided to the mission team. The draft
PCR presents substantial detail on project design and modifications, progress in project
implementation and delivery of outputs and achievement of outcomes. There is also substantial
information on project management, financing, monitoring and evaluation, knowledge
management and lessons learned. However, while of a high standard, the existing document

13 IFAD mission composition: Andrew Macpherson, Team Leader (IFAD Consultant); Graeme
Macfadyen, fisheries expert (IFAD Consultant); Steven Jonckheere, M&E Specialist; Enrico Mazzoli,
Economist (IFAD Consultant, remotely, from 9-13 October); Candra Samekto, IFAD Natural Resource
Specialist. The mission was supported by Ron Hartman, IFAD Country Director. The IFAD team was
accompanied during field visits by staff and consultants from the PMO, KKP, the Ministry of Finance, and
BAPPENAS.

97
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

could still be improved in some key areas in terms of content and justification for performance
ratings.
4. The CCDP has been a prominent intervention in developing and applying modalities for
sustainable economic development of coastal communities, and it is thus important that the
PCR effectively promotes the innovations and outcomes to enable wide replication. Accordingly,
in partnership with the Government, IFAD has provided the services of an expert team to work
within the JPCM as a means of further strengthening the PCR. IFAD wishes to emphasise that
this does not detract from the excellent effort that the GoI has made in preparation of the draft
PCR. The support provided by the mission team is to provide verification and enhancement of
this important report.
5. Within this context, the JPCM supported KKP in validating and reviewing its draft PCR. This
Aide Memoire is thus in a different format to the Aide Memoires from earlier joint review
missions, and is intended to provide some general comment on the validity of the draft PCR
and some issues which the GoI may wish to reflect in the final version of PCR. The Aide
Memoire does not attempt to capture all points made in the draft PCR, but rather just
emphasizes a few issues considered by the mission team to be of particular importance.
6. The JPCM was conducted in close consultation with key stakeholders at national, district, sub-
district and village levels, and undertook field visits to Lombok Barat District in West Nusa
Tenggara Province, and Makassar in South Sulawesi Province. Pre-wrap up and wrap up
meetings were held on the 11 and 13 October respectively, and the Aide Memoire reflects the
discussion at those meetings.

B. Mission Observations:
7. Design and Mobilisation. The project design period (around 18 months) and participatory
approach used during the design process contributed to a strong project design that was highly
consistent with needs and government policy and priorities. It had robust internal logic.
Particular design strengths include: (i) an appropriate institutional structure; (ii) good linkages
between component 1 and 2, with district level investments under component 2 being critical in
supporting market linkages for enterprise groups formed under component 1; (iii) clarity over
the intended project activities, investments, outputs and implementation modalities, while
allowing for some flexibility in implementation, and incorporating a demand driven approach
reflecting the needs and circumstances in the 12 project districts; (iv) appropriate levels of
financial resourcing; (v) the location of the project in differing geographical, social and cultural
contexts, coupled with a phasing of the project’s engagement with the number of villages and
enterprise groups and a scaling up of activities over time. This provided the basis to learn
lessons about successful development models that may be appropriate for replication in a wide
range of geographical and cultural contexts in the future, while ensuring that project
implementation was not overwhelmed and spread too thinly in its early stages. It also meant
that PIUs could act on the lessons learned from early implementation when phasing and scaling
up their activities over time to support additional enterprise groups and villages.
8. Some modifications and alterations to the project’s approach, approved at the Mid Term Review
stage were necessary. These modifications were justified based on the lessons learned by the
project up to mid-term and the evolving context in which the project operated.
9. The KKP/DKP staff and consultants in the Project Management Office (PMO) and the Project
Implementation Units (PIUs) were generally in post quickly after the FA entered into force,
facilitating implementation progress. The role of BAPPENAS in ensuring compliance with
readiness criteria was also important for rapid mobilisation.
10. Project Outputs. Project Component 1 (Community Empowerment, Development and
Resource Management) had three sub-components with related outputs (shown in brackets):
1.1 Community Facilitation, Planning and Monitoring (marine and fisheries households’

98
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

development priorities identified, agreed and documented); 1.2 Coastal Resource Assessment,
Planning and Co-Management (community-based marine resource management areas being
managed effectively); and 1.3 Market Focused Village Development (financially sustainable
community enterprises created under the Project, and community infrastructure implemented
under the Project supporting marine-based economic activities in project villages).
11. Achievements of output targets has been very impressive. Five of the six log-frame target
indicators have been exceeded, often by significant margins, on-time or earlier than anticipated.
Only the number of ‘community-based marine resource management areas demarcated,
declared and ratified’ is short of the target of 40 at the time of the mission, with 20
decrees/ordinances covering 32 villages. Another 13 community-based marine resource
management areas are in the drafting process, the completion of which would meet the target.
12. The mutually supporting nature of many of the component 1 investments and group activities,
and some innovative group activities to respond to the opportunities provided by the locations in
which they operate is well noted. The village-based infrastructure was important in getting early
buy-in from villagers with the project, and the high levels of beneficiary contributions in labour,
land and materials meant that relatively small amounts of project funds in each village created
very positive benefits. Village Information Centres (VICs) have been a particular success and
are typically used not just for project activities but for social/community purposes by
beneficiaries in the villages and other government agencies. Also noteworthy has been the
creation of eco-tourism areas and the engagement by Community Based Coastal Resources
Management (CBCRM) groups in eco-tourism activities, supporting at the same time both
income generation for group members and environmental rehabilitation and conservation. Both
book-keeping and savings have been an increasing and strong focus of the work completed by
the community facilitators (TPDs) and PIUs.
13. Component 2 (District Support for Marine-Based Economic Development) had two sub-
components: 2.1 District-Level Investment and Capacity Building (improved infrastructure and
services supporting small scale fishing and marine activities established in the project Districts);
and 2.2 – Market and value chain support (increased participation and earnings by small scale
fishers and marine producers from prioritized high potential products in each project District).
Implementation of this component has also been highly impressive, with most component 2
investments and outputs supporting component 1 enterprise groups as envisaged. The market
strategies and selection of priority products were well utilised to underpin the choice of
investments made under component 2 and to inform the enterprise group activities under
component 1 in a way that increases the chances of success in creating long-term sustainable
market linkages. The PIUs have shown resourcefulness in identifying third party operators for
all investments, and many of these operators are now providing advice and capacity
development to enterprise groups from which they source products, taking over the role
currently played by the project consultants and staff, and supporting sustainability. Component
2 investments are also beneficial to fisheries-sector value-chain operators not specifically linked
to project investments.
14. The output target of 70% of infrastructure financed by the project being operating/available,
being maintained, and used by third party operators (private operators, cooperatives, state-
owned companies, SMEs) was exceeded; by September 2017, and 92% of the 80 district level
infrastructure investments financed were being successfully operated and maintained. The
second component 2 output indicator (40 MoUs with at least four in each district) was also been
far exceeded, earlier than expected; 84 MoUs have been signed (45 local, 26 regional, 13
national), and all PIUs have four or more MOUs. There are, in addition, 151 agreements for
sales (109 local, 34 regional and 8 national). The mission qualitatively validated these
quantitative achievements as stated in the draft PCR. The Project also developed business
plans for the 28 larger infrastructure investments, and supported P-IRT (food safety)
certification of 357 processing enterprise group products and 147 halal certificates.

99
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

15. The project design intended for component 2.1 to complement district level fisheries
management (for example improvements in capacity for fisheries statistics, fisheries
management planning, etc.) so as to verify that the project did not result in any negative
impacts on resource status. The project collected some limited catch per unit effort (CPUE)
data, and mention of this could be usefully incorporated into the PCR.
16. Outcomes and Impact: Households’ incomes and assets. CCDP has contributed to
increasing households’ incomes and assets, mainly through: (i) enterprise development
activities related to capture fishing, aquaculture, processing and marketing; (ii) income
generating activities related to environmental protection and eco-tourism; (iii) savings-based
models of community-managed loan funds; (iv) financial support (non-refundable) for purchase
of tools and equipment for fishing, aquaculture, storage, processing and marketing; and (v) job
creation. On average, beneficiaries improved their income by 132 per cent since the project
started. Those involved in marine capture fishing and processing showing the highest increase,
while those dealing with seaweed aquaculture saw their income slightly decreasing, due to the
ice-ice disease, a bacterial condition which affects seaweed in certain months. Most members
of enterprise groups have experienced an increase in household assets. There has been a
significant decrease in the poorest quintile (from 27.1 per cent in 2013 to 18.9 per cent in 2017)
and a significant increase in the richest quintile (from 15.3 per cent in 2013 to 23.6 per cent in
2017). The activities of the project have also resulted in observable income multipliers, although
these impacts have not yet been quantified.
17. Food security. The activities of CCDP that have had a significant impact on food security are:
(i) increased number of fish that has been consumed or sold due to improved productivity of
capture fishing and aquaculture; (ii) increased incomes generated through the processing and
marketing of marine-based products; and (iii) improvements in fish processing supporting
reductions in post-harvest losses and improvements of storability of products.
18. Improving food security in the project area has been demonstrated. In 2013, 34.2 per cent of
the households experienced a first and 11 per cent a second hungry season, while in 2017 this
number decreased to 2.2 and 0 per cent respectively. The number of underweight children
decreased by 80 per cent, chronic malnutrition by 30 per cent and acute malnutrition by 32 per
cent (the last two being below the target of 40 per cent).
19. Human and social capital and empowerment. Training has been carried out by the project to
strengthen the capacities individually and collectively of poor coastal communities. These relate
to group management, bookkeeping and accounting, aquaculture technology transfer, fishing
processing and storage techniques, eco-tourism developments, and compliance with quality
standards and product traceability. In addition, CCDP organised coaching clinics with the
processing and aquaculture group enterprises on issues such as aquaculture technologies,
standardising product quality, improving packaging, branding, etc. and exchange visits between
groups and villages. About 50 per cent of the beneficiaries adopted the new technologies and
approaches.
20. Coastal communities have also received support in accessing wider policy and economic
networks, and many groups have pursued these proactively. Groups were able to benefit
directly from progress in the market linkages and partnerships developed by component 2
investments. The project has encouraged community group members to become cooperative
members to strengthen these linkages. The project has further created a ‘sustainability path’ for
community empowerment encapsulated within the Exit Strategy.
21. Productivity. Ninety-six per cent of the households participating in project-supported
enterprises experienced productivity increase due to CCDP interventions since 2015, with an
80 per cent increase for those in capture fishing groups, 450 per cent for freshwater
aquaculture groups, 71 per cent for processing groups, and 42 per cent for marketing groups.

100
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

22. Institutions and policies. CCDP has created 1 609 enterprise groups of which 91 per cent are
still operating (target 60 per cent) based on AOS data. Of these, 94 per cent are reported to be
financially viable (target 70 per cent). However, a more rigorous assessment of the financial
viability should be included in the PCR.
23. CCDP has supported the integration of project communities and their future requirements into
village-level medium-term development plans. According to the 2017 AOS, all beneficiaries felt
that they were satisfied that project activities reflected their priorities. In addition, through ICM
processes, many villages have a conservation area (some are no-take zones/no-fishing, some
mangrove planting/rehabilitation areas), in some cases to be linked to national level legislation
on marine conservation, supported by village decrees and district level regulation. At district
and national level, CCDP has induced the interest of policy makers in replicating its
participatory market-driven approach.
24. Access to markets. The project has facilitated access to markets in coastal communities,
mainly by (i) developing marketing strategies identifying priority products; (ii) increasing
marketing awareness within enterprise groups; (iii) promoting market-oriented technology
transfer; (iv) providing storage and processing facilities, and transportation; (v) facilitating
linkages with sales outlets for enterprise group products; and (vi) facilitating product
certification.
25. CCDP has formed 512 processing and marketing groups, which involves 4 869 households or
406 households per PIU (target 400 households). A total of 235 third party buyers or on
average 19 per district (target of four) are purchasing enterprise group products on a routine
basis. This includes supermarkets, processing companies, souvenir shops, etc. Eighty-four
MoUs have been signed and 151 informal agreements have been made between the third-party
buyers and the village level enterprise groups (154 with local buyers, 60 with regional buyers
and 21 with national or international buyers). A total of 147 halal certificates have been
awarded, and 357 food safety certificates (Pangan-Industri Rumah Tangga (P-IRT)) have been
issued for enterprise group products.
26. Some enterprise groups are selling their products online, through for example, an online
platform (e.g. in Makassar) or social media (Facebook, twitter). Cooperatives have also been
instrumental in facilitating sales outlets and providing timely access to quality inputs.
27. Natural resources and the environment. CCDP has contributed to positive changes in the
marine and fisheries resources base, especially through: (i) community awareness; (ii)
establishing CBCRM groups; (iii) some surveillance activities; and (iv) the development and
implementation of coastal marine co-management plans, and integrated coastal management
plans.
28. The project supported mangrove restoration, the collection and processing of waste, and the
establishment of coastal marine resource management areas (of which 20 have been ratified
by local ordinances and another 13 are expected to be ratified by the end of the project).
Innovative income generating activities have been introduced to sustain environmental
protection. There are some data to indicate that the health of marine resources has improved.
The project has also maintained a strong stance for environmentally sustainable aquaculture. In
this regard, no support has been provided for aquaculture which reduces mangrove cover.
Some enterprise groups have benefitted from environmental improvements, for example
harvesting wild crabs and bee-keeping.
29. Adaption and mitigation to climate change. Even though the Project design did not have an
explicit focus on climate change mitigation or adaptation, it managed to engage during
implementation with both issues in a number of positive ways. The production of seaweed and
coral transplantation supported by the Project will result in carbon sequestration. In addition, the
focus of the project on eco-tourism activities, in many cases coupled with environmental
education, raised awareness of climate change and environmental issues. While some project

101
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

activities (such as the provision of fishing engines) may increase carbon emissions, any
negative project impacts in terms of climate change are negligible given the types and scale of
inputs being provided to beneficiaries. The potential for the Project to increase the incomes of
beneficiaries and access to finance, and support for mangrove rehabilitation and preservation,
are both contributing to increase their adaptation and resilience to the impacts of climate
change.
30. Project Management (Component 3) has been strength of the Project. The component 3 log-
frame indicators related to the PMO and 12 PIUs being established and operating effectively,
and to replication and scaling up of the Project, were all met. The mission finds that strong
project management has been a key factor in the success of the Project. There has been: (i)
excellent performance against Annual Work Plan and Budgets (AWPB) in both physical and
financial terms; (ii) strong financial management at both PMO and PIU levels; (iii) numerous
and strong partnerships fostered by the Project; (iv) good development and then adherence to
project guidance and implementation manuals; (v) successful phasing and implementation of
the Project in all 12 districts; (vi) re-housing of the Project within the KKP’s institutional structure
in 2016 without adversely affecting performance; (vii) effectiveness of TPDs based in or close
to villages they supported, ensuring large amounts of time spent ‘on the ground’ with
beneficiaries; (viii) innovations in project management discussed below; and (ix) strong
performance in implementing both the agreed actions and the ‘softer’ recommendations made
by the joint review missions over the course of the Project. In addition, the approach to project
management generated a very strong sense of ownership and team spirit, and an impressive
understanding of the project’s aims and implementation modalities. These factors have been
important in the achievements demonstrated by the Project, in the high levels of beneficiary
participation, and in good staff/consultant retention.
Cross Cutting
31. Knowledge management. At design, it was foreseen that knowledge management would play
an important role in the project. Nevertheless, no clear knowledge management plan was
developed by the project. Specific staff were assigned at the national and district levels and a
virtual network remotely linking all the project target areas and staff was created in 2013. The
Badung Learning Centre was also officially established as a learning centre to capitalize on and
demonstrate its success in organising producers and developing markets and market
approaches for small-scale fisheries to result in poverty alleviation. At the village level, VICs are
instrumental for the dissemination of knowledge and learning within the communities.
32. CCDP’s performance in knowledge management is highly satisfactory. More than 150
knowledge products have been developed. The project has applied a creative and extensive
mix of tools and channels (WhatsApp, twitter, project website, publications, infographics,
videos, traditional media, exchange visits, VICs, Badung Learning Centre, etc.) to ensure
transparent access to and sharing of knowledge and information among project stakeholders.
Knowledge has been used to improve the project’s performance and its impact.
33. The CCDP website, and particularly the web-based MIS, contains a wealth of information
ranging from training materials to case studies. Special efforts need to be undertaken before
project completion to ensure that these resources are available in the long term and at different
levels: village, district and national. More specifically, the replication manual needs to be
finalised as soon as possible, efforts of integrating it into the KKP and district websites needs to
be pursued, and key project documents should be translated into English depending on
funding.
34. Monitoring and Evaluation. Based on the project logframe, an extensive M&E Plan was
developed in 2013. Data flows from the village level (TPD), through the district level (PIU), to
the national level (PMO). At district level, the Dinas M&E officer verifies and compiles the TPD
data sent by the TPDs and sends it on to the PMO. The M&E unit at PMO is made up of the

102
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

GoI M&E Officer, an MIS Consultant, a senior and a junior computer expert. In 2014, they set
up an online web-based Management Information System (MIS) to provide real time
information related to project implementation. RIMS studies and Annual Outcome Surveys
(AOS) were carried out in 2013, 2015 and 2017 to monitor the outcomes and impact of the
project. Logframe indicators have been slightly modified during supervision missions to make
14
them more SMART . CCDP’s M&E system is considered to be highly innovative within the
Government, as well as by other IFAD supported projects within Indonesia and abroad.
35. The project’s M&E performance is highly satisfactory and should be considered as a best
practice to be replicated elsewhere. Through its weekly dashboard, reliable and real-time
information is provided on CCDP’s physical and financial progress. This information is widely
shared within and outside the project using mobile applications like WhatsApp, Facebook and
Twitter. An innovative performance-based incentive system has been introduced that uses the
M&E data to determine the scale of investment and support to each individual district targeted
under the project in a transparent manner. The M&E system has also allowed management to
take corrective action when needed.
36. Targeting. The targeting processes in CCDP applied thorough targeting strategy and screening
matrices for both village and group selection to identify and include those from poor households
in the project. Effective screening matrices were applied throughout implementation. The draft
PCR provides quantification of direct and indirect beneficiaries, and of project impact. The
mission team endorse the statements on targeting made in the draft PCR.
37. Gender equity and women’s empowerment. CCDP has had a positive impact on gender
equity and women’s empowerment, mainly by: (i) promoting the economic empowerment of
women; (ii) enabling women and men to have equal voice and influence in rural institutions and
organizations; and (iii) achieving a more equitable workload balance. The majority of the
women were not involved in any income generating activities before the start of the project.
38. Women make up almost 30 per cent of the enterprise group members. They are well
represented in the VWGs (33 per cent), processing (86 per cent) and savings groups (90 per
cent), but are underrepresented in capture fishing groups (six per cent) and infrastructure
groups (five per cent) reflecting the cultural gender-based norms in coastal communities.
Women have reported significant increases in their incomes and savings, and improvement of
production, bookkeeping, processing, and marketing skills.
39. CCDP set a gender target for 30% of project participants at all levels to be women; and that at
least 2 enterprise groups in each village be comprised predominately of women with women
involved in key management decisions within the group. The CCDP has met or exceeded these
targets in almost all cases, and where the performance has fallen short of targets, it has only
been by a very small margin. The mission has been impressed with the positive qualitative
impact this has had on female participants. Many of them have shown enhanced self-esteem
and confidence, and shown justifiable pride in their new ability to provide resources for
themselves and their families. Intra-household relationships were reported to also have
improved, with the women’s increased economical contribution. It is particularly noteworthy that
some female enterprise group members have demonstrated strong business management
skills within a very limited timeframe of project support.
40. Environment: CCDP has developed an effective way to communicate environmental issues to
the community, making them relevant to their interest and need. It has successfully developed
models to improve environment conditions while increasing incomes and livelihoods, and
supported a number of new marine community-based management areas.
41. The project has also utilized small eco-tourism investments and activities to: (i) protect the
natural resources; (ii) generate new income opportunities to support sustainable environmental

14
Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-Bound

103
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

improvements; and (iii) invigorate the coastal economy as a whole. For example, a number of
projects have established mangrove walking tracks (generally wooden slats on stilts), which are
regularly frequented by local people and (mainly domestic) tourists. The community has
generated alternative incomes, at the same time also protecting and replanting mangroves,
which provide natural protection and a spawning and nursery habitat for fish, shrimps and
crabs. Enhanced mangrove areas provide other income generating activities from the sale of
mangrove seedlings, and bee-keeping. In some areas, fishermen also utilize the mangrove
walking tracks as a jetty to moor boats in deeper water, with access to the sea less constrained
by tides.
42. The communities that have been engaged in mangrove rehabilitation have confirmed that the
interventions have protected their land from coastal erosion. This has created increased their
awareness to the importance of environment protection and conservation. In some project
areas, the community groups have established a waste bank, and these have operated as
commercially viable enterprises, in collaboration with district-level initiatives.
43. In some cases, the environmental conservation and improvement conducted by the CBCRM
group has connected with other community groups. Some evidence shows that collaboration
between two or more community groups can create bigger multiplier effects to the project
outcomes.
44. Overall, the project has ensured that environmental concerns are fully considered in project
interventions. In most cases, interventions have led directly or indirectly to improvements in
environmental management and conditions. Generally, interventions have remained positive or
neutral in environmental impact.
45. Innovation: The project has piloted and introduced a number of innovations that can be
replicated and scaled up for application in development projects in Indonesia and
internationally. The mission recommends further elaboration and discussion on innovation in
the PCR. Project innovations can be grouped into: (i) innovative project management methods;
and (ii) innovation in the project implementation.
46. Innovative project management methods:
 Applying ICTs to ensure continuous communication and information transparency, and in
particular the use of WhatsApp groups;
 An approach taken to procurement to ensure implementation progress without delays;
 Using M&E system as a management tool, involving a weekly dashboard system based on
the M&E system and a transparent communication of progress and performance to all PIUs;
 A performance-based incentives system approach to PIUs management of implementation
progress;
 Development of a range of knowledge management materials which are being disseminated
to increase the project’s visibility with policy makers; and
 Application of a table of ‘softer’ recommendations in each project supervision report as a tool
for the project to follow up on issues.
47. Innovative project implementation methods:
 Integration of local initiatives and priorities to build ownership among project participants and
local government;
 Mobilizing additional sources of funding through CSR/private sector collaboration and linkage
to other Government offices to ensure sustainability of progress and results achieved;

104
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

 Demonstrating how two project components could work together in complementarity, and in
so doing, achieving enhanced outcomes, e.g. identifying different types of activity groups,
developing products and packaging, and adopting a value chain approach;
 Introduction of new processed products and packaging, and seaweed and fish farming
technologies, to village-level enterprise groups; and
 Application of a combined commercial and environmental approach to sustainable use and
improvement of natural resources.
48. Exit Strategy and Sustainability: The project has been working on the preparation of its exit
strategy over the last two years, with active planning by PIUs during the last year. The draft
PCR also reported that the over 80% of the enterprise groups are running well and expected to
continue its economic activities. It has clearly described the sustainability assessment results
according to five categories: institutional, social, technical, economic-financial, and
environmental. The mission recommends that this can be strengthened through incorporation of
the following:
 Institutional sustainability. Some local governments have already replicated the project
design in other villages, and even implemented similar approach in other sectors using their
own budget. The approach also has been adopted into district/city medium-term development
plans and entrenched in some of the agencies structure.
 Social sustainability. There is an evident strong buy-in from the target communities. The
Project has also enhanced social capital and ensured the community perceived the benefits
for working collectively instead of as individuals.
 Technical sustainability. Some technical support might still be needed for some community
groups to meet the post project market demand and meet infrastructure utility and durability.
 Economic/Financial Sustainability. Further analysis is required to be incorporated in the
final PCR as to the economic and financial returns generated by project activities. This will
reinforce the strong results achieved and also provide direction as to the likelihood of
economic/financial sustainability. The Project needs to ensure that private sector functions are
not captured by public authorities, although the public sector/ government is generally aware
that it may intervene and temporarily provide the service, handing it over to the private sector
or cooperatives when financial viability is attained. Additionally, it would be beneficial for the
leaders of all project-supported enterprises to be trained in the use of their financial records
for business performance planning and analysis, whether by the project or other parties.
 Environmental Sustainability. The PCR needs to further highlight project interventions that
have led to significant environmental improvements, as well as improved public environmental
awareness, and future steps that could also be taken such as improved signage at mangrove
walkways
49. Replication and Scaling-Up. The work of CCDP in promoting the replication and scaling-up of
numerous successful intervention models has been outstanding. Included in this work have
been:
 A Replication Plan to extend successful elements of the Project to at least 12 additional
districts;
 A pilot replication project in Berau District, East Kalimantan;
 Production of a Replication Manual (Buku Manual Replikasi CCDP-IFAD) with chapters
related to coastal community development, implementation mechanisms, business
support/marketing, management and funding;
 Production of an additional CCDP-model replication manual describing key successes,
outcomes and impacts of the CCDP and providing practical information about the project

105
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

implementation approach, so that the CCDP model could be applied to other coastal
communities as well as to other sectors in Indonesia and internationally;
 Hosting a Replication Workshop where the 12 existing CCDP PIUs and 13 potential
replication districts were able to share information and lessons learned; and,
 Conducted replication information meetings with other sections of KKP and external
ministries such as the Ministry of Village Development, Bappenas and the Ministry of
Finance.

50. The impact of these activities, plus the success of the project interventions, will greatly enhance
the prospect of substantial replication and scaling-up of project activities. The mission
recommends that preparation of further success stories, coupled with detailed financial
information on the viability of the activities, be prepared and disseminated.
51. Given the strong success of CCDP in achieving its objectives, it would be appropriate for the
Government to develop a framework to ensure sustainability and to enable replication and up-
scaling. This would involve the development of national policies that would encourage:
 Deepening of the commercial resilience of the enterprises and commercial activities already
supported by CCDP, through provision of support for their access to financial services, value
chain associations, commodity marketing systems and business management training;
 Provision of information and awareness-building for local authorities throughout the country to
enable them to plan for and support coastal and rural development through investment micro-
enterprises, value chain development and commercial application of sound environmental
management systems;
 Provision of financial support, when local commitment is demonstrated, for development of
rural micro-enterprises through investment aimed at rural productivity improvement, access to
markets, processing, and sustainable management of natural resources.
52. The PCR will provide an outline of the steps for developing this framework in an annex to the
main report.

C. Project Assessment
53. Lessons learned
54. Targeting. Geographical dispersion was identified at design as being a risk, making the project
potentially difficult to implement and to manage with the start-up of project operations in all 12
districts. Nevertheless, project performance has been highly satisfactory. Factors that
contributed to the success included: (i) a phased approach: starting implementation in only
three villages per district and subsequently scaling up, allowed for lessons to be learned and
risks mitigated during the first year of the project implementation; and (ii) the use of mobile
applications (like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter) and the web-based MIS facilitated close
communication, collaboration and coordination between the PMO and the PIUs and ensured
information transparency and strong local ownership. Project management also applied a
thorough targeting strategy and screening matrixes for both village and group selection that
ensured that project poverty targeting was achieved.
55. Approaches. Project design provided for a flexible and adaptive approach, which allowed for
modifications and adaptations as required, and provided PIUs with sufficient autonomy to drive
projects in their districts based on the specific local needs and opportunities but within the
project framework.
56. Strong community commitment has been witnessed in CCDP. This can be attributed to three
factors: (i) the demand-driven participatory approach to development; (ii) one community
facilitator for each village; and (iii) early small-scale investments in village infrastructure.

106
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

57. Operational lessons. Delays at start-up were contained due to: (i) the fast recruitment of project
staff and consultants; (ii) good implementation support (e.g. M&E and financial management) at
the early stages; and (iii) inviting consultants that were involved in the design to the first
supervision mission.
58. One of the biggest successes of CCDP has been its performance in project management.
Several factors have contributed to this: (i) performance-based management with a reward and
punishment system for PIUs (additional project funds) and also for staff (participation in training
and learning events); (ii) high levels of competence and low turn-over of staff and consultants
(e.g. recruitment of respected semi-retirees with experience and authority, and a part-time
international consultant to provide interface between project and IFAD); (iii) a comprehensive
web-based MIS providing real-time information of physical and financial progress used for
decision-making; and (iv) strong knowledge management not only aimed at documenting
project results, but also at improving project performance.
59. The project succeeded in establishing strong partnerships with other Dinas (local government
authorities), offices of Bupati and Wali Kota (Head of District/ Mayor), BAPPEDA, the Bank of
Indonesia, the Ministry of Cooperatives, the private sector, SMEs, and non-government parties
such as universities, NGOs, and other development partners. This has been important both to
support implementation progress and to provide for part of the exit strategy for sustainability
and replication of project results.
60. Procurement delays were prevented by careful selection of appropriate procurement
processes, and building capacity to enable effective local procurement. Allocating funds directly
to the communities for community procurement, coupled with the necessary supervision,
removed the need to engage with lengthy government procurement processes, and lead to
increased ownership and enabled more rapid and timely project implementation.
61. Challenges. The draft PCR is silent on the challenges that the project team faced during
project implementation. In reviewing earlier joint review mission reports, at least three issues
emerge. First, it was a challenge throughout the Project given the demand-driven approach to
group formation, not to let the number of capture fishing groups become excessive compared to
other types of enterprise groups. This issue is important given the intention in the design for
capture fishing groups not to exceed 30% of the enterprise groups, whereas on project
completion they exceeded 50%. Second, the project struggled in the early years of
implementation to identify suitable private sector operators for some of the component 2 district
level investments, requiring a more innovative approach in considering other types of third party
operators, such as cooperatives and SMEs. Third, a Ministerial decision was taken towards the
end of the Project, despite its successful implementation performance, to limit funding for some
types of project activities during its last year. The mission places no value judgement on these
three challenges, but rather just suggests that they may be worth elaborating further in the
PCR, in case additional information is considered relevant in terms of documenting any
implications these challenges had for the project’s implementation, and generating any lessons.
62. An inherent challenge facing the CCDP was the short duration of project implementation. While
not a criticism of project implementation, this factor inhibited the full development of value
chains, limited access to private finance, and restricted the marketing strategies to be fully
applied and further developed.
63. Key Success Factors. The mission acknowledges a number of key factors that contributed to
the success of CCDP. Those factors are:
 Financial Resources. The financial resources available both from the project as well as from
other sources enabled the success of the project. The local government has also allocated
generous co-financing to support the project. It is indicated that the total mobilised co-
financing has significantly exceeded the amount expected in the project design.

107
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 13:Final wrap-up meeting minutes

 Strong project management. Strong project management at national and sub-national

levels has contributed significantly to the success of the project implementation. A good
balance of staff at the PMO, PIU and Dinas provided solid support to the project. Close
coordination and collaboration between PMO and PIUs has resulted shared national and local
government responsibilities.
 During the implementation, the project management also identified and implemented
necessary adjustments to the project’s approach, which were approved at the Mid Term
Review.
 Shared vision. The Project has succeeded in disseminating the philosophy of project design
and the targets it wants to achieve throughout various levels of project implementation
including the community groups as the project beneficiaries. It has created a shared vision
among stakeholders that leads to a strong spirit to work together towards achieving the
success of the project.
 Adaptive design and management. The project has also evolved during implementation to
accommodate the needs and condition changes on the ground without losing its orientation to
achieve the overall project goals and objectives. The project shows a good balance between
prescriptive and participatory approaches. It provides both adequate guiding principles for the
implementation, as well as flexibility in creating necessary adjustments based on the local
context. It promotes a participatory approach to acquire more information and understand the
local needs that feed to the project implementation.
 Strong buy-in. The strong buy-in from the local governments, community, and private sector
is a very critical key success factor. The Project has succeeded to in making itself consistent
with government policy and priority while remaining relevant to the community's need.
 Partnerships. Strong partnerships between governments and private sector, and among
different levels of government have contributed to the success of the project.
 IFAD Performance. The draft PCR states that the Project implementation has been
enhanced through continuous IFAD support and assistance. IFAD implementation support
was perceived to be extensive and of high quality.
64. Overall Assessment: The draft PCR Rating Matrix (see Appendix 1) prepared by the mission
shows that all criteria for assessment have been assigned a “5” (Satisfactory) or a “6” (Highly
Satisfactory. The mission therefore recommends that the project be given an Overall
Assessment of “5” (Satisfactory), with a bias towards being Highly Satisfactory.

D. Recommendations and Way Forward

65. It should be noted that the PCR is essentially a document prepared and owned by the
Government. The IFAD mission team will provide a detailed revised draft PCR, largely derived
from the existing draft PCR, during the forthcoming seven days. This will be consistent with the
accepted IFAD guidelines on format and content. It will also provide detailed recommendations
on the process of finalising the PCR. Thereafter, IFAD will provide further personnel resources
to provide a final review of the document prior to finalisation and presentation to IFAD.

108
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 14: Lesson Learned in Project Management

Appendix 14: Lesson Learned in Project Management

109
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 14: Lesson Learned in Project Management

110
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 14: Lesson Learned in Project Management

111
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 14: Lesson Learned in Project Management

112
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Appendix 14: Lesson Learned in Project Management

113
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Annex 1 Detailed Project Data

Table 1: CCDP VILLAGES LIST

No. Province District No. Sub-District No. Village Year

1 Papua Merauke 1 Merauke 1 Samkai 2013

2 Nasem 2014
3 Maro 2014
2 Naukenjerai 4 Kuler 2013
5 Tomer 2014
6 Onggaya 2014
3 Okaba 7 Okaba 2013
8 Makaling 2014
9 Alaku 2014
10 Wambi 2016
11 Iwol 2016
4 Malind 12 Domande 2016
13 Onggari 2016
14 Kaiburse 2016
15 Kumbe 2016
2 Papua Kepulauan 5 Yapen Selatan 16 Serui Laut 2013
Yapen 17 Serui Jaya 2013
18 Turu 2016
6 Teluk Ampimoi 19 Ampimoi 2014
20 Karoapi 2014
21 Randawaya 2014
22 Ayari 2014
23 Waita 2014
24 Warironi 2014
7 Kosiwo 25 Sarawandori 2015
8 Angkaisera 26 Wadapi 2016
9 Kepulauan 27 Ambai I 2016
Ambai 28 Ambai II 2016
29 Saweru 2016
30 Rondepi 2016
3 Maluku Ternate 10 Pulau Ternate 31 Sulamadaha 2013
Utara 32 Kulaba 2014
33 Tobololo 2014
34 Rua 2016
35 Kastela 2016
11 Pulau Hiri 36 Mado 2013
37 Togolobe 2014
38 Dorari Isa 2014
39 Tomajiko 2016
40 Faudu 2016
41 Tafraka 2016
12 Pulau Moti 42 Moti Kota 2013
43 Tafaga 2014
44 Tadenas 2014
45 Tafamutu 2016
46 Takofi 2016
47 Figur 2016

115
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

4 Maluku Ambon 13 Nusaniwe 48 Latuhalat 2013

49 Dusun Seri (Urimessing) 2014
50 Seilale 2014
51 Nusaniwe 2016
14 Teluk Ambon 52 Laha 2013
53 Tawiri 2014
54 Hative Besar 2014
55 Poka 2016
56 Rumah Tiga 2016
15 Leitimur 57 Hutumuri 2013
Selatan 58 Hukurila 2014
59 Kilang 2014
60 Rutong 2016
5 Maluku Maluku 16 Kei Kecil 61 Ohoidertawun (+ Ohoider 2014
Tenggara Atas + Dudunwahan)
62 Ngabub 2016
63 Letman 2016
17 Kei Kecil Barat 64 Ohoira 2013
65 Ohoidertutu (+ Ohoider Tom, 2014
+ Yatvav)
66 Ur Pulau 2014
18 Kei Besar 67 Weer Ohoinam (+ Ohoike r+ 2013
Frafav)
68 Elat 2014
69 Ler Ohoilim 2014
19 Hoat Sorbay 70 Letvuan 2013
71 Evu 2016
72 Tetoat 2016
20 Manyeuw 73 Namar (+Selayar, 2014
+Lairngangas)
74 Ngilngof 2016
21 Kei Besar 75 Banda Ely 2016
Utara Timur 76 Renfan 2016
6 Nusa Kupang 22 Alak 77 Namosain 2013
Tenggara 78 Alak 2013
Timur 79 Nunbaun Sabu 2014
80 Nunbaun Delha 2014
81 Nunhila 2014
82 Fatufeto 2016
23 Kelapa Lima 83 Lasiana 2013
84 Oesapa Barat 2014
85 Oesapa 2016
86 Kelapa Lima 2016
24 Kota Lama 87 Fatubesi 2014
88 Airmata 2014
89 Pasir Panjang 2016
90 Oeba 2016
91 Tode Kisar 2016
92 Solor 2016
7 Nusa Lombok 25 Lembar 93 Lembar Selatan 2013
Tenggara Barat 94 Labuan Tereng 2013
Barat 95 Eyat Mayang 2013
96 Lembar (Utara) 2016
26 Sekotong 97 Cendi Menik 2014
98 Gili Gede Indah 2014
99 Sekotong Barat 2014
100 Batu Putih 2014

116
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

101 Buwun Mas 2014

102 Pelangan 2016
27 Gerung 103 Taman Ayu 2014
28 Batu Layar 104 Meninting 2016
105 Senteluk 2016
106 Batu Layar 2016
29 Labuapi 107 Kuranji (Bangsal) 2016
8 Sulawesi Makassar 30 Ujung Tanah 108 Cambayya 2013
Selatan 109 Kodingareng 2014
110 Barrang Caddi 2014
111 Barrang Lompo 2016
31 Tallo 112 Lakkang 2013
113 Tallo 2014
114 Buloa 2014
32 Tamalate 115 Tanjung Merdeka 2013
116 Barombong 2014
117 Balang Baru 2016
33 Biringkanaya 118 Untia 2014
34 Tamalanrea 119 Bira 2016
120 Parangloe 2016
35 Mariso 121 Kampung Buyang 2016
36 Ujung Pandang 122 Lae-Lae 2016
9 Sulawesi Parepare 37 Bacukiki Barat 123 Sumpang Minangae 2013
Selatan 124 Lumpue 2014
125 Cappa Galaung 2014
126 Tiro Sompe 2014
127 Kampung Baru 2014
128 Bumi Harapan 2016
38 Ujung 129 Kampung Pisang 2014
130 Labukkang 2013
39 Soreang 131 Watang Soreang 2013
132 Lakessi 2014
133 Bukit Harapan 2016
40 Bacukiki 134 Watang Bacukiki 2016
10 Gorontalo Gorontalo 41 Kwandang 135 Katialada 2013
Utara 42 Ponelo 136 Tihengo 2014
Kepulauan 137 Malambe 2016
138 Otiola
43 Atinggola 139 Imana 2014
44 Monano 140 Dunu 2014
45 Anggrek 141 Popalo 2013
142 Langge 2014
143 Dudepo 2016
46 Sumalata 144 Hutakalo 2013
145 Kikia 2014
146 Bulontio Barat 2016
47 Sumalata 147 Buluwatu 2014
Timur
48 Gentuma Raya 148 Dumolodo 2016
49 Biau 149 Topi 2016
50 Tolinggula 150 Tolinggula Pantai 2016
11 Sulawesi Bitung 51 Lembeh Utara 151 Motto 2013
Utara 152 Posokan 2014
153 Kareko 2014
154 Mawali 2014
155 Pintu Kota 2014
156 Lirang 2016

117
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

157 Batu Kota 2016

158 Gunung Woka 2016
159 Nusu 2016
160 Binuang 2016
52 Lembeh 161 Pasir Panjang 2013
Selatan 162 Dorbolaang 2013
163 Paudean 2014
164 Pancuran 2014
165 Papusungan 2016
166 Kelapa Dua 2016
167 Batu Lubang 2016
12 Kalimantan Kubu Raya 53 Batu Ampar 168 Padang Tikar Satu 2013
Barat 169 Batu Ampar 2014
170 Nipah Panjang 2014
171 Tanjung Harapan 2016
172 Sungai Besar 2016
173 Sungai Jawi 2016
54 Teluk Pakedai 174 Sungai Nibung 2013
175 Kuala Karang 2014
176 Teluk Gelam 2014
177 Teluk Pakedai Satu 2016
55 Kubu 178 Dabong 2013
179 Kubu 2014
180 Mengkalang 2014
56 Sungai Kakap 181 Sungai Kupah 2016

118
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 2 : CCDP VILLAGE COMMUNITY GROUPS

No District Group Members Total Group

VWG Infrastructure CBCR Enterprise Groups Total
L P Total Groups M Capture Aquacultur Processin Marketing Savin
Group Fisheries e g g
s
1 Merauke 954 436 1,390 15 15 15 51 3 45 0 0 144
2 Yapen 1,258 458 1,716 15 15 14 74 28 17 6 6 175
3 Ternate 1,212 420 1,632 17 17 17 107 1 25 9 1 194
4 Ambon 584 571 1,155 13 13 13 49 1 10 45 2 146
5 Maltera 1,428 372 1,800 16 16 16 69 61 7 2 2 189
6 Bitung 1,087 553 1,640 17 17 17 86 12 23 0 2 174
7 Gorut 1,427 377 1,804 16 16 16 95 18 28 12 0 201
8 Pare2 729 639 1,368 12 12 12 21 30 35 29 2 153
9 Makassar 1,285 549 1,834 15 15 15 69 32 40 9 4 199
10 Kupang 1,110 695 1,805 16 16 16 33 20 55 53 0 209
11 Lombar 1,682 373 2,055 15 15 15 106 27 34 6 0 218
12 Kubu 1,351 279 1,630 14 14 14 89 15 19 3 1 169
Raya
Jumlah 14,10 5,7 19,829 181 181 180 849 248 338 174 20 2171
7 22
% Entreprise Groups = 52.77 15.41 21.01 10.81

119
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 3: ENTERPRISE PROCESSING GROUP PRODUCTION RATES

No. District High Medium Low

1 Merauke 6 6 -
2 Yapen 6 7 3
3 Ternate 5 5 3
4 Ambon 17 2 4
5 Maluku Tenggara 7 2 2
6 Bitung 9 3 8
7 Gorontalo Utara 8 5 6
8 Pare - Pare 4 14 22
9 Makassar 14 17 5
10 Kupang 16 22 7
11 Lombok Barat 19 2 7
12 Kubu Raya 7 5 7
Jumlah 118 90 74

Group production rate and marketing categories:

1. High: the average of production and marketing is up to 50 kg/month or 50 pcs/month

2. Medium: the average of production and marketing is between 20 - 50 kg/month or between 25 - 50 pcs/month
3. Low: the average of production and marketing is under 20 kg/month or under 25 pcs/month

120
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 4: VILLAGE INFRASTRUTURE

Community Indirect
Village Budget
Other Village Total Village Infra- Contribution Beneficeries
No District Information
infra-structures structures
Center
CCDP Community (%) (Hhs)

21
1 Merauke 15 41 56 3,190,000,000 828,000,000 5,882

2 Yapen 15 24 39 2,443,009,000 244,700,000 9 8,518

3 Ternate 17 31 48 2,148,000,000 724,650,000 25 3,774

4 Ambon 13 108 121 3,770,595,000 1,467,050,000 28 1,421

5 Maluku Tenggara 16 26 42 2,194,030,000 658,209,000 23 1,745

6 Bitung 17 60 77 3,906,383,834 289,915,000 7 10,013

7 Gorontalo Utara 16 24 40 2,508,000,000 480,350,000 16 15,965

8 Parepare 12 36 48 1,866,179,000 954,988,250 34 3,149

9 Makassar 15 54 69 2,705,863,300 639,783,800 19 10,902

121
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

10 Kupang 16 80 96 4,328,062,000 807,500,000 16 7,000

2,624
11 Lombok Barat 15 52 67 2,975,965,000 931,000,000 24

20,245
12 Kubu Raya 14 34 48 2,284,000,000 828,924,000 27

91,238
Total 181 570 751 34,320,087,134 8,855,070,050 21%

122
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 5: ENTERPRISE AND SAVINGS GROUP SAVINGS

No District Total Semester 2015 Semester 2015 Semester 2016 Semester 2016 Semester 2017
Group+Saving Group Saving Group Saving Group Saving Group Saving Group Saving
2013-2016 Saving Saving Saving Saving Saving

1 Merauke 99 14 14,379,194 18 17,583,322 33 35,250,389 37 54,500,244 39 54,330,420

2 Yapen 131 26 93,379,000 84 161,317,050 84 161,317,050 75 143,667,541 73 143,667,541
3 Ternate 143 7 24,500,000 17 82,225,264 26 97,327,813 70 257,746,285 74 219,354,972
4 Ambon 107 47 122,400,000 28 46,564,000 28 46,564,000 109 143,015,016 109 143,015,016
5 Maluku 141 8 5,132,000 27 40,784,000 38 74,155,129 46 105,756,315 55 118,429,048
Tenggara
6 Bitung 123 38 70,050,000 32 43,352,771 17 39,847,200 54 102,498,437 76 120,141,500
7 Gorontalo 153 9 51,500,000 72 97,150,000 21 24,540,000 16 31,905,000 16 31,905,000
Utara
8 Pare- Pare 117 63 60,689,000 68 86,433,500 92 123,203,500 104 160,190,327 120 190,603,327
9 Makassar 154 41 25,867,500 56 25,867,500 87 121,012,500 130 230,804,007 133 278,682,297
10 Kupang 161 67 65,511,000 60 63,686,018 60 63,686,018 155 136,779,015 148 136,779,015
11 Lombok 173 70 69,075,000 72 103,700,000 38 105,160,000 72 136,915,000 76 136,915,000
Barat
12 Kubu 127 43 117,711,000 3 24,500,000 42 94,353,259 55 111,618,790 55 111,618,790
Raya
TOTAL 1629 433 720,193,694 537 793,163,425 566 986,416,858 923 1,615,395,977 974 1,685,441,926

% grup = 0.59791283

123
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 6: ENTERPRISE AND SAVINGS GROUPS VIABILITY ASSESMENT

No District Number Semester 2016 Semester 2017
of No of Ratings No of Ratings
Enterpris Group Faile Less Early Moderat Good Matur Group Faile Less Early Moderat Good Matur
e+Saving s d Achiev Achiev e Ahiev e s d Achiev Achiev e Ahiev e
Groups Rated e e Achieve e Rated e e Achieve e
1 Merauke 99 99 12 19 39 14 14 1 99 11 16 24 29 19 0
2 Yapen 131 128 6 5 86 28 3 0 130 2 7 101 14 1 0
3 Ternate 143 142 9 11 38 42 42 0 143 13 12 28 45 45 0
4 Ambon 107 106 1 0 78 17 10 0 106 0 16 63 20 6 1
5 Maluku 141 140 0 0 2 92 46 0 151 0 0 2 85 54 0
Tenggara
6 Bitung 123 121 5 3 25 34 54 0 122 1 9 17 40 55 0
7 Gorut 153 151 4 30 27 50 28 12 151 10 35 35 39 22 10
8 Pare - Pare 117 115 8 22 46 19 19 1 115 12 18 36 26 20 3
9 Makassar 154 144 0 22 31 38 50 3 147 2 17 31 47 45 5
10 Kupang 161 161 4 76 41 15 21 4 161 5 5 11 82 44 14
11 Lombok Barat 173 116 0 1 3 43 60 9 116 0 1 3 42 57 13
12 Kubu Raya 127 117 9 1 40 29 36 2 127 3 6 37 34 40 3
Total 1,629 1,540 58 190 456 421 383 32 1,568 59 142 388 503 408 49
% 94.54 3.77 12.34 29.61 27.34 24.87 2.08 96.26 3.76 9.06 24.74 32.08 26.02 3.13
% Operational Groups = 83.90 % Operational Groups = 85.97

124
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 7 : VILLAGE INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

No District Number Resource ICM Plans

of Inventory Documented
Villages

1 Merauke 15 15 15
2 Yapen 15 9 15
3 Ternate 17 17 17
4 Ambon 13 13 13
5 Maluku Tenggara 16 16 9
6 Kupang 16 9 16
7 Lombok Barat 15 15 15
8 Makassar 15 15 15
9 Pare Pare 12 9 12
10 Gorontalo Utara 16 9 16
11 Bitung 17 9 17
12 Kubu Raya 14 14 14
Total 181 150 174

125
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 8 : MARINE ECOTOURISM INVESTMENTS

No District No Village Type of Marine Tourism
1 Merauke 1 Samkai Beach tourism
2 Yapen 2 Sarawandori Beach tourism
3 Terante 3 Tobololo Beach tourism
4 Rua Beach tourism
4 Ambon 5 Hukurila Beach tourism and cave under sea

6 Tawiri Mangrove ecotourism

7 Nusaniwe Ecotourism and culinary tourism
8 Kilang Beach tourism
9 Seilale Under water tourism
10 Seri Under water tourism
11 Rumah Tiga Beach tourism
5 Maluku Tenggara 12 Letvuan Hawang cave tourism
13 Tetoat Beach tourism
14 Ohoidertawun Beach tourism
15 Letman Beach tourism
16 Lerohoilim Beach tourism
17 Weer Beach tourism
18 Ur Pulau Beach tourism
19 Ohoidertutu Beach tourism
20 Banda Ely Beach tourism
6 Bitung 21 Pasirpanjang Beach tourism and mangrove ecotourism
22 Pintu Kota Mangrove ecotourism
23 Kareko Beach tourism
24 Lirang Beach tourism and mangrove ecotourism
25 Gunung Woka Beach tourism
26 Nusu Beach tourism
7 Gorontalo Utara 27 Dunu Beach tourism
28 Langge Mangrove ecotourism
29 Dumolodo Beach tourism
8 Parepare 30 Taman Laut Tonrangeng,Lumpue Beach tourism
31 Pesisir Sungai Solo Karajae, Watang Bacukiki River tourism
9 Makassar 32 Lakkang Mangrove ecotourism
33 Untia Beach tourism and mangrove ecotourism

126
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

34 Bira Mangrove ecotourism

35 Lae lae Beach tourism
10 Kupang 36 Oesapa Barat Mangrove ecotourism
37 Nunbaun Delha Beach tourism
38 Nunhila Beach tourism
11 Lombok Barat 39 Sekotong Barat Beach tourism
40 Batu Putih Beach tourism
41 Lembar Selatan Mangrove ecotourism
42 Buwun Mas Beach tourism
43 Pelangan Beach tourism
12 Kubu Raya 44 Sungai Nibung Beach tourism and mangrove ecotourism
45 Sungai Kupah Mangrove ecotourism

127
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 9: COMMUNITY BASED RESOURCE USE LEGALIZATION

No District Number of Under Drafting Village Regulation/Mayor Decree Notes

Village Has Been Issued
Already Issued Coverage
1 Merauke 15
2 Yapen 15
3 Ternate 17
4 Ambon 13 5 5 Village Ordinance of Rutong 2, Rumah Tiga, Hukurilla
(Management of Natural Resources), Kilang, Latuhalat
5 Maluku Tenggara 16 3 Draft Custom Regulation/Ohoi
6 Bitung 17 1 6 Bitung Mayor Decree No. 188.45/HKM/SK/121/2014 13
Mei 2014

7 Gorontalo Utara 16 1 1 Langge Village Regulation (Ecotourism)

8 Pare Pare 12 1 9 Parepare Mayor Decree Number 48 Year 2014
9 Makassar 15
10 Kupang 16 3 3 Decree Management of Ecotourism at kelurahan level :
Oesapa Barat, Nunhila, Nunbaundelha
11 Lombok Barat 15 12 3 3 Village Regulation Senteluk, Village Regulation
Sekotong Barat Village Regulation Buwun Mas, 12 other
drafts have been prepared
12 Kubu Raya 14 4 4 Village Regulation Sungai Nibung (DPL-Lumbung
Kepiting), Tanjung Harapan (Mangrove Conservation),
Telok Pakedai I (Mangrove Conservation), Sungai Jawi
(Mangrove Conservation)
Total 181 15 18 31

128
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 10 : DISTRICT PRIMARY COMMODITIES

No. District No Priority Comodities

1 Merauke 1 Gabus toraja fish

2 Shrimp sea
3 Snapper
2 Yapen 1 Mackarel fish
2 Seaweed
3 Small pelagi
3 Ternate 1 Tuna fish
2 Mackarel fish
3 Pelagis Fish
4 Ambon 1 Cakalang fish
2 Tuna fish
3 Layang fish
5 Maluku Tenggara 1 Seaweed
2 Red snapper
3 Kerapu fish
6 Bitung 1 Mackarel fish
2 Squid
3 Cakalang fish
7 Gorontalo Utara 1 Kuwe fish
2 Seaweed
3 Tuna fish
8 Pare-pare 1 Teri fish
2 Tuna fish
3 Small pelagis fish
9 Makassar 1 Milk fish
2 Ikan Hias
3 Tuna fish
10 Kupang 1 Tuna fish
2 Kue fish
3 Kembung fish
11 Lombok Barat 1 Seaweed
2 Mackarel fish
3 Small shrimp

129
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

12 Kubu Raya 1 Jerbung shrimp,

2 Soka crab
3 Rajungan

130
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 11: DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURES, PARTNERS AND UTILIZATION LEVELS

Utilization Level
No District Year Type of Infrastructures Managing Partner

2014 1 Fish Flour Factory IZAKOD KAI Cooperative Medium

2 Packaging House AWE SAI Cooperative Medium
1 Merauke 3 Production House, Okaba Local Partner Not utilized
2015 4 Production House, Naukenjerai Local Partner Medium
5 Commerce House, Merauke AWE SAI Cooperative High
2014 6 Standart Type Karoaipi Production House Processing Partner and Processing Group Medium
7 Serui Mini Ice Factroy Processing Partner and fish seller Low
Yapen 8 Mawampi Indah Serui Laut Processing Not utilized
2015 Standart Type Production House, Serui Laut
Group
2
9 Mini Type Production House, Sarawandori Mairori dan Wamanya Kawa Processing High
2015
Group
2015 10 Packaging House, Serui Not Operated Not utilized
2016 11 Marketing Kiosk, Sarawandori Village Processing Group Medium
12 Marketing Kiosk C Kampung Ayari Marketing Group Medium
13 Mini Type Production House Wadapi Village Processing Group Medium
2014 14 Packaging House Low
CV.ALVIN PRATAMA
2015 15 Ice Factory CV.ALVIN PRATAMA High
3 Ternate
2016 16 Culinary House Rua Group High
17 1 unit Summerhouse and 3 unit Shelters in Tabololo Group High
Tobololo Beach
18 Production House Rurehe Cooperative Medium
2014
4 Ambon 19 Commerce House (Fish Shop-Resto) CV. Renjino Medium
2015 20 Packaging House Rurehe Cooperative Medium
5 Maluku 2014 21 Production House, Letvuan Letvuan CCDP Group Medium
Tenggara 22 Production House, Ohoira Ohoira CCDP Group Medium
23 Production House, Weer Weer CCDP Fisheries Capture Group (9 High
groups)
24 Production House, Ur Pulau Ur Pulau CCDP Group High
2015 25 Production House, Namar Namar CCDP Group Medium

131
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Utilization Level
No District Year Type of Infrastructures Managing Partner

26 Production House, Ohoidertutu Ohoidertutu CCDP Group Medium

2016 27 Jetty, Kei Besar Ohoi Renfaan Community Group High
2014 28 Stuffs of Processing House and Packaging Owned Bitung Agency of Marine and Fisheries Medium
by DKP
29 Stuffs for Kiosk Owned by DKP Bitung Agency of Marine and Fisheries Medium
30 Marketing Car Suka Maju Cooperative High
2015 31 Building and Stuffs for Coastal Stall Type A,B and UD. Karya Mandiri Bersama High
Bitung Fish Shop
6
32 Cold Storage UD. Karya Mandiri Bersama High
2016 33 Connector Between Summerhouse and Small Pasir Panjang PSDP Group High
Road in Lembe Island, Pasir Panjang
34 Tracking Mangrove Penghubung, Gazebo di Pulau Mentari PSDP Group High
Lembe (Pintu Kota)
35 Boat Ecotourism Patras PSDP Group High
36 Mini Ice Factory Padu Alam Laut Cooperative High
37 Mini Cold Storage Padu Alam Laut Cooperative and Global High
2015 Fisheries Exchange
Gorontalo
38 Klp Maju Bersama (Budidaya RL) High
7 Utara Seaweed Press Machine
desaLangge
2016 39 Production House Amalia’s Food Medium
40 Cold Box Car Padu Alam Laut Cooperative High
41 Car: Mitsubishi Colt Diesel FE 71/4R Padu Alam Laut Cooperative High
2014 42 Packaging House Mutiara Biru Parepare Cooperative Medium

2015 43 Three Wheeled Motorcylce Mutiara Biru Parepare Cooperative and High
Marketing Group
1. Putri
2. Putri Zasilia
Pare - Pare 3. Putri Duyung
8
4. Bunga Mekar
5. Bunga Mekar 1
44 Pick Up Car Mutiara Biru Parepare Cooperative and High
Catfish Aquaculture Group

2016 45 Commerce Car Mutiara Biru Parepare Cooperative and Medium

132
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Utilization Level
No District Year Type of Infrastructures Managing Partner

Processing Group
46 Marketing Kiosk Mutiara Biru Parepare Cooperative High
9 Makassar 47 Untia Home Production Berkah Bandeng Community Group, High
2014 Berkah Bahari Community Group, Mega
Buana Community Group.
48 Barombong Home Production Mawar Community Group and Azoka High
Community Group
49 Tanjung Merdeka Home Production Mangga Tiga Community Group and Bunga High
Tanjung Community Group
50 Lakkang Home Production Cahaya Lakkang Community Group High
51 Packaging House C.V. Elthiza Medium
52 Commerce Motorcycle Community Group High
53 Mini Kiosk Community Group High
54 Mini Floating House Fatima Azzarah Cooperative and Medium
2015
Enterprise Group
55 Commerce Car PIU High
56 Floating Net Cages Tanjung merdeka Community Group High
2016 57 Bira Production House Bina lestari and Insan Mandiri Community High
Group
58 Jetty in Kelurahan Untia Makassar Agency of Marine and Fisheries High
59 Fish shop/Packaging House Sugianto Laynardi (Processing partner) Medium
60 Mini Ice Factory Fausaniah Fitri Atan (UD. High
Nelayan Bakti)
2015 61 Production House Gracia NBD Processing Group Medium
62 Three Wheeled Motorcylce Fausaniah Fitri Atan (UD. High
10 Kupang
Nelayan Bakti)
63 Cold Box Car Sugianto Laynardi (Processing Partner) High
2016 64 Tracking Mangrove Ecotourism PSDA Group Kelurahan Oesapa Barat High
65 Batu Kapala Beach Ecotourism PSDA Group Kelurahan Nunhila High
66 Integrated Area of Fishermen, NBD PSDA Group Kelurahan NBD High
11 Lombok 2014 67 Packaging House of Sasak Maiq Micro Small Sasak Maiq Micro Small Medium Medium
Barat Medium Enterprise Enterprise
68 Warehouse and Seaweed Drying Floors of Sasak Sasak Maiq Micro Small Medium High
Maiq Micro Small Medium Enterprise Enterprise
2015 69 BPR Cash Office in Coastal Areal BPR Coastal Area Not utilized

133
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Utilization Level
No District Year Type of Infrastructures Managing Partner

70 Coastal Stall Bina Pesisir Cooperative Not utilized

71 Production House of Mackerel Timbul Baru Community Group, Desa Batu High
Putih Community Group
2016 72 Gudang Penyimpanan Bahan dan Produk Olahan Sasak Maiq Micro Small Medium High
Enterprise
73 Tracking Mangrove in Lembar Selatan Village Kel PSDA Lestari (Lembar Selatan) High
74 Summerhouse and Floating House in Lembar Kel PSDA Lestari (Lembar Selatan) High
Selatan Village
2014 75 Production House of Shrimp Crackers Putri Duyung Community Group High
76 Production House of Crab Umardani High
77 Production House Nusa Indah Community Group, Asoka High
Community Group, Melati Community
Group
12 Kubu Raya 2015 78 Packaging Tools Yuli Purwito
79 Cold Storage Yuli Purwito Not utilized

2016 80 Commerce House Association of Coastal Community Not utilized

Cooperative

134
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 13: CCDP PARTNER MARKETS

A. Marketing Partners
No. District Local Regional National Total
MOU NON MOU NON MOU NON MOU NON
MOU MOU MOU MOU
1 Merauke 2 11 2 1 4 12
2 Yapen 5 1 1 3 6 4
3 Ternate 6 3 1 1 7 4
4 Ambon 3 4 - - 1 1 4 5
5 Maluku 3 6 2 - 2 7 6
Tenggara
6 Bitung 5 5 2 2 1 5 8 12
7 Gorontalo Utara 3 8 2 4 1 6 12
8 Pare - Pare 2 18 4 8 6 26
9 Makassar 5 7 3 1 1 9 8
10 Kupang 6 6 1 7 6
11 Lombok Barat 1 34 5 14 5 1 11 49
12 Kubu Raya 4 6 3 1 2 9 7
Total 45 109 26 34 13 8 84 151

135
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

B. Marketing Partnership in Local Level

No. District Marketing Partner Status
1 Merauke 1. Awe Sai Cooperative MOU
2. GS Shop MOU
3.Mandala Indah Shop Selling
4. Mitra Kita Shop Selling
5. Kartini Airport Outlet Selling
6. Ari – Ari Shop Selling
7. Matahari Shop Selling
8. Yestosa Shop Selling
9. Missi Shop Selling
10. Dua Shop Selling
2 Yapen 1. Merpati Indah Shop MOU
2. Hadi Super Market MOU
3. Limas Shop MOU
4. Serui Indah Shop MOU
5. Duta Mart Shop MOU
6. Kenanga Shop MOU

3 Ternate MOU
H. 1 . Hermanto Shop MOU

I. 2. Gosalaha Ii Community Group with Tara No Ate Supermarket MOU

MOU
J. 3. Jikolamo Community Group with Tara No Ate Supermarket
MOU
K. 4. Kampi Community Group with Tara No Ate Supermarket

L. 5. Bintang Harapan Community Group with Tara No Ate Supermarket MOU

M. 6. Mekarjaya Community Group with Tara No Ate Supermarket Selling

7. Hygienes Mart Selling
8.Culinary House Selling
9. Schools

136
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

4 Ambon 1 . CV. Cahaya Liembas (Souvenirs Shop)

2. Frish Mart N. MOU
3. Poklahsar Nacha
4. Sinar Baru Souvenir Shop O.
5. Nikmat Souvenir Shop
6. Santhos Souvenir Shop
P. MOU
7. Ambon Manise Patimura Airpot Shop
Q. MOU

R. Selling

S. Selling

T. Selling

U. Selling

V.
5 Maluku Tenggara 1. Mrs. Lily Rahayaan MOU
2. Mrs. Welly Retraubun MOU
3. Mr. NURHAYAAN MOU
4. Safira Outlet Selling
5. Tunas Jaya Shop Selling
6. Salma Shop Selling
7. ABC Shop Selling
8. Gota Supermarket Selling
9. Aroma Resto Selling

6 Bitung
W. 1. Kodim Cooperative CC. MOU

X. 2. Masyarakat Pesisir Cooperative DD. MOU

Y. 3. Poklahsar Promina EE. MOU

Z. 4. Poklahsar Lamadang FF. MOU

AA. 5. CV. Karunia Indo Bahari GG. MOU

137
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

BB. 6. Tahuna Jaya Shop HH. Selling

7. Central Fish
8. Sub District Local Market (7 community groups) II. Selling
9. Bitung Market 7 community groups)
10. PKK Bitung JJ.

KK. Selling

LL. Selling

MM.

NN. Selling

OO.

138
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

1. Didi Supermarket MOU

7 Gorontalo Utara 2. Anbriel Minimarket MOU
3. Telaga Mart Gorontalo MOU
4. Scorpion Restaurant Selling
5. AA Dicky Restaurant Selling
6. Selera Mania Restaurant Selling
7. Srikandi Restaurant Selling
8. Adila Restaurant Selling
9. Block Plan Pemda Restaurant Selling
10. DM Shop Selling
11. Simpang Tiga Kwandang Shop Selling

8 Pare - Pare
PP. MOU
1. UD. Lela Mandiri MOU
2. Muhammadiyah University Selling
3. Mega 99 Shop Selling
4. Sejahtera Supermarket Selling
5. Sinar Terang Shop Selling
6. Teras Empang Restaurant ,Sumpang Minangae
7. Ajattappareng Passanger Terminal Selling
8. Cahaya Bone Stall
9. Dinasty Restaurant Selling
10. Kenari Bukit Indah Hotel Selling
11. Ifa Jaya Shop Selling
Selling

139
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

12. Hello Kitty Stall Selling

13. Rest Area Segeri Gasoline Station Selling

QQ.
14. Zuppazip Restaurant (Mrs. Lies) Cimahi, West Java Selling
15. Dapoer Ikan Cafe and Resto, Bogor
16. Luwes Souvenir Shop, Salatiga. Selling
17. Sinar Mart Shop, Klaten
18. Mirah Shop, Demak Selling
19. Megaria Shop, Purwodadi Selling
Selling
Selling

9 Makassar 1. Modern Mart MOU

2. Cahaya Shop MOU
3. Celebes Shop MOU
4. Shop Serba Oleh-oleh MOU MOU
5. Daeng Shop MOU
6. Popsa Stall Selling
7. 7. Rajawali Culinary Selling
Selling
RR. 8. Office of Forestry and Enviromental Agency South
Sulawesi
Selling
SS. 9. PPI University Selling
Selling
Selling
TT. 10. Toraja Souvenir Shop

UU. 11. Cambaya Restaurant

VV. 12. Fisheries Cooperative of University Hasanudin

WW.

140
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

10 Kupang 1. Sudi Mampir Shop MOU

2. Felin Mini Market MOU
3. Nelayan Restaurant MOU
4. Yotowawa Hotel MOU
5. Kupang Mart MOU
6. Dutalia Supermarket MOU
7. Cemara Indah Supermarket Selling
8. Top Mart Selling
9. C & A Souvenir Shop Selling
10. Melia Supermarket Selling
11. Rukun Jaya Supermarket Selling
12. Resto Aroma & Fishshop Selling

XX.

11 Lombok Barat
1. PT. Singa Utama MOU
2. Palem Perdana Selling
3. Legong Selling
4. Sasaku I & II Selling
5. Anjani Selling
6. Koi Emas Selling
7. Phoenix 2 Selling
8. H. Puji Selling
9. Imam Mla Selling
10. Suryatman Shop Selling
11. Amelia 1 Shop Selling
12. Amelia 2 Shop Selling
13 Cahaya Shop Selling
14. Shaowroom UPT Selling
15. Golden Tulip Selling
16. Mr. Ekik Selling
17. Gandrung Selling
18. Rumah Singgah Selling

141
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

19. Pawon sasak Selling

20. Rinjani Selling
21.Rumah Kemasan Selling
22. RM Simpang Lima Selling
23. Batur Lombok Selling
24. Inaq Siti Selling
25. Sari Bumi Selling
Selling
26. Bu Bakri
Selling
27. Bakery Selling
28. Ria Shop Selling
29. Lombok Garden Hotel Selling
30. UD. Kirana Selling
31. UD Santi Jaya Selling
32. UD Tangkas Jaya Selling
33. 2 D Mini Market Selling
34. O-Mine Selling
35. Pondok Pesantren Selling
Selling
12 Kubu Raya 1. Mitra Mart8. MOU
2. Palmart MOU
3. Pandan Wangi MOU
4. Mitra Anda MOU
5. Shop Endang Selling
6. BKKBN Kabupaten Kubu Raya Selling
7. Asia Souvenir Shop Selling
8. Buah Jaya Souvenir Shop Selling
9. Amin Souvenir Shop Selling
10. Indah Selera Souvenir Shop Selling

YY.

142
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 14 : TRAINING AND COACHING CLINICS

Training Conducted by PMO 2013-2017
No Name of Activities Year
1 Technical Guidance for SAI/SABIM 2013
2 Technical Guidance for village assistans (TPD) 2013
3 Technical Guidance for procurement goods and services CCDP - IFAD 2013
4 Technical Guidance for finance management (Jakarta) 2013
5 Technical Guidance for project orientation 2013
6 Technical Guidance for project management 2013
7 Technical Guidance for finance report preparation CCDP - IFAD 2014
8 Technical Guidance for SAI/SABIM and CCDP – IFAD Monev Report 2014
9 Technical Guidance for village assistans (TPD) 2014
10 Technical Guidance for community development Who Do The Project 2014

12 Technical Guidance for CCDP – IFAD Finance 2014

13 Technical Guidance for procurement goods and services CCDP - IFAD 2014
14 Technical Guidance for Aquaculture CCDP - IFAD 2014

15 Technical Guidance for Processing and Marketing for Fisheries Product CCDP - IFAD 2014

18 Technical Guidance for village assistans (TPD) 2015

19 TOT Community Development and Business Development 2015

20 Management Knowledge Development CCDP - IFAD 2015

21 Technical Guidance for Business Development and Value Chain CCDP - IFAD 2015

23 Technical Guidance for village assistans (TPD) 2016

24 Technical Guidance for Finance CCDP -IFAD 2016

143
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

25 Technical Guidance for Business and Value Chain CCDP - IFAD 2016
26 Training AOS and RIMS for Village Assitans (TPD) 2017

27 Technical Guidance for Finance CCDP -IFAD 2017

28 Technical Guidance for Business and Value Chain CCDP - IFAD 2017

144
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Coaching Clinic Activity and Location in 12 PIU CCDP-IFAD 2015

No District Date Specific Activity Expert Invited Notes
1 Merauke 31 August-02 Sept Processing of “Gastor” waste Ms. Ines, P2HP
2015 ZZ.
Processing of Se’i Local expert
AAA.
2 Yapen 28-31 July 2015 Development of Seaweed Seed Nico Runtuboy  Sarawandori and Teluk
Center w/ tissue culture seed BBPBL Lampung Ampimoi Villages
 250 Kg each
3 Ternate 13-14 August 2015 Processing of “Fufu” and shredded Mr. Nurbawi, BBP2HP Jakarta PIU Secretariat
fish (abon)
4 Ambon 18-19 Mei 2015 Processing of Fish Crackers etc Ms. Purnani, processing expert, Hative Besar Village
Jakarta
5 Maluku Tenggara 15-16 April 2015 Development of Seaweed Seed Mr. Nico Runtuboy,  Ohoi Namar Village
Center w/ tissue culture seed BBPBL Lampung  + 25 Kg
6 Bitung ICM & Ecotourism Prof. Dietrich Bengen, IPB Bogor
7 Gorontalo Utara 31 August-02 Sept Development of Seaweed Seed Slamet Abadi, BBPBL Lampung Desa Langge dan Katialada
2015 Center w/ tissue culture seed
Pembuatan Bakso, Otak-otak dan Mrs. Nuraini, Cooperative Fatimah Tihengo dan Popalo
Nuget Azzahra Makasar
Processing of Se’i Local expert
8 Pare-pare 12-13 August 2015 Development of Freshwater Siti Mu’minah, Lumpue Village
Aquaculture, esp Catfish Culture BBPBAT Sukabumi
Processing of ‘amplang’ Local expert Cappa Galung Village
9 Makassar 14-15 August 2015 Development of Freshwater Siti Mu’minah, Tanjung Merdeka Village
Aquaculture, esp Catfish Culture BBPBAT Sukabumi
Processing of . . . . Local expert Tanjung Merdeka Village
10 Kupang 24-26 August 2015 ICM & Ecotourism Prof. Dietrich Bengen, IPB Bogor
Processing of Se’i Local expert
11 Lombok Barat 28-29 April 2015 Development of Seaweed Seed Mr. Supriadi,  Buwun Mas Village
Center w/ tissue culture seed BPBL Lombok  + 25 Kg
Processing of Fish Crackers etc Ms. Purnani, processing expert, Lembar Village
Jakarta
12 Kubu Raya 26-27 August 2015 Development of Crab Culture Mr. Made Suitha, BBPBAP Jepara Padang Tikar Satu Village
Processing of Crab Waste Ms. Purnani, processing expert,
Jakarta

145
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Coaching Clinic Activities 2016

Coaching Clinic Activity
No. District
Processing Aquaculture

1 Merauke Gastor Fish Processing Product -

2 Yapen Seaweed Processing Product Sea Aquaculture

3 Ternate Seaweed and Fish Processing Product , Improvement Fish -

Quality
4 Ambon Meatballs and Nuggets Processsing Product -

5 Maluku Tenggara Seaweed Processing Product -

6 Bitung Kayu Fish Processing Sea Aquaculture

7 Gorantalo Utara Seaweed and Fish Processing Product Sea Aquaculture

8 Pare - Pare Fish Processing Product -

9 Makassar Fish Processing Product Aquaculture

10 Kupang Ecotourism Training -

11 Lombok Barat Fish Processing Product Aquaculture

12 Kubu Raya Utilization Training of Fishery Waste Aquaculture

146
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Training Conducted by PIU

No District Number of Training Total of Training
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1 Merauke 3 7 6 7 3 26
2 Yapen 2 7 6 6 2 23
3 Ternate 6 8 9 7 3 33
4 Ambon 3 7 7 7 3 27
5 Maluku Tenggara 3 6 6 9 1 25
6 Bitung 4 6 8 8 3 29
7 Gorontalo Utara 4 7 6 6 3 26
8 Pare - Pare 4 7 6 6 3 26
9 Makassar 3 5 6 7 3 24
10 Kupang 4 7 6 7 3 27
11 Lombok Barat 5 8 6 15 3 37
12 Kubu Raya 4 7 6 1 5 23
Total of Training 45 82 78 86 35 326

147
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 15 : ENTERPRISE GROUP SAFETY AND HALAL CERTIFICATIONS

No District PIRT Certification Halal Certification
1 Merauke 58 -
2 Yapen 7 -
3 Ternate 17 -
4 Ambon 66 4
5 Maluku Tenggara 5 -
6 Bitung 19 6
7 Gorontalo Utara 28 -
8 Pare - Pare 52 26
9 Makassar 29 35
10 Kupang 48 28
11 Lombok Barat 18 44
12 Kubu Raya 10 4
TOTAL / Amount 357 147

148
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 16: BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLANS FOR INFRASTRUCTURES

No DISTRICT TYPE OF INFRASTUCTURE BP OP

1 Merauke 1 Packaging House 1

2 Commerce House 1

2 Yapen 1 Ampimoi Small Production House 1

2 Mini Ice Factory 1

3 Ternate 2 Ice Factory With 10 Tonne Capacity 1

4 Ambon 1 Commerce House 1

2 Production House 1

3 Packaging House 1

5 Maluku tenggara 1 Ohoi Letvuan Production House 1

2 Ohoi Namar Production House 1

6 Bitung 1 Fish Shop Building 1

7 Gorontalo utara 1 Mini Ice Factory 1

2 Mini Cold Storage With 10 Tonne Capacity 1
3 Ice Box Car 1

4 Production House 1

149
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

8 Pare-pare 1 Packaging House 1

2 Three Wheeled Motorcycle 1

3 Pick Up Car 1
4 Commerce Car 1

5 Marketing Kiosk 1

9 Makassar 1 Packaging House 1

2 Production House 2
3 Commerce Car 1
4 Commerce Motorcycle 1
6 Floating Commerce House 1

10 Kupang 1 Marketing Car 1

2 Packaging House 1
3 Mini Ice Factory 1

4 Production House 1

11 Lombok barat 1 Packaging House 1

12 Kubu raya 1 Rajungan Meal Production House 1

2 Shrimp Production House 1

3 Commerce House 1

150
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

4 Soka Crab Production House 1

5 Packaging House 1

6 Cold Storage 1

Total 28 9

151
 Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 17 : COOPERATIVE PROFILES

No PIU Cooper Address Enterprise Total of Business Operatio Partnershi
ative Documents Member Activities n Status p with
Name s Third
Party
(1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (8) (9)
BBB. (5) CCC. (11)
Noari Street, 1. Commerce
1 Merauke Awe 1. Akte Notaris T. 200 House and DDD.
kel. Rimba
Sai No. 08. Packaging
Jaya, tanggal 06 L. 100
House, Operat
Merauke Juni 2016 P. 100 canteen staff ed
District
2. SK and marketing
Kemenkop community
No. group product
299/BH/XX 2. Raw Material
XII.2/VI/201 Shop
6, tanggal
20 Juni
2016
3. NIK: Dalam
proses
1. Saving and
2 Yapen Mawam Kelurahan 1. Akte T. 200 Loan EEE.
pi Serui Kota, Notaris: 2. Processing
L. 100
Indah Distrik No.182/BH/ and Marketing
Yapen XXXII.10/2 P. 100
Selatan 01414/05/2
Yapen. 014 Tgl: 21
November
2014
3 Ternate Mapolu Kelurahan 1. Akte Notaris: T. 42 1. Saving Operat FFF.
Dorari Isa No. 58 and Loan ed
tanggal 15 L. 30
September 2. Fuel Oil
P. 12 -
2015
2. NIK: Dalam
proses
4 Ambon Laha Negeri Laha, 1. Akte T. 36 1. Saving and Operat GGG.
Suang Kec. Teluk Notaris: Loan ed
No.12, L. 3
Ambon 2. Production
tanggal 23 -
P. 33 and
Juni 2016
Marketing
2. NIK: Dalam
proses
1. Akte Notaris:
5 Maluku IFAD Gedung No.12 T. 620 1. Saving and HHH.
Tenggara Mandiri yayasan Loan
tanggal 26 Juli L. 436
Nen Mas il- 2016 2. Marketing of
Langgur P. 184 The Sea
2. NIK: Product
8102.0100.9
001.1
1. IFAD Asset
6 Bitung Masyar Kelurahan 1. Akte T. 32 Management III.
akat AirtembagaI Notaris: The
No.12/BH/X L. 19
Pesisir Satu Ling. I Cooperative
Kecamatan XV.5/XI/201 P. 13 colaboate

152
 Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Airtembaga 5 Tanggal: with third

Operat
18 (MOU).
November 2. Saving and ed
2015. Loan
2. NIK: -
7172.0500.
3000.1
7 Gorontal Padu Kunodanupo 1. Akte T. 400 1. Processing
o Utara Alam yo, Street Notaris: L. of Mini Ice JJJ.
No.19.805.2 Factory Operat
Laut Molingkapot P.
015) (MOU) ed
(PAL) o Village,
Kwandang, Tanggal: 08 2. Freezer and
Mei 2015 Cool Box
Gorontalo
2. SK Bupati: Tenancy
Utara No.57/BH/X 3. Cold Storage
XII/6/VII/20 (MoU)
15. 4. Saving and
3. NIK : Loan
7505.0100.
4000.2
4. SIUP : ok
5. SITU : ok
6. TDP : ok
7. Ijin HO: ok
8 Pare - Mutiara Kompleks 1. Akte Notaris: T: 544 1. Packaging Operat  Memfasili
Pare Biru PPI/TPI No. 03. House ed tasi
tanggal 6 L: 197 (MOU) penyedia
Cempae
Agustus P: 347 an bahan
Kelurahan 2015 2. (i) Design
pembuat
Watang and Printing
an pakan
2. NIK: No. Servicesm of
Soreang, ikan lele
7372.0300.0 Product
dan
Kecamatan 600.1 Labels, (ii)
pemasar
Soreang. penyediaan
3. RAT an ikan
Information
Pertama (18 lele
Parepare Center (iii)
Mei 2016) dengan
raw material
pengusa
4. RAT Kedua of fish
ha lokal
(23 Agustus process
di
center.
2017) Parepare
3. Marketing dan
Micro Small sekitarny
Medium a.
Enterprise
Product.
4. Facilities of
Aquaculture
9 Makassa Fatima Barukang 1. Akte otaris T: 600 1. Saving and Operat  Dinas
r h Street 3 Lr. No. Loan ed koperasi
544/Perinda L: 50 Kota
Azzahr 3 No. 42 A 2. Processing
a Kelurahan gkopdal/BH/ P: 550 makassa
Pattingaloan III/2008, Tgl 3. Marketing r
g, Ujung
25  Dinas
November Kelautan
Tanah, 2007 dan
Makassar. Perikana
2. PIRT
n Kota
:202737101
Makassa
1304
r
3. BPOM:HK0  Balai
00551640 Pelatihan
Perikana
4. SERTIFIKA

153
 Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

T HALAL: n
060300042 Aezrtemb
81111 aga
Bitung
5. RAT: 6 X
 IWAPI
RAT
Sul-Sel
6. NIK: Dalam  Muslim
proses NU Sul-
Sel
 Assosiasi
Gabunga
n Industri
Rumah
Tangga
dan
Pasar
Modern
Sul-Sel
 Dinas
Kelautan
dan
Perikana
n Prov.
Sulawesi
Selatan
 PT.Perta
mina
Persero
Sul-Sel
10 Kupang Sejahte Marine and 1. Akte Notaris: T. 332 1. Saving and  Sementa
ra Fishery No.27/BH/X Loan Not ra dijajaki
XIX.6/XII.20 L.152 peluang
Bahari Agency of Operat
Kupang 15, Tanggal P. 170 ed untuk
3 Desember kerjasam
2015 a dengan
pihak lain
2. NIK:
5371.0400.7
000.2
3. RAT: Tahun
2016

11 Lombok Bina Beretong,De 1. Akte Notaris: T. 200 1. Saving and - KKK.

Barat Bahari sa Cendi No. 48 l Loan
November L. 113 -
Manik,Sekot 2. Coastal
ong, Lombok 2015 P. 77 Kiosk
Barat. 2. SK Bupati :
No.
03/735/BH/X
XVIII.4/DISK
OP
UMKM/XII/2
015
3. NIK:
1. Not
12 Kubu Asosias Adisucipto 1. Akte No. T: 118 1. Saving andOperat LLL.
Raya i Street, KM 192 . Loan ed
Tanggal 14 L: 92
Masyar 15,2, Desa 2. Commerce 2. The
akat Arang Maret 2016 P: 26 MOU
House
Pesisir Limbung, 2. NIK: Dalam has
Sungai proses 3. Trading of been
Fishery

154
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Raya, Kubu Product signed

3. NPWP:
Raya
76.727.759.
3-704.000

155
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 18: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS

NO TITLE SOURCE/PUBLISHER
A BOOKS
1 Annual Outcome Survey PMO CCDP
2 Result and Impact Management System PMO CCDP
3 Indonesia Coastal Community Development PMO CCDP
Project Experience and Lessons Learned
4 Strategi Pengarusutamaan Gender dalam PMO CCDP
CCDP-IFAD
5 Kelembagaan dan Kemitraan Usaha PMO CCDP
6 ICON Produk Komoditas Unggulan di 12 PMO CCDP
Kabupaten/Kota CCDP-IFAD
7 Sistem Pemantauan dan Evaluasi (MONEV) PMO CCDP
Intensif dan Knowledge Management (KM)
CCDP-IFAD
8 Menyusun Strategi Intervensi Pasar (SIP) di 12 PMO CCDP
Kab./Kota CCDP-IFAD Buku I (Kupang-
Lombok Barat-Kubu Raya)
9 Menyusun Strategi Intervensi Pasar (SIP) di 12 PMO CCDP
Kab./Kota CCDP-IFAD Buku II (Makassar-
Parepare-Gorontalo Utara)
10 Menyusun Strategi Intervensi Pasar (SIP) di 12 PMO CCDP
Kab./Kota CCDP-IFAD Buku III (Bitung-
Ternate-Maluku Tenggara)
11 Menyusun Strategi Intervensi Pasar (SIP) di 12 PMO CCDP
Kab./Kota CCDP-IFAD Buku IV (Ambon-
Merauke-Yapen)
12 Petunjuk Teknis BLM (Bantuan Langsung PMO CCDP
Masyarakat) 2015
13 Petunjuk Teknis Teknologi Sederhana PMO CCDP
Pengolahan Bagi Masyarakat Pesisir 2015.
14 Menuju Kesetaraan Gender pada CCDOP- PMO CCDP
IFAD
15 Highlight of Knowledge Management PMO CCDP
16 Menyejahterakan Masyarakat Pesisir Secara PMO CCDP
Berkelanjutan
17 Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu PMO CCDP
18 Manual Replikasi CCDP PMO CCDP
19 Kabar Baik dari Pesisir PIU CCDP Makassar

B VIDEOS
1 CCDP-IFAD Bangun 3 Kawasan Ekowisata di Metrotvnews.com 26 Mei 2016
Kota Bitung
2 Manfaat CCDP IFAD Bagi Masyarakat Kota Metrotvnews.com 29 Juni 2016
Kupang
3 CCDP-IFAD Tingkatkan Kesejahteraan Metrotvnews.com 28 Juli 2016
Nelayan KubuRaya
4 9 Desa di Kabupaten Gorontalo Utara Terbantu Metrotvnews.com 29 Agustus 2016
Program CCDP IFAD
5 Program CCDP IFAD Tingkatkan Pendapatan Metrotvnews.com 26 Oktober 2016
Masyarakat Kota Ambon
6 CCDP IFAD Tingkatkan Ekonomi Mandiri Bagi Metrotvnews.com 21 November 2016
Masyarakat Maluku Tenggara
7 CCDP IFAD Kembangkan Wilayah Pesisir Metrotvnews.com 24 November 2016
Lombok Barat
8 CCDP IFAD: Merajut Kemandirian Masyarakat Metrotvnews.com 20 Desember 2016
Pesisir Pare Pare

156
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

9 Success Story 2015 PIU CCDP Makassar

10 Beta Pung Carita PIU CCDP Kupang
11 Indonesia Fish Patrol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4AyRvJCA0&feat
ure=youtu.be 24 Mei 2017
12 Indonesia Zero Mix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc3dmIUYrYw&feat
ure=youtu.be 29 Mei 2017
13 Lombok Villagers Beat Proverty with Tortila http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-
Chips and Mangrove environment-livelihoods-wom-idUSKBN18R0KS
31 Mei 2017

C MAGAZINE ARTICLES
1 Melestarikan Kebaikan Bumi National Geographic Traveller Des 2015
2 Menata Destinasi Hutan Amfibi Naional Geographic Traveller Jan 2016 : 88-95
3 Membangun Pesisir Terpadu Berbasis Desa Tempo 7-13 Nov 2016 : 67
4 Turut Membangun Masyarakat Pesisir Samudra Edisi 151 Thn XIV Nov 2016 : 32-33
5 Majalah Poros Maritim December 2016 Edition
6 Sukses Membangun Kesejahteraan Samudera Edisi 172 September Vol XIV 2017
Masyarakat dari Pinggiran

D ONLINE ARTICLES
1 Dilema Kelompok Nelayan di Kodingareng www.Kompasiana.com 18 Mei 2016
2 Optimisme dari Pesisir Lobar www.Kompasiana.com 22 Mei 2016
3 Menabuh Semangat Kolaborasi di Sungai www.Kompasiana.com 04 Juni 2016
Nibung
4 Kadis Djoko tentang Isu Pesisir Laut Kubu www.Kompasiana.com 05 Juni 2016
Raya
5 Pesona Boak dan Masa Depan Oesapa www.Kompasiana.com 11 Juni 2016
6 Ketika Susi Menggelitik Nelayan Kupang www.Kompasiana.com 23 Juni 2016
7 Berbagi Inspirasi di Kubu Raya www.Kompasiana.com 23 Juni 2016
8 Kepak Bangau dari Untia www.Kompasiana.com 30 Juli 2016
9 Andalan Mangga Tiga dari Tanjung Merdeka www.Kompasiana.com 18 Agustus 2016
10 Kian Berdaya di Pesisir Lombar www.Kompasiana.com 2 September 2016
11 Mengurangi Tekanan Pada Perempuan Pare- www.Kompasiana.com 6 September 2016
Pare
12 Lalu Salikin, Sosok di Balik Suksesnya www.Kompasiana.com 13 September 2016
Ekowisata Mangrove Lembar Selatan
13 Upaya Dirjen Pengelolaan Ruang Laut untuk www.Kompasiana.com 29 September 2016
membuat Nelayan Kembali Berjaya
14 Meyer dan Nusantara 12 www.indosianatempo.co 20 Juni 2016
15 Menghela Ekonomi Pesisir di Kota Kasih www.indosianatempo.co 22 Juni 2016
16 Maryam, Nelayan Tangguh dari Air Mata www.indosianatempo.co 24 Juni 2016
17 Anwar dan Harapan Baru Untia www.indosianatempo.co 13 Juli 2016
18 ARB: Kuncinya Komunikasi dan Trust www.indosianatempo.co 20 Juli 2016
19 Nuraeni dan Transformasi Sosial Di Pesisir www.indosianatempo.co 31 Juli 2016
20 Damilah tentang CCDP di Pare-Pare www.indosianatempo.co 24 Agustus 2016
21 Menghidupkan Mutiara Biru di Pare-Pare www.indosianatempo.co 6 September 2016
22 Berbagi Inspirasi di Kubu Raya kazis.blogdetik.com 4 Juni 2016
23 Coaching Clinic Pembudidaya lele di Batu kazis.blogdetik.com 9 Juni 2016
Ampar
24 Rumah Baru George Adoe kazis.blogdetik.com 18 Juni 2016
25 Legislator Makassar Apresiasi CCDP kazis.blogdetik.com 26 Juli 2016
26 Ragam CCDP di Pesisir Bandar Madani kazis.blogdetik.com 7 September 2016
27 Harapan Bupati Rusman pada CCDP-IFAD http://www.denun.net/tag/sungai-nibung/page/2/
28 Demsy: Bantuan Ibarat Baju dan Celana www.denun.net 19 Juni 2017
29 Membangun Komunikasi dan Disiplin www.denun.net 25 Juni 2016
Mengelola Anggaran

157
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

30 Nelayan Wanita, diperkasakan melalui http://www.bharian.com.my/node/285983?m=1

31 Program Pembangunan SosioEkonomi
32 Bupati ini ingin Daerahnya jadi Basis www.kumparan.com
Keamanan Laut Nasional
33 Yuk, ke Gorontalo Utara! Ada Wisata ini ni www.Indopos.co.id
34 Perempuan Pesisir dan Rumah Produksi www.kumparan.com
Katialada
35 Wisata Pesisir, Potensi Terpendam di www.mongabay.co.id
Gorontalo Utara
36 Melanggengkan Harapan Nelayan Langge www.kumparan.com
37 Kehebatan Perempuan Pesisir di Gorontalo www.mongabay.co.id
Utara Mengolah Produk Kelautan dan
Perikanan
38 Menengok Semangat Perempuan Katialada majalahsamudra.com
Mengubah Hidup
39 Di Langge, Cinta Menyatu di Rerimbun www.kumparan.com
Mangrove
40 Puluhan Tukik dilepasliarkan di Gorontalo gorontalo.antaranews.com
Utara
41 Bupati Gorontalo Utara Berharap Program gorontalo.antaranews.com
CCDP IFAD Berlanjut
42 Berharap Program CCDP IFAD diTeruskan nasional.indopos.co.id
43 Spirit Koperasi Indonesia dari Raffeisen hingga www.kumparan.com
Refleksi CCDP
44 CCDP Makassar Terus Melaju di Akhir Masa www.kumparan.com
Proyek
45 Mereplikasi Keunggulan CCDP KKP, kenapa www.kumparan.com
Tidak?

E NATIONAL NEWS
1 Perempuan Penakluk Pesisir Koran Tempo, 1 Oktober 2016 : 9
2 Menuju Happy Ending Koran Tempo, 1 Oktober 2016 : 9
3 Menebar Asa Pesisir Koran Tempo, 27 Oktober 2016 : 24
12 Mengangkat Potensi Lokal Masyarakat Pesisir Koran Tempo, 29 November 2016 : 9
4 Kreasi Camilan Rumput laut dari Maluku Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 31 Okt 2016 : 17
Tenggara
5 Sedap Bergizi Saat Disajikan Sebagai Sayuran Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 31 Okt 2016 : 17
6 "Bolu Kambu Untia" Olahan Bandeng Isi Khas Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 14 Nov 2016 : 17
Makassar
7 Menikmati Sensasi Ikan Aneka Rasa Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 14 Nov 2016 : 18
8 Nuget Tradisional Tumpi-Tumpi Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 14 Nov 2016 : 18
9 Mengukuhkan Perempuan sebagai Penggerak Koran Jakarta -Rona , 19 November 2016 : 13
Ekonomi Pesisir
10 Olahan Ikan Bajabu : Kuliner Khas Bugis Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 21 Nov 2016 : 17
11 Usaha Melestarikan Pangan Langka Koran Jakarta - Culinary, 21 Nov 2016 : 17
13 Wawancara dengan Ir. Sapta Putra Ginting Poros Maritim Nusantara, 28 November 2016
Ph.D., Sekretaris Eksekutif PMO CCDP : www.maritimporosnusantara.com
Evaluasi Komprehensif Jelang CCDP-IFAD
Berakhir
14 Wawancara dengan Kepala Dinas Kelautan Poros Maritim Nusantara, 28 November 2016
dan Perikanan Kota Bitung Ir. Liesje www.maritimporosnusantara.com
Macawalang, MSi : Masyarakat Pesisir Bitung
Telah Diberdayakan Dan Kini Maju
15 Wawancara dengan Kepala Dinas Kelautan Poros Maritim Nusantara, 28 November 2016
dan Perikanan Kabupaten Lombok Barat, www.maritimporosnusantara.com
Achmad Subandi : Berbekal Kejujuran, Kerja
Keras Dan Keterbukaan Kami Dipercaya

158
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

F REGIONAL NEWS
Kupang
1 Tempat Rekreasi Baru Untuk Masyarakat Timor Express-Kupang Metro 15 Feb 2016 : 11
2 Ekowisata Batu Kepala Dikelola Masyarakat Timor Express-Kupang Metro 10 Mar 2016 : 9
3 Tak Hanya Masuk Minimarkert, Produk IFAD Timor Express-Kupang Metro 29 Apr 2016 : hal
juga Laris di Pameran
4 Batu Kepala, Bukti Nyata Program IFAD Timor Express-Kupang Metro 30 Mei 2016 : hal
5 IFAD Bangun Lopo di Nunbaun Delha Timor Express-Kupang Metro 17 Sept 2016 : 11
6 IFAD Bangun Pondok Informasi Timor Express-Kupang Metro 24 Sept 2016 : 10
7 Pemkot Kembangkan Produk Lokal Timor Express-Kupang Metro tanggal : 10
Kubu Raya
1 Sosialisasi Dinas Perikanan Kab. Kubu Raya Newsletter Kubu Raya : Mingguan Corong Rakyat
CCDP I FAD 4/ Tambahan Desa Kalimantan Barat 23-29 Feb 2015 : 5
2 Dinas Perikanan dan Kelautan Kab. Kubu Newsletter Kubu Raya : Mingguan Corong Rakyat
Raya Memberi Bantuan CCSDP IFAD Kalimantan Barat 28-31 Maret 2016
5/Tambahan Desa
3 Berdayakan Masyarakat Pesisir Pontianak Post, 9 September 2016 : hal
4 Mengunjungi Pantai Tengkuyung (bagian-1) Pontianak Post 30 Maret 2016 : 18
Potensi Wisata yang Belum Tergarap
5 Mengunjungi Pantai Tengkuyung (bagian-2) Pontianak Post 31 Maret 2016 : 18
Butuh Peningkatan Infrastruktur Menuju Pantai
6 Kisah Sukses CCDP IFAD Kabupaten Kubu Pontianak Post 9 April 2016 : 18
Raya
7 Pemkab CCDP IFAD Launching Wisata Bahari Pontianak Post 2 Juni 2016 : 18
Makassar
1 DKP3 Makassar Bersama CCDP IFAD Makassar
Kembangkan Ekominawisata Bahari
2 CCDP IFAD Bersma DKP3 Makassar Makassar
Berdayakan Masyarakat di Pesisir
Bitung
1 Ekowisata Mangrove Pintu Kota Bitung - Tribun Manado 11 Juli 2016
Sungguh Menakjubkan
West Lombok
1 Lombar Terbaik Nasional Lombok Post, 28 November 2016
2 Fasilitasi Pengembangan Produk Olahan Lombok Post , 22 Agustus 2016
Perikanan
3 Berbekal Kejujuran, Kerja Keras dan Lombok Post, 18 November 2016
Keterbukaan Kami Dipercaya
4 Beita Penting: Berbekal Kejujuran, Kerja Keras Media Kelautan : Poros Maritim Nusantara
dan Keterbukaan Kami Dipercaya
Southeast Maluku
1 Dorong Produktfitas Nelayan Lewat Pelatihan Kabar Timur. 18 November 2015 : 16 dan 23
Gorontalo Utara
1 CCDP IFAD Berdayakan Ekonomi Masyarakat Gorontalo Post, 19 Novembver 2014
Pesisir
2 CCDP IFAD Bangun Ekonomi Kelautan dan Gorontalo Post, 14 Mei 2016
Perikanan

G CCDP NEWSLETTER (GEMA PESISIR)

1 Joint Review Mission CCDP 2016 Newsletter 1 Ed. Juni 2016, p1
2 Bagaimana Budidaya Ikan Laut Dapat Newsletter 1 Ed. Juni 2016, p4
dikjerjakan oleh Kelonpok Masyarakat Sasaran
CCDP-IFAD
3 Strategi Intervensi Pemasaran Produk Newsletter 1 Ed. Juni 2016, p5
Unggulan di Lokasi CCDP-IFAD
4 Menabuh Semangat Kolaborasi di Sungai Newsletter 1 Ed. Juni 2016, 8

159
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Nvbung
5 Workshop Fasilitasi Kelembagaan Koperasi Newsletter 1 Ed. Juni 2016,10
dan Lembaga Keuangan Mikro (LKM), Bitung,
19-21 Mei 2016
6 Dukungan Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu Newsletter 1 Ed. Juni 2016, 11
(Integrated Coastal Management) dalam
CCDP-IFAD
7 Prestasi CCDP Diapresiasi Masyarakat Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016, 1
Internasional
8 Pokok-Pokok Pikiran Evaluasi Pelaksanaan Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016, 3
dan Perencanaan Tahun Akhir
9 Pengembangan Ekowisata Desa Pesisir Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016, 4
10 Tuna Asap Cair Menjadi Sumber Penghasilan Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016, 6
Baru Masyarakat Pesisir Ambon
11 Juniati dan Kedai Pesisir Cappagalung Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016 , 8
12 Bukti Tulus Tanpa Modus Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016, 9
13 Pesona Boak dan Masa Depan Oesapa Newsletter 2 Ed. Juli 2016 : 11
14 Menyiapkan Keberlanjutan CCDP Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 2
15 Hasil Joint Support Mission Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 4
17 Bersama Koperasi Menuju Gerbang Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 6
Keberlanjutan CCDP
18 Trend Budidaya Air Tawar di Pesisir : Satu Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 8
Fenomena Menarik
19 Buah Eksotisme Pantai Tempuyung Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 10
20 Dari Namosain hingga Nunbaun Deha Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 11
21 Pengakuan dari Weer Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 13
22 Tantangan Menjadi Pendamping Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 14
23 Substansi Pengarusutamaan Gender dalam Newsletter 3 Ed. Ag.-Sept. 2016 : 15
CCDP-IFAD
24 Tujuh Rancangan Peta Jalan Exit Strategy Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 : 2
CCDP
25 Kemitraan Sebagai Kubnci Pemasaran Produk Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Kelompok
26 Aplikasi business dan operational plan dalam Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
CCDP-IFAD
27 Pelajaran dari Lapangan - CCDP-IFAD Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Membangun Ekonomi Masyarakat Kepulauan
28 Tim CCDP di “Sampoerna Expo 2016” Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
29 Substansi Keterpaduan dalam Pembangunan Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Masyarakat Pesisir
30 Dimensi Kesetaraan Gender pada Masyarakat Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Pesisir
31 Festival Pesona Selat Lembeh, Bitung Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
32 Ada Apa di ‘Exhibition and Promotion’ Kota Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Ambon?
33 Perempuan Berdaya - Titik Balik Nuraeni Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
34 Snack Kebanggaan Yulia-Memanfaatkan Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Peluang, Mengapa Tidak?
35 Perjalanan dari Alak ke Fatubesi Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
36 Dari TantanganTransportasi Hingga Dilempari Newsletter 4 Ed.Okt-Nov 2016 :
Bom
37 Senarai Kegiatan PMO di 2016 Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
38 Di Balik Senyum Menteri PPN/Kepala Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
BAPPENAS di Lombok Barat
39 Rencana Kerja Prioritas CCDP 2017 Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
40 Capaian Fasilitasi Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
dan Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir

160
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

41 Empat Indikator Perkembangan Kelompok Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :

Usaha CCDP
42 Gerakan Menabung dan Trend Positif Pokmas Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
CCDP
43 Ekowisata Pesisir, dari Penyu Hingga Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
‘Mangrove Love’
44 Knowledge Management: Hakikat, Capaian Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
dan Harapan Keberlanjutan
45 CCDP dan Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu: Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
Capaian dan Substansi Keberlanjutan CCDP
46 Capaian Pengarusutamaan Gender Pada Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
CCDP
47 Sampai Dimana Capaian Dokumen BP-OP? Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
48 Perihal Indeks Kesetaraan Gender Pada Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
Masyarakat Pesisir di Kota Ambon dan
Kabupaten Maltera
49 Coastal Community Development Project: Newsletter 5 Ed. Desember 2016 :
Loan/Grant Remaining Financial Resource

161
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 1: Detailed Project Data

Table 19 : WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION

Commnuity groups
Total
No Location VWG Infrastructure CBRM Fishing Culture Processing Marketing Saving
Men (M) Women Total (T) Group #
(W) (G) M W T G M W T G M W T G M W T G M W T G M W T G M W T G M W T G

1 Merauke 954 436 1,390 144 49 33 82 15 153 0 153 15 148 7 155 15 496 22 518 51 24 6 30 3 84 368 452 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Yapen 1,186 447 1,633 175 42 33 75 15 138 8 146 15 108 30 138 14 642 83 725 74 187 79 266 28 33 133 166 17 12 45 57 6 24 36 60 6

3 Ternate 1,212 420 1,632 194 67 15 82 17 146 6 152 17 132 20 152 17 837 83 920 107 6 4 10 1 16 208 224 25 7 75 82 9 1 9 10 1

4 Ambon 584 571 1,155 146 55 17 72 13 114 2 116 13 112 2 114 13 297 26 323 49 6 0 6 1 0 87 87 10 0 419 419 45 0 18 18 2

5 Maluku Tenggara 1,428 372 1,800 189 53 27 80 16 149 10 159 16 137 21 158 16 605 80 685 69 484 124 608 61 0 70 70 7 0 20 20 2 0 20 20 2

6 Bitung 1,087 553 1,640 174 51 35 86 17 134 36 170 17 134 36 170 17 652 199 851 86 86 30 116 12 30 197 227 23 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 2

7 Gorontalo Utara 1,446 377 1,823 201 64 25 89 16 125 12 137 16 120 30 150 16 875 31 906 95 107 65 172 18 87 175 262 28 68 39 107 12 0 0 0 0

8 Parepare 729 639 1,368 153 35 25 60 12 104 8 112 12 88 24 112 12 162 40 202 21 163 115 278 30 1 317 318 35 176 90 266 29 0 20 20 2

9 Makassar 1,304 552 1,856 199 45 30 75 15 132 9 141 15 86 62 148 15 676 1 677 69 271 32 303 32 8 375 383 40 86 4 90 9 0 40 40 4

10 Kupang 1,110 695 1,805 209 84 12 96 16 95 13 108 16 246 45 291 16 248 7 255 33 86 52 138 20 50 424 474 55 301 142 443 53 0 0 0 0

11 Lombok Barat 1,682 373 2,055 218 64 11 75 15 134 4 138 15 138 7 145 15 1,044 0 1,044 106 235 28 263 27 43 289 332 34 24 34 58 6 0 0 0 0

12 Kubu Raya 1,351 279 1,630 169 68 12 80 14 140 0 140 14 121 19 140 14 872 18 890 89 123 27 150 15 0 190 190 19 27 3 30 3 0 10 10 1

TOTAL 14,073 5,714 19,787 2,171 677 275 952 181 1,564 108 1,672 181 1,570 303 1,873 180 7,406 590 7,996 849 1,778 562 2,340 248 352 2,833 3,185 338 701 871 1,572 174 25 173 198 20

Average women participation by community groups in CCDP locations

No GroupS # Men Women Total % of Women

1 VWG 181 677 275 952 29%

2 Infrastructure 181 1,563 109 1,672 7%
3 CBRM 180 1,569 303 1,872 16%
4 Fishing 849 7,402 590 7,992 7%
5 Culture 248 1,776 564 2,340 24%
6 Processing 338 352 2,834 3,186 89%
7 Marketing 174 701 871 1,572 55%
8 Saving 20 35 163 198 82%
Total 2,171 14,075 5,709 19,784 29%

162
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Annex 2 Success Stories

NORTH GORONTALO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MANGROVE ECOTOURISM IN LANGGE VILLAGE
“MANGROVE IN LOVE”

Building Langge Village through Mangrove Ecotourism

Prior to the CCDP program, Langge Village was a poor and undeveloped coastal village. In 2015 it
had a small population of 438 consisting of
118 families. Its infrastructure and facilities
were very limited. It did have a mangrove
forest covering ± 40 hectares, which made it a
suitable location for seaweed cultivation and
floating net cage aquaculture. Consequently
about 90% of the main income generating
activities were capture fisheries, cage
aquaculture and seaweed cultivation.
Prior to CCDP’s 2014 arrival, community
members lived simple lives with 70% housed
in semi-permanent buildings (bamboo walls,
earthen floors, no toilets, palm thatch rooves). There was little access to clean water and sanitary
facilities. The village’s social life was very simple.
Coastal Community Economic Development in Langge Village
The North Gorontalo coastal community
development program began in 2013 with
three villages (Katialada, Popalo and
Hutakalo), and in 2014 included other 6
villages (Langge, Tihengo, Buluwatu,
Kikia, Dunu, Imana). Seven more villages
were added in 2016. Village inhabitants
were mostly working as fishers and
aquaculturists. Economic and social life at
the time was not yet very developed or
progressive.
The community empowerment program in
Langge started with CCDP socialization activities. All households working in the marine and fisheries
sectors were invited to learn about the CCDP activities to be implemented, types of assistance
offered, selection criteria for recipients of assistance, commitments needed and responsibilities. The
village government was also requested to cooperate, carry out some supervision duties and to insure
aid to the communities was utilized properly to improve the welfare of Langge village and its residents.
In 2014, eight groups were formed: village working group, infrastructure, community based coastal
resources management (CBCRM) and enterprises (4 capture fisheries, 1 aquaculture). In 2015 three
more groups were created (1 capture fisheries, 1 aquaculture, 1 processing). The groups have
representation from 96 families and are comprised of 43% women.

163
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Mangrove Ecotourism Management in

Langge Village
Mangrove ecotourism activities began in
Langge village in 2015 as a result of
CCDP’s integrated coastal management
(ICM) program, which amongst other
topics highlighted the potential for
development of marine ecotourism. Some
CCDP locations such as PIUs Bitung,
Kupang, Kubu Raya and West Lombok
had already implemented marine
ecotourism activities. The concept was
solidified at a technical assistance meeting at the CCDP Knowledge Management Center in Badung,
Bali which was attended by CCDP’s Project Management Office, Project Implementation Units (PIUs)
and consultants about how to draft ICM plans. A study tour was conducted to visit a mangrove center
in a traditional Badung village. This mangrove center was the forerunner of the idea for mangrove
ecotourism development under CCDP. PIU North Gorontalo was inspired and selected two target
locations for mangrove tourism development - Popalo and Langge Villages.
Langge village was chosen for mangrove ecotourism development because it is easily accessible by
main roads, being located 8 km from the district capital. There is also a wide range of fisheries
activities conducted near the mangrove forest; and the concept fit well with the Village Development
Plan (RPJM)’s goal of managing
coastal resources in an integrated and
sustainable manner.
Based on field observations and
interviews with residents and village
government, it was found that
mangrove trees were mostly utilized for
their wood and branches. Direct uses
are for: (1) boat parts (outriggers); (2)
household firewood, (3) house
construction; and (4) making of stands
for drying of anchovies and seaweed.
Indirect economic uses include: (1)
contiguous 120 meter pier (2) fishing
boat moorings and fishing traps around
the pier (3) seaweed cultivation
activities (weeding and drying) (4).
drying of anchovies and sardines around the mangrove forest and (5) boat workshop activities. Direct
and indirect uses can result in reduced mangrove forest area, affecting aquatic ecosystems needed to
maintain fish populations, protection from abrasion and intrusion of sea water and preserving the flora
and fauna of the mangrove forest.
The high impact of mangrove deforestation
and destructive fishers’ activities threatened
the Langge mangrove forest. In addition,
there is a legal ban on utilization of
mangrove forests and their exploitation by
logging. This set up a conflict between
village economic activities and the law.
Households using the mangrove area faced
the risk of being charged with pursuing illegal
activities. What was needed was a
constructive effort to increase public

164
 Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

awareness about the direct benefits of the mangroves and the negative impact of the prohibited
activities.

Public awareness was undertaken in Langge about mangrove forest management to obtain economic
benefits through marine ecotourism.
Initially it was agreed to build in 200
meter mangrove walkway.
However, some lengths were
canceled because: (1) limited road
access including at the visitors'
parking lot (2) some areas were
close to anchovy drying which could
cause unpleasant aroma, and (3) to
avoid disturbing seaweed drying and
fishing activities. Based on the
consideration that there should be a
collaboration between development
of fisheries economic activities and
the need of the village to utilize the
mangrove for ecotourism activities, it was decided that there should be new pilots to add boat mooring
facilities and integrate better with marine tourism activities. Consequently, it was agreed for the 2016
Village Fund to allocate finance to build connecting road (US$ 7,039 (Rp 95,000,000)) and
construction of additional boat moorings (US$ 14,448 (Rp 195,000,000)) along with CCDP investment
for a 180 meter mangrove walkway, “Mangrove in Love” with 3 gazebos ((US$ 14,817 (Rp.
200,000,000)). To further support mangrove ecotourism, and especially the sustainability and welfare
of the CBCRM Group, mangrove crab rearing cages were built with Appropriate Technology funds of
US$ 5,186 (Rp 70,000,000) and construction of kiosks, guard houses and bathrooms in the form of
houses on stilts over water for US$ 3,704 (Rp 50,000,000).

RECAPITULATION OF CBCRM ACTIVITIES AND BUDGET

Langge Village,North Gorontalo District
No Village Group CCDP Fund Name of Village
Name Name Allocation Group Ordinance
(Rp) Head

2014 2015 2016

1 Langge Jaya Indah Patrol Boat and Mangrove Mangrove 32,500,000 Nuruji Katili
(2014) Surveillance Planting Planting
Equipment
2 Kios 50.000.000

3 Crab 70.000.000
Rearing
4 Ecotourism 200.000.000 Perdes
“Mangrove No :
In Love” 1/2/2017
5 Mangrove Workshop
Planting Illegal
Fishing

165
 Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Government Collaboration – Langge Village becomes an Ecotourism Village

Over the period 2013 to 2017 Langge village has shown sound economic, social and welfare
progress. Coastal community development activities have reached an estimated 90% of the Langge
families involved in marine activities, 12 community groups have been formed consisting of groups for
village working, infrastructure, CBCRM and enterprise (fish capture – 5; processing – 1; aquaculture –
2). Progress has been made increasing fish production, marketing access and availability of drinking
water and sanitation. Visits to “Mangrove in Love” are ever increasing and the local capacity for
coastal resources planning and management is much improved.
The CCDP program overall has changed the local communities’ and government’s mindset. Efforts
are now made to increase fishermen's welfare as measured by increased production, social welfare
(permanent new houses) and development of mangrove tracks. The mangrove walkways are
managed by the CBCRM Group “Jaya Indah” and the Langge Village Government as decreed in
Perdes: 01 / II / 2017 on Management of Mangrove Ecotourism in Langge Village. After the catalyst
of CCDP, Langge Village has begun other development activities with district government (APBD),
village government (Dana Desa) and Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (APBN) funds.
Examples include construction of 40 units of fisher family houses, a 1,000 meter long road, clean
water facilities have been increased to reach 150 families (formerly was only 50), paving 700 meters
of roads leading to “Mangrove in Love” and construction of an additional 300 meters of mangrove
walkways.
As a result of collaboration between CCDP and the village government, significant and
comprehensive changes have been felt across all aspects of community life in Langge village. The
local government has been empowered to build new infrastructure and facilities. Langge Village now
has its main icon of the “Mangrove In Love” Ecotourism site. It is a new destination for North
Gorontalo district government’s "Mangrove Forest Management" community-based ecotourism
program. The site and others like it have had a multiplier effect with others opening kiosks, culinary
services, vehicle parking, entrance fees, wedding related activities. Tourists have come from
international, national, district and local areas. In 2017 up to the end of September 2017, the
recorded the number of tourists who have visited “Mangrove in Love” had reached 15,861 people.

166
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

2017 Visitors to the “Mangrove In Love” Ecotourism Site, Langge Village

Visitors
No Month/2017 Notes
(person)
1 January ± 3000 Periody January includes soft opening
2 February ± 4500 February, busy due to media promotion
3 March 2600 March - September: data from ticket sales
4 April 1750
5 May 850 Notes:
6 June 1240 1. Nasional Holiday, Visitors ± 70-100 people
2. Saturday and Sundays average 50 people/day
7 July 523 3. Workdays average 10-20 people/day
8 August 641 4. Visitors are local (70%), nasional (28%) and foreign (2%)
9 September 757
Total ± 15. 861 Estimated total visitors January-September 2017
Data source: CBCRM Groups "Jaya Indah"

Income Data for the "Mangrove In Love” Ecotourism Site

Visitor
Income
No Month/2017 Total Information
(Rp)
(people)
1 January ± 3000 3.900.000 Parking Fees
2 February ± 4500 5.850.000 Parking Fees
3 March 2600 4.420.000
Income from ticket sales March-September:
4 April 1750 2.975.000 2). Entrance Fess Rp.2000/person
5 May 850 1.445.000 3). Estimated 85 % of visitors pays entrance fees
3). Parking fees do not go to CBCRM Group “Jaya
6 June 1240 2.108.000 Indah”
7 July 523 889.000
8 August 641 1.090.000
9 September 757 1.287.000
10 Total 15.861 14.214.000

Funds generated from entrance fees from January to September 2017 have already amounted to US$
1,053 (Rp 14,214,000). Balanced against this, there is also a need for maintenance activities,
improvements and allowances for CBCRM Group “Jaya Indah” managers. In 2017, the CBCRM
Group had already carried out maintenance in the form of painting, clearing waste and re planting
mangroves. The funds they receive from the “Mangrove In Love” Ecotourism site help to offset costs;
so that at 30 September 2017, the group had a balance of US$ 222 (Rp 3,000,000) in its savings
account.

167
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Success Story # 2
FAJAR JAYA Aquaculture Group
Taman Ayu Village, West Lombok

The Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group represents a unique combination of income generation for poverty
alleviation with environmental improvement. Prior to CCDP’s arrival, the group’s site was an unutilized
expanse of no longer active sand mining pits. No economic activities had been taking place in the
area for over 5 years. A situation referred to in Indonesia as “lahan tidur” – sleeping land. The initial
idea to exploit the unused sand pits was proposed by the landowners during a 2014 CCDP
socialization meeting which was attended by the village head, community leaders and members of the
community at large. After that meeting, the PIU conducted further surveys on the idea’s technical
and social feasibility. The option of reclaiming the land’s economic use through flooding the sand pits
and utilizing the newly created ponds for aquaculture production was verified. The idea was piloted
and catfish and tilapia culture proven technically viable. It was determined that the highest and best
use of the ponds would be for recreational fishing rather than production. This was because
consumers are willing to pay US$ 2.60 (Rp 35,000)/kg to catch fish but only US$ 2.22 (Rp 30,000)/kg
for same fish when not caught by themselves.

With assistance of the district Community Empowerment Consultant and Village Motivator then the
community formed 4 aquaculture groups of which one was the Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group. The
Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group has 9 members of which 3 are women. Before joining the group, the
male members were mostly employed as agricultural day laborers and cattle herders while the women
were housekeepers with no outside sources of income. The group members were provided training in
aquaculture culture, marketing and bookkeeping. Together with the Village Motivator, a proposal for
financial support was drafted. After review and agreement by the CCDP West Lombok PIU, the local
fisheries office and the CCDP West Lombok District Oversight Board, the Group opened a bank
account; and in 2014 received US$ 1,627 (Rp 21,950,000) and in 2015 US$ 1,444 (Rp 19,500,000).
In 2016, the Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group received a special second tranche reserved for excellent
preforming groups of US$ 1,482 (Rp 20,000,000). The second trance was used to buy tilapia fry, fish
feed and finance part of a feed storage building. The Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group supplied more
than an additional 20% of the total investment (US$ 911 equivalent) in the form of materials and labor
to clear the land and improve the ponds and water distribution system. With the cash received, they
purchased fish fry, fish feed, small tools and a pump. At first the ponds relied on tidal water
exchange, but in 2015, the CCDP village infrastructure group helped the Fajar Jaya Aquaculture
Group to develop a water supply and drainage canal with water control gates.

The recreational fishing concept has proven to be a hit and succeeded beyond expectations.
Promotion was by initial invitation of 15 fishing hobbyists, who the spread news of their positive
experiences by word of mouth. The location has since become a very popular local tourist
destination; and is especially busy with families fishing on the weekends. In 2017, on average there
are 37 fishers per day. The rates charged for fishing are set by the group with the recreational fishers
depending on how long the pond will be fished, when the pond was stocked, how often the pond has
been previously fished and the number of fishers per pond.

The formerly unproductive land has been converted into a thriving business. The Fajar Jaya
Aquaculture Group now has an average net income after expenses of US$ 888 (Rp
12,000,000)/month. These profits are utilized for investments, business development and savings.
From the earnings, the group has been able to build a meeting post (US$ 237 (Rp 3,200,000)) in 2016
and partially financed a feed storage building with equipment in 2017. They also save as a group in
the form of cash in the bank and livestock purchase. In 2015 they bought 5 head of cattle for US$
1,386 (Rp 18,750,000), whose value has since doubled. Funds remaining after investments and
group savings are distributed to the membership according to an agreed upon schedule.
Responsibilities are divided amongst the members with most working about half time. Under CCDP,

168
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

the formerly under and unemployed now have an additional cash income. The members report using
their new funds for their children’s education, household repairs and even motorcycle purchase.

The Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group plans for the future include; (i) standard repairs and maintenance
of ponds and water distribution systems; (ii) improved seating arrangements for anglers; (iii) parking
lot improvements; (iv) enhanced gazebos; (v) expanded product line by introducing new fish species;
and (vi) a restaurant to prepare the caught fish. Both the national planning agency, Bappenas and its
local equivalent, Bappeda, have praised the Fajar Jaya Aquaculture Group as an excellent model of a
“win win” situation: improving the environment while helping to alleviate poverty. Both agencies are
recommending that the model be applied to other of Lombok’s degraded sanding mining areas.

169
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Success Story # 3

KAKAP MERAH Capture Fisheries Group

Langge Village, North Gorontalo
“HOPE BECOMES REALITY”

The Kakap Merah Capture Fisheries Group

is located in Langge Village and has 10
members. It focuses effort on catching a
variety of near shore fish including red
snapper, grouper and demersal fish. The
fishers use only simple hand lines. Before
CCDP assistance, the group members were
fishing as individuals but had very low
incomes. On the production side, they
lacked adequate fishing gear, boats and
engines plus their business and marketing
expertise was very limited.
In 2014 CCDP started activities in Langge Village with North Gorontalo Project Implementation Unit
(PIU)’s provision of assistance for socialization, verification, group formation and technical and
business skills. Intensive group facilitation though the project’s Village Motivators sought to empower
the fishers and change their work paradigm to be more business oriented. Better group collaboration
was backed up by support for fishing boats, motors and gear and coaching in non-technical topics like
marketing and bookkeeping. The result was improved catches, better marketing and competition
amongs groups. This, in turn, encouraged more production, increased revenues, social betterment
and an overall improvement in fisher households’ quality of life.
Interventions by CCDP’s North Gorontalo
PIU Village Motivators have succeeded in
building a synergy between CCDP, the
local fisheries agency and fishing
communities. Tools employed have
included: training in technical, financial
and marketing topics, comparative study
tours, provision of funds for boats, motors,
gear and their maintenance/repair and
awareness building. The provision of this
assistance coupled with cooperation and
support of project stakeholders has
Village Motivator, Nurcaya, meeting residents, contributed to an improved quality of
monitoring results and supporting progress in human resources. Perceptions about all
Langge village. elements of fisheries businesses
(production, post-harvest handling/transport, processing, marketing) have changed resulting in
increasing the income and welfare of fisher households.
In 2014, the group received US$ 3,335 (Rp 45,000,000) from CCDP. The funds were divided equally
amongst the members and were used to purchase either boats, engines or fishing gear. Since each
member received only US$ 333.50 (Rp 4,500,000), which represented less than 50% the cost of a
fully outfitted and powered boat, each member themselves made a significant investment in kind. In
2016, the group received a second tranche of funds in the amount of US$ 1,483 (Rp 20,000,000),
which was applied primarily for boat maintenance/repair and to purchase additional fishing gear.
Typically, group members fish as individuals or with a single crew member. However, the group
members all contribute to a joint group savings account from which members can draw funds up to
US$ 185 (Rp 2,500,000) to meet personal needs.

170
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Kakap Merah Fisheries Group data show

Kakap Merah Group Income that between 2013 and 2014 group income
Year Annual Monthly Income grew by 54% to reach a value of US$ 4,149
Income Income Growth (Rp 55,966,000). In 2015, revenue
(Rp) (Rp) (%) increased by a further 22% to reach US$
2013 36.377.965* 3.637.797* - 5,303 (Rp 71,515,800) and by 2016 it was
2014 55.966.100 4.663.842 54% up by another 19% reaching an income of
2015 71.515.800 5.959.650 22% US$ 6,560 (Rp 88,472,900). The increasing
revenue trend shows the impact of the
2016 88.472.900 7.372.742 19%
CCDP program over the period 2013 to
*) income before project intervention
2016. It was brought about as a result of
increased fisherman production and better sales prices from improved marketing. The overall socio-
economic impact has been significant and increased the independence and prosperity of Langge
Village fishers.

Group Member, Mr. Udin Pakaya’s house in 2013 Group Member, Mr. Udin Pakaya’s house in 2017

The positive impact the Kakap Merah Group has on its members and Langge village is quite evident.
In 2013 fishers were very poor and their whole group had an average annual income of only US$ 270
(Rp 3,637,797)/month. As shown in the picture above left, in 2013 group members such as Mr. Udin
Pakaya lived in semi-permanent houses (bamboo walls, earthen floor, no bathroom) with only minimal
furniture, fixtures or assets. Now after CCDP intervention due to his increased prosperity, in 2017 Mr.
Udin Pakaya lives on the house pictured to the right.

171
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Success Story # 4
Ms. Mariyati Ngintan
Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group
Lae Lae Island, Makassar, South Sulawesi

Ms. Mariyati Ngintan is the leader of the Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group, located on Lae Lae Island
about 3 km distant from Makassar City, South Sulawesi. The group was formed in 2016. Before the
IFAD funded Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP), Ms. Ngintan’s spent her time looking
after her home and 4 children while supplementing her fisher husband’s income by baking and selling
cakes in the village. She was able to earn a profit of about US$ 3.70 (Rp 50,000)/day but faced with
limited demand could only sell cakes 3 days per week. Now one year after IFAD CCDP assistance,
on a good month, she can earn a cash income of over US$220 (Rp 3,000,000)/month, a fivefold
income increase. The other 9 members of Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group do even better. They
have moved from being housewives with no cash income to getting an average cash income of
approximately US$100/month for 4 half days work/week. The total average group sales have gone
from zero at inception in 2016 to US$ 3,909 (Rp 52,800,000)/month in 2017 with a total profit of
US$977 (Rp 13,200,000)/month. Funds are distributed on a mutually agreed schedule mostly based
on hours worked. The group members use the added cash income mostly for support of their
children’s education and household repairs. Members are all women; and report being empowered
through improved access to both capital and assets. Their status and role in the household has also
risen commensurate with their increased income contributions.

Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group’s success was due to a combination of efforts by the group itself with
CCDP’s national, district and village support. Well before the group was formed, CCDP, led by
Project Management Office’s Marketing Consultant, Mr. Ansori Zawawi, developed a comprehensive
National Marketing Strategy. Each of the project’s 12 district level Marketing Consultants were trained
in how to apply the National Marketing Strategy. Consistent with the National Marketing Strategy,
CCDP Makassar’s Marketing Consultant, Dr. Ir. Rustam, identified 3 primary commodities and located
appropriate marketing outlets. Only then were the women of Lae Lae Island formed into a 10 member
processing group by CCDP’s Village Motivator, Mr. Sudirman. The Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group
members were provided training in technical topics, marketing and bookkeeping. The group, with
Village Motivator assistance, drafted a proposal for financial support. After review and agreement by
the CCDP Makassar Project Implementation Unit (PIU), Makassar fisheries office and the CCDP
Makassar District Oversight Board, the group opened a bank account; and received US$2,600 (Rp
35,000,000). The Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group supplied an additional 20% of the total investment
(US$ 520 equivalent) in the form of a processing location, materials and labor. With the cash
received, they purchased a generator, a gas range, a blender and other cooking equipment.

Processing began slowly with production of only seaweed crackers. Initially, the group produced and
sold only 3.5 kg/day. Today production has risen by about 6 times to 20 kg/day. Plus the group has
expanded their product line to include fish floss, spicy sauces and seaweed based sweets. Ms.
Ngintan and her group at first sold their products to sales outlets identified by the CCDP PIU. For
example, the Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group was initially assisted in its marketing efforts by the
Cooperative Fatimah Az Zahra and then further training by PIU Marketing Consultant. Ms. Ngintan
was introduced by CCDP to a Makassar based souvenir shop marketing partner and based on her
experience branched out to sell to other souvenir shops. In accordance with the CCDP Marketing
Intervention Strategy, the Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group has attended many exhibitions, where
they display their products and disseminate business cards and promotion materials made with CCDP
support. As a result, direct consumer sales are made often with follow up orders. Sinar Lae Lae
Processing Group’s sales outlets now include a mix of a cooperative, souvenir stores, markets and
individuals. To help penetrate more markets, the group has been assisted by CCDP to obtain both
health and halal certificates.

172
Republic of Indonesia
Coastal Community Development Project
Project completion report
Annex 2: Success Stories

Based on the success of the Sinar Lae Processing Group and Makassar’s other 49
processing/marketing groups, in 2015 the CCDP PIU invested in a marketing boat. The boat is well
suited as a mobile sales outlet for the project’s various processing groups’ products and also has a
restaurant. In fact, it is even able to accommodate credit card purchases. The boat’s operation was
initially organized by PIU Makassar but in management has since been delegated to the Sinar Lae
Lae Processing Group. Typically, the boat is used on weekends when it cruises to nearby tourist
islands and Makassar’s busy Losari seaside. According to Ms. Ngintan with such a strong start, the
Sinar Lae Lae Processing Group is looking forward to ever growing sales and prosperity.

173