Annexes - European Commission - Europa

EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S
SUPPORT TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA
EGEVAL
EQ2 : Protection of coastal belt population
To what extent have Commission interventions contributed to the rehabilitation of
Guyana’s sea defences and ultimately to sustainably protecting the livelihoods and
dwellings of the coastal belt population?
Justification and coverage of the question: Support to sea defences has been a major feature of the
Commission’s cooperation programmes with Guyana since the 4 th EDF and most resources have been
directed towards this in the 8 th and 9 th EDFs. The NIP and CSP justify the large investments in sea defence
structures by the fact that the coastal area (much of which is situated below sea level) houses the majority of
Guyana’s population and sustains much economic activity, in particular rice and sugar cane culture. The main
question pertaining to this highly capital-intensive support relates to the sustainability of the rehabilitated
infrastructures, with particular regard to institutional and financial aspects.
Utility: The question focuses on the effectiveness of the support to sea defence infrastructure and the
sustainability and impact of these infrastructures in the longer term, and also in terms of institutional
improvements.
Criteria: effectiveness, impact, sustainability.
Feasibility: Existing documentation will facilitate adequate coverage of the question relating to sea defences,
including aspects of impact and measures adopted to ensure sustainability. This information will be
complemented by interviews.
Judgment criteria
• JC 2.1 – Commission
interventions were in line
with the CSP/NIP strategy
• JC 2.2 – Commission
intervention has contributed
to the rehabilitation of
Guyana’s sea defences
• JC 2.3 – Commission
intervention has contributed
to the setting up of a
sustainable sea defence
management
and
maintenance system
• JC 2.4 – Commission
support to infrastructure has
enabled the protection of
livelihoods and dwellings of
the coastal belt population
Indicators
• I 2.1.1 – Degree of alignment of the programme’s IL with the IL of
the NIP/CSP
• I 2.1.2 – Discrepancies between the programmes and the strategy
are explicitly justified
• I 2.1.3 – ‘Impact on livelihoods’ of sea defence programmes has
been well formulated and placed in the IL
• I 2.2.1 – Km of sea defences in critical condition rehabilitated by
the Commission interventions as a share of the total no. of km
rehabilitated during the period
• I 2.2.2 – Km of prioritised tranches of sea defences in critical
condition rehabilitated by the Commission interventions as a share
of the total no. of km of prioritised tranches rehabilitated during the
period
• I 2.2.3 – The sea defence infrastructure has been constructed in
accordance to the approved design and technical specifications
• I 2.3.1 – The capacity to monitor water levels in view of flood risks
and conditions at the seafront by local stakeholders.
• I 2.3.2 – Number of contingency plans for higher tide levels
• I 2.3.3 – Sea defence management systems and related staff capacity
have been established and are effective
• I 2.3.4 – Sea defence routine maintenance and repair staff capacity
has been established and is effective
• I 2.3.5 – National budget provision for maintenance and operation
of the sea defence systems
• I 2.3.6 – Evidence of beneficiary - in particular household -
involvement in management and maintenance of the established
structures.
• I 2.4.1 – Evidence that the pursuit of maximum impact on the
livelihoods and dwellings of the coastal belt population has been a
selection criteria in identifying the infrastructures rehabilitated
(studies, public consultations)
• I 2.4.2 – Acreage under cultivation in coastal areas protected
• I 2.4.3 – Number of dwellings in coastal areas protected
• I 2.4.4 - Number of very small enterprises or estimated size of
Final Report – Volume II - Annexes – September 2008 Annex 6/ page 5