COVERNOTE:ThisdraftAdvisoryReviewisfocusedontheextenttowhichtheIndiaHighRangeLandscapeProjectcompliedwithUNDPstandards,andincludesadviceforUNDPindicatingwaysstandardsmightbemet.ItwaspreparedinresponsetoarequestforanAdvisoryReviewfiledbyindividualsintheprojectarea.Theseindividualswereconcernedabouttheproject,andtheUNDPCountryOfficestaffindicatedthatarequestforaReviewwasanoptionavailabletothem.Thereportdoesnotdescribeallopinionsandexpertviewsrelatedtotheproject.Whilesomeintervieweesexpressedconcernsandreservationsaboutthecurrentapproachtotheproject,otherintervieweesexpressedstrongsupportfortheproject.Thisreviewisnotanassessmentofthissupport,orofthebalancebetweenthetwoperspectives.Itisnotareviewofallaspectsoftheproject,butratherfocusesontheconcernsfiledwithSECU.ThefindingsandadviceareprovidedbyanindependententitywithinUNDP’sOfficeofAuditandInvestigations–theSocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnit(SECU)-anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofoperationalmanagementofUNDP.Thedraftisopenforcommentfromanyinterestedstakeholderswhomayhaveinformationtoclarifyaspectsofthedraftbeforeitisissuedasafinalreport.Itisopenforaperiodof20days,closing26August2016.Pleasenote:Thesignatureshavenotyetbeenaddedwhilethereportisindraftform.Signaturebyrelevantindividualswillbeaddedafterthereportisfinalized.

1

UNITEDNATIONSDEVELOPMENTPROGRAMMESocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnit(SECU)OfficeofAuditandInvestigations

IndiaHighRangeLandscapeProject

AdvisoryReviewintoAllegationsofNon-CompliancewiththeSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsandotherRelevantPolicies

RelatingtotheIndiaHighRangeLandscapeProjectintheWesternGhatsofKerala,India

26July2016Draft

CaseNo.SECU0001

2

BasicData

CaseNo. SECU0001

CategoryofNon-Compliance:PrimarilySocial

Location: DelhiandKerala,India

DateComplaintreceived: December,2015

SourceofComplaint: M.P.Mr.JoiceGeorge

Eligibilityassessmentconductedby: AnnePerrault,LeadComplianceOfficer,a.i.

ComplianceOfficerassigned: AnnePerrault,ComplianceOfficer

Otherinvestigatorsassigned: PaulGoodwin,ResearchAnalyst

RelatedCase(s):N/A

Signatures:

Preparedby:

Date:

RichardE.Bissell,LeadComplianceOfficer,SocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnit,OAI

Reviewedby: Date:

BrettSimpson,DeputyDirector,Investigations,OAI

Approvedby: Date:

HelgeOsttveiten,Director,OfficeofAuditandInvestigations(OAI)

3

I. ExecutiveSummary

1. InMay2014,UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),theGovernmentofIndia,andthe

GovernmentofKeralaapprovedtheIndiaHighRangeMountainLandscapeProject(IHRML),AtlasProjectID:00087493andAtlasAwardID:00075746,(theProject)toconservebiodiversityinthehighlybiodiversemountainlandscapeoftheHighRangesintheWesternGhatsofIndia(http://open.undp.org/#project/00075746).TheprojectbudgetisUS$36,275,000,withUS$28,000,000providedbytheGovernmentofIndia,US$6,275,000providedbytheGlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF),US$1,000,000byUNDP-managedsources,andUS$1,000,000providedbytheprivatesector.Theprojectdocument(prodoc)indicatesthattheprojectisa‘DirectImplementation’project–implementedbyUNDP,butwiththenationalMinistryofEnvironmentandForests(MoEF)astheExecutingEntity/ImplementingPartner,andtheKeralaStateDepartmentofForestsandWildifeastheImplementingEntity/ResponsiblePartner.

2. Theprodocreflectsanapparentcommitmenttoincreaseconservationeffortsin84,600additional

hectaresof‘highvaluebiodiversityareas,’andtocreateanewprotectedareasystemin11,650hectaresoftheseareas.Theprodocdoesnotdescribethespecificpossiblelatitudinalandlongitudinallocationsoftheseareasorrestrictionstobeimposed,butinsteadreflectsastrategytocreateacross-sectoralplatform–theHighRangeSustainableDevelopmentSociety(HRSDS)-thatwillinvolveawiderangeofstakeholdersinmakingbothlandscape-levelandsector-levelland-usedecisionsandmonitoringandenforcingsuchdecisions.ItindicatesthatthecompositionoftheHRSDS,andtheprocessthroughwhichdecisionswillbereachedbytheHRSDS,willberesearchedanddecidedwithinthefirstyearofprojectimplementation.DocumentsprovidedbyUNDPstaffdescribefortyfieldvisits,includingthreemeetingswithcardamomfarmers,twomeetingswithtea-estatemanagers,atwo-daymeetingwithtribalcommunitiesinthetribalpanchayatofEdamalakudy,ameetingwithscientists,twomeetingswithforestofficers,andonewiththetourismindustry.

3. InNovemberof2015,IndianParliamentarianAdvocateMr.JoiceGeorgeandcardamomplantersandspicegrowersintheIdukkiDistrictofKerala,filedacomplaintwiththeSocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnitoftheUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammeconveyingconcernsthattheprojectascurrentlydesignedandapprovedwouldsignificantlyadverselyimpactthemandotherlocalcommunities,includingprimarilybyrestrictingtheiraccesstolandandnaturalresourcesuponwhichtheydepend.Intheirview,suchrestrictionswouldresultincommunitydisplacement,create‘conservationrefugees,’andotherwiseadverselyimpacttheirlivelihoods,wellbeing,culturalheritage,andpropertyrights.

4. Theybelieveprojectinformationwasincompleteandinaccurate,andconsultationsandsupportfor

theprojectinadequate.5. InJune2016,theSocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnittraveledtoDelhi,Trivandrum,Munnar,

andKochi,and,basedondiscussionswithUNDPstaff,governmentofficials,complainantsandotherstakeholders,determinedthatdespitesuccessfuleffortsofprojectstafftodetailthesignificantbiodiversityinthewesternGhats,threatstothisbiodiversity,andpossiblemeasurestorespondtothesethreats,shortcomingsoftheprojectdocumenthavecreatedandexacerbatedconcernsofcommunitiespotentiallyimpactedbytheproject.Theseconcernsrelatetoinformationandassessmentofimpacts,aswellasshortcomingsintheconsultationprocess.Theyincludeanuncleardescriptionofdecision-makingprocessesandtheroleofpotentially-impactedindividualsandcommunitiesinidentifyingandagreeingtomeasurestoprotectbiodiversity,aconfusedpictureofdecisionsthathavebeenmadetodateandbywhom,how,andwhenfuturedecisionswillbemade,anincompleteassessmentanddescriptionofriskstoindividualspotentiallyimpactedbytheproject,

4

anincompletepictureofthecontextwithinwhichtheprojectisoccurring,particularlyrelatedtoresource-relatedconflicts,aninadequatenumberofconsultationsandwithinadequaterepresentation,information,anddiscussion,andinsufficientsupportfortheproject.

6. TohelpensureUNDP’scompliancewithitspolicies,SECUmakesthefollowingthree

recommendations:(1) Morespecificallydescribelikelypossiblelocationsofprotectedareasandhighvalue

biodiversityareas.Basedonthisinformation,identify,notify,andengagewithindividualsandcommunitiespotentiallyimpactedbypossiblerestrictions,particularlythroughlocalself-governmentorganizations.Forsuchengagements,provideinformationinlocallanguagesandinaccessible,non-technicalterms.

(2) Performamorecompletescreeningandassessmentoftheprojectforriskstolocalindividualsandcommunities,andensurethatprojectstatementsareadequatelydocumented.

(3) Clarifytherelationshipoftheproposedprojecttopreviousconservationinitiativesaswellastoconflictsrelatedtoland,forests,andothernaturalresourcesintheareatargetedforprotection,particularlytheCardamomHillReserve(CHR)area.

II. OverviewofAdvisoryReviewProcess

7. ForcomplaintsmeetingUNDPcriteriaandapprovedpriorto1January2015,SECUcanprovide

AdvisoryNotestohelpUNDPcomplywithitspolicies.InJanuary2015,SECUdeterminedcriteriaforthecomplaintrelatedtotheProjectweremet:theprojectrelatestoaprojectsupportedbyUNDP,raisesissuesrelatingtoUNDP’scompliancewithitssocialandenvironmentalcommitments,andposesrisksofadverseimpactstolocalcommunities.On29January2016,SECUposteddraftTermsofReference(TOR)forthereviewontheSECUwebsite,andfinalizedtheTOR26February2016.InearlyJune,afterinitialdesk-basedresearch,SECUconductedfieldworkinDelhiandKerala.InDelhi,SECUmetwithUNDP-Indiastaffmembersandrelevantnationalgovernmentofficials.InKerala,SECUtraveledtothestatecapitalofTrivandrumwhereitmetwithrelevantstateministryofficials,UNDPstaff/consultantsinvolvedintheprojectdesignandimplementation,andotherindividualsidentifiedbySECUasreliableandrelevant.AfterTrivandrum,SECUtraveledtoMunnar,thetowninthecenteroftheprojectarea.InMunnar,SECUmetwithmultiplegroupsofcomplainants/stakeholdersandrelevantindividualsandgroupsidentifiedbySECUasreliableandrelevant.AfterMunnar,SECUtraveledtoKochi,atownonthecoastofKerala.InKochi,SECUmetwithrelevantindividualsidentifiedbySECUasreliableandrelevant.InlateJune,SECUpreparedadraftadvisoryreportforpubliccomment.InJuly,thereportwasfinalizedandsubmittedtorelevantUNDPoffices.

III. BackgroundandConcernsthatledtoAdvisoryReview

8. On16December2015,theSocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnit(SECU)oftheUnitedNations

DevelopmentProgrammeregisteredacomplaintfromIndianParliamentarianAdvocateMr.JoiceGeorgeandcardamomplantersandspicegrowersintheIdukkiDistrictofKerala,India,concerningtheUNDP-supportedIndiaHighRangeLandscapeProject-Developinganeffectivemultiple-usemanagementframeworkforconservingbiodiversityinthemountainlandscapeoftheHighRanges,theWesternGhats,India(theProject).

9. InanAugust7,2015lettertoUNDP-GEF,andinasubsequentformalcomplainttoSECU,the

complainantsconveyedconcernsthattheprojectascurrentlydesignedandapprovedwouldsignificantlyadverselyimpactthemandotherlocalcommunities,includingprimarilybyrestrictingtheiraccesstolandandnaturalresourcesuponwhichtheydepend.Intheirview,suchrestrictions

5

wouldresultincommunitydisplacement,create‘conservationrefugees,’andotherwiseadverselyimpacttheirlivelihoods,wellbeing,culturalheritage,andpropertyrights.

10. Theyindicatedaperceptionthattheprojectwilladvancesuchrestrictionsprimarilybysupportinga

shiftinthelegalstatusoflandstheycurrentlyoccupyandusefromoneinwhichmostofthelandsaregovernment-owned‘revenue’landsleasedtofarmers(withsomelandownedbyfarmersthroughpattas),withtreesintheentireareamanagedbytheForestDepartment,tooneinwhichmostofthelandsare‘ForestReserve’landsand/orprotectedareas,ownedandmanagedprimarilybytheKeralaForestDepartment.

11. Throughdocumentssubmittedbycomplainantsandin-personmeetingswithcomplainantsand

otherstakeholders,SECUwasabletodeterminethatcomplainantsbelievepotentialharmsarerelatedto:(1)afailureofUNDPtoensurethatprojectinformation,includinganassessmentofimpacts,wascompleteandaccurate;and(2)thatpotentiallyimpactedcommunitieswerenotadequatelyconsultedandwerenotinsupportoftheproject.

IV. PoliciesIdentifiedasRelevant12. Whentheprojectwasapproved,UNDP’sProgrammeandOperationsPoliciesandProcedures

(POPP)requiredUNDPtomeetlistedsocialandenvironmentalpolicycommitmentsreflectedinthePOPP(SeeAnnex1),andtoscreenandassesstheprojectforpossibleadverseimpactstolocalcommunitiesandtheenvironmentusingUNDP’sEnvironmentalandSocialScreeningProcedure(ESSP).

13. GivenconcernsraisedbycomplainantsandUNDP’ssocialandenvironmentalcommitmentsatthe

timeofprojectapproval-particularlycommitmentslistedinthePOPPto‘ensureeffectiveandinformedparticipationofstakeholdersintheformulationandimplementationofprogrammesandprojects’and‘respectandpromotethehumanrightsprinciplesoftransparency,accountability,inclusion,participation,non-discrimination,equalityandtheruleoflaw,andstandardsderivedfrominternationalhumanrightslaw’–compliancewiththefollowingtwobroadpolicyrequirementswillbeassessedinthisreport:

(1) AdequateInformationandAssessmentofImpacts(2) ConsultationandEffectiveParticipationofStakeholdersinDecision-Making

V. ReviewingCompliancewithPolicies

AdequateInformationandAssessmentofImpacts:ConcernsExpressed

14. ThecomplaintandrelateddocumentssubmittedtoSECUindicatethatcomplainantsfound

informationabouttheprojectlackingandinaccurate.Throughin-personmeetingswithlistedcomplainantsandotherstakeholderssupportingthecomplaint,SECUidentifiedmorespecifickeyconcernsofcomplainantsrelatingtoprojectdocumentation,asfollows:

Incompletedescriptionofareastobeprotected

15. ThecomplainantsnotethattheprojectdocumentappearstoreflectacommitmenttoGEFtocreate

anew11,650hectareprotectedareasystemandtoincreaseconservationeffortsin84,600additionalhectaresof‘highvaluebiodiversityareas,’butfailstoincludethespecificpossiblelatitudinalandlongitudinallocationsofanewprotectedareasystemandhighvaluebiodiversityareas.Anannex(Annexure17:ListofHighValueBiodiversityAreastobeAddedtoPASystem),indicatesonlythenumberofhectaresofhighvaluebiodiversityareaswithineachForestDivision,thenumberofthese

6

hectarestobeaddedtoeachexistingprotectedareaforanewprotectedareasystem,andthenameoftheexistingprotectedareatowhichtheadditionistobemade.Specificlocationsarenotprovided.

Incompletedescriptionofindividuals/communitiesthatmightbeimpactedbyprojectandhowtheymightbeimpacted

16. Thecomplainantsindicatethatparallelingthelackofinformationrelatingtopossiblelocationsof

thenewprotectedareasystemandhighvaluebiodiversityareasisaninadequatedescriptionofindividualsandcommunitiesthatmightbeimpactedbythisnewprotectedareaandmeasurespursuedinhighvaluebiodiversityareas.Complainantsnotethattheycannotdeterminewho,specifically,maybeimpactedbyproposedmeasures,and,inturn,thepossibleextentofimpacts.Theynoteadearthofinformationrelatingtospecificimpactstogrowers,farmers,andothers,e.g.,employmentimpacts,economiccosts,mentalandemotionalchallenges,impactstorevenuestotheareathroughreducedtrade.Theyalsobelievetheprojectdocumentseekstodownplayimpactsbyunderestimatingpopulationsizeperhectare,particularlyintheCardamomHillReserve.

Inaccuratedescriptionofthelegalstatusoflandswithintheproposedprojectarea

17. Complainantsbelievetheprojectdocumentprovidesaninaccuratedescriptionofthelegalstatusof

landswithintheprojectarea,particularlytheCardamomHillReserveArea,andthatthisinaccuratedescriptionisanattempttosupportapositionthatislegallydisputed.Theybelieve,forexample,thatthefollowinglanguageinparagraph9onpage10,‘TheCardamomHillReserve(CHR),eventhoughnotifiedasaReservedForestin1897withanareaof865km2,hasonlyamarginalportionunderexclusiveconservationregimes(e.g.,MathikettanNationalPark);therestbeingproductionareasundervariedlanduse–fromsmalltownslikeKattappanaandNedumkandomthroughcardamomestatestoforestedrevenuelands’isintendedtosupportthepositionthatmostlandsinCHRare‘forestreserve’landsandnotrevenuelands.ComplainantsbelievesuchapositionwouldmeantheareaisalreadysubjecttostrictermanagementbytheKeralaForestDepartment(KFD).

Inaccuratedescriptionofthreats

18. Complainantsobjecttotheprojectdocument’sdescriptionofthreatstobiodiversityposedby

agriculturalpractices.Morespecifically,forexample,complainantsdisagreewithassertionsthatcardamomfarmersareusingnewvarietiesofcardamomthatneedmoresunlightandrequireremovalofforestcanopy.Theyalsodisagreewiththeprojectdocument’simplicationsofexcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizersandpesticidesinteaandcardamomsectors.Theprojectdocumentnotes,forexample,that‘thelong-termimpactsandchallengesofintensiveagronomicpractices,(e.g.,excessiveuseofchemicalfertilizersandpesticides)inteaandcardamomsectorscanopyopeninginCHR,…needtobeunderstoodindetailandtranslatedforlocalguidanceforlanduseplanning.’(para.62)

Excessivelytechnicalandinaccessibleprojectdocument

19. Complainantsadditionallyfindthedocumenttootechnicallydifficulttounderstandandinaccessible

duetothefactthatitisnotavailableinalanguageotherthanEnglish.Manyofthefarmersandotherstakeholdersspeakprimarily,oronly,inlocallanguages,includingMalayalam,theprincipallanguageofthestateofKerala.

Inadequateattentiontodevelopmentneedsrelativetoconservationneeds

20. Complainantsexpressabeliefthattheproject’sprimaryorientationistowardconservation,without

adequateattentiontothelivelihoodneedsoflocalcommunities.

7

21. AdequateInformationandAssessmentofImpacts:Findings22. SECUfindsthattheseconcernsofcommunitiesrelateto,andareexacerbatedby,thefollowing

shortcomingsoftheprojectdocumentwithrespecttoinformationandassessmentofimpacts:

Uncleardescriptionofdecision-makingprocess23. Theprojectdocumentdoesnotprovideacleardescriptionoftheroleofpotentially-impacted

individualsandcommunitiesinidentifyingandagreeingtomeasurestoprotectbiodiversity,includingidentifyingandagreeingtoanewprotectedareasystem,highvaluebiodiversityareas,andpossiblerestrictionsintheseareas.

24. Instead,itprovidesaconfusedpictureofwhathasbeendecidedalready,andbywhom,how,and

whenfuturedecisionswillbemade.25. Regardingwhathasbeendecidedalready,forexample:Theprojectdocumentreflectsanapparent

commitmenttoestablishanewprotectedareasystemof11,600hectares,butinexplicablyfailstoprovideanunderstandingofpossiblespecificlocations.Likewise,thereseemstobeafirmcommitmenttomodifyhowresourcesareusedin84,600hectaresofhighvaluebiodiversityareas,butwithoutaclearunderstandingofpossiblelocationsoftheseareas.Itisunclearifthesecommitmentsarenotfirmandthespecificnumbersofhectaresareaspirations,orifthecommitmentisrelativelyfirmandareasgenerallyknown,butpossiblelocationssimplynotspecified.

26. RegardingfuturedecisionsrelatingtorestrictionsonactivitiesinprotectedareasandHVBAs:

Severalprojectdocumentprovisionsreflectadesiretoensurethatpotentially-impactedcommunitiesparticipateeffectivelyinthesedecisions.AndUNDPandprojectstaffinin-personmeetingslikewiseindicatedthattheprojectcommitmenttoestablishanewprotectedareasystemandadoptconservationmeasureswithinHVBAsinexchangeforGEFfundsdoesnotnecessitateanimpositionofrestrictionsoncommunities.Theynotedthatcommunity-accepteddecisionsrelatingtoprotectionmeasurescanandwilloccurnowthattheprojectisapproved,includingthroughanewformalinstitutionalplatform,theHighRangeSustainableDevelopmentSociety(HRSDS).

27. However,theprojectdocumentprovidesaconvolutedpictureof(1)whetheragreementon

restrictionsisnecessaryformovingforward,i.e.,thedocumentreflectsadesireforagreementon‘prescriptions’onlandusewhilealsoindicatingawillingnesstomoveforwardwithprescriptionsevenintheabsenceofagreement,and(2)howpotentially-impactedindividualsandcommunitieswouldparticipateinthesedecisions,includingthroughtheHRSDS.

28. Outcome1,forexample,indicatesthattheprojectwill‘putinplaceacross-sectoralland-use

managementframework,compliancemonitoringandenforcementsystemtoensurethatdevelopmentineconomicproductionsectorsarecongruentwithbiodiversityconservationneeds…..’Thisland-usemanagementframeworkwillbeginwithaLandscapeLevelLandUse(LP)planandsector-plansthat‘cumulativelyshallseektobalancebiodiversityneedsandproductionobjectivesby:a)improvingthemanagementofexistingPAs;b)identifyingareasofhighvaluebiodiversitytobeaffordedhigherprotectionstatus;andc)prescribeappropriatelandusesandmanagementpracticesintheadjacentproductionlandscape.Further,thiscomponentwillenableevolutionofadedicatedmulti-sectorlandscapelevelinstitutionalplatformforensuringsectoralcompliancewithLandscapeandSectorPlanprescriptions.’(para.171)

29. Whileindicatinganintentionfortheprojecttoadvancea‘proactiveengagementapproach’with

productionsectors,e.g.,encouragingthesesectorstofactorbiodiversityconsiderationsintotheir

8

operations,thedocumentalsodescribesthattheprojectis‘partlyaboutgivingtheappropriate‘push’byenshriningthisthinkinginthelegalandpolicyframework.’(para.168)

30. ThefinalversionoftheEnvironmentalandSocialScreeningSummary(signedbySrinivasanIyer,

AssistanceCountryDirector&Head-EEU-UNDP-India,on7August2013)appearstoreflectthetensionbetweenaneedforagreementandaneedtoensurethatmeasurestoprotectbiodiversityareimplemented.

31. TheSummaryacknowledgesthattheprojectwill,throughvariousplans,dictatelandusepermitting

decisionsandrestrictchoicesregardinglanduse.Andwhileitnotesthattheproject’ssolutionforavoidingimpactstorightsassociatedwiththeprocessofidentifyingandimposingsuchrestrictionsistheHRSDS,italsoobservesthatrightscouldbe‘halted’and,inthisinstance,theprojectwouldidentifyalternatives‘incloseconsultation’withcommunities.

32. Thissummarystates,‘Landtenureissues:theelaborationofthelandscapelevellanduseplanwill

inadvertentlyaffectthelandusepatternsintheprojectlandscape,attheleastinsofarastheplanwilldictatelandusepermittingdecisions.Inadditionthedecisionsonsettingasideareasforbiodiversityconservationwillalteraccessandrightsofdifferentstakeholdersinthearea,inparticularthoseoflocalcommunities.Thesewillalterthepatternofresourceuseandtheabilitytoputtheirlandtolandusesoftheirchoice.’

33. Thesummaryadditionallynotes,“TheprojectwillthroughtheHRSDS,amulti-sectoralcollaborative

coordinationmechanism,ensurethatlanduseplanningandpermittingdecisionstakenareacceptabletoallandimportantlythattheypreservethesecurityofaccess/userightsoflocalcommunities.Whereitisnecessarytohaltthoserightsincriticalareas,theprojectwillidentifyalternativeareasoralternativesandpromotethemincloseconsultationwithcommunities.’

34. Theintentiontoavoidimpactstorightsofpotentially-impactedindividualsandcommunities

throughthismechanismisnotedandclear.However,themeansthroughwhichthismechanismwillactuallyavoidormitigatesuchimpactsismuchlessclearintheprojectdocument.

35. ThefollowingprojectdocumentprovisionsdescribetheHRSDSasaplatformthatwillinvolveall

possiblestakeholdersinmakingbothlandscape-levelandsector-levelland-usedecisions,aswellasmonitorandenforcesuchdecisions.ButhowHRSDSwillbecomposedandreachdecisionshasnotyetbeendecided.Eventheresearchtoinformthecompositionanddecision-makingprocessofHRSDShasyettobeundertaken.

36. Thedocumentnotes,‘TheproposedHRSDSwillhaverepresentationfromrelevantgovernment

agencies(DepartmentofForests,Revenue,Tourism,Agriculture,Industries,ElectricityBoardetc.);LocalSelfGovernments;privatesector(representativesofkeyproductionsectors–tea,cardamometc.);communities(functionariesoftraditionalcommunityinstitutions,Kudumbasree,EDCs,JFMCs,CRC,BMCs,agricultureassociations,commerceandtradeorganizations);researchinstitutions(e.g.,KFRI,PeriyaFoundation,CardamomResearchStationetc.)andrepresentativesofNGOs(e.g.HRWEPA,WWF,WTI,etc.)TheprimarymandateofHRSDSwillbetoprovideforaformalinstitutionalplatformbywhichgovernmentpolicies,programsandresources,aswellasnon-governmentactivitiescanbebettermobilized/channeled/harmonizedtoensurethelong-termsustainableuseofresourcesinHRML,evenwhileindividualsectorscontinuetopursueownsectorobjectives….Aseniorlevelofficer(atleasttherankofChiefConservatorofForests/Secretarytostategovernment)mayheadthisinstitution.’(para.192)

37. “AsapreparatoryprocesstotheformationofHRSDS,anassessmentwillbeconductedofexisting

internationalandnationalexperiencewithsuchinstitutionalmechanismstoarticulateissuessuchasmandate,operatingprinciples,bye-laws,andrules…Theassessmentwillbefollowedbyextensive

9

consultationsatvariouslevelsinvolvingstakeholders(government,community,academia,civilsocietyetc.)andtheSocietywillbeestablishedthroughaGovernmentOrderwithinthe1styearoftheproject.HRSDSwillbeacross-sectoralplatformwithenoughconveningpowerrepresentingvariousstakeholdersinthelandscape….TheSocietywillalsohavethemandateofcompliancemonitoringofsectoraloperationsthathaveabearingonbiodiversity.Towardsthis,HRSDSshallbevestedwithappropriatepowersundertheEnvironmentalProtectionAct,1986.Further,theSocietywillalsodevelopafinancialsustainabilitystrategyforpost-projectfunctioning.(para.193)

38. Thenot-yet-createdHRSDSisapparentlyintendedto‘anchor’theland-usemanagementframework

fortheproject,includingtheLandscapeLevelLandUsePlan,which‘willprovidearoadmapforstreamlininglandusethusavoiding,reducing,and/ormitigatingimpactsfromphysicaldevelopmentinmajorproductionsectors….’(para.181)andsector-levellanduseplans,whichwillbeunder‘theumbrellaoftheLandscapePlan.’

39. Thedocumentdoesnotdetail,specifically,howtheLandscapePlanorsector-levelplanswillbe

developed–includingbywhom,orthroughwhattypeofconsultationprocess,etc.Itnotesgenerally,‘ThepreparationoftheLPwillbeanchoredwithintheproposedHighRangeSustainableDevelopmentSociety(HRSDS)….basedonextensiveconsultationswithgovernment,researchinstitutionsandlocalcommunitiessothatapragmaticandeffectiveconservationstrategyisprepared.Particularemphasiswillbeplacedonstrategiesthatdonotcompromiselocallivelihoodsandeconomicproductionbutrathersupporttherightsoftraditionalcommunitiesandothersustainableproductionandconsumptionpracticesintheregion.TheLandscapePlanwillbemore‘enabling’ratherthan‘restrictive’innaturewithclearshortandlong-termgoalsforthelandscape.AfterobtainingtheconcurrenceoftheHRSDS,thePlanshallfinallybeplacedbeforetheStateGovernmentforitsapproval.’(para.185)

40. Althoughthedocumentdescribesthat‘conservationsectorandkeyproductionsectors(e.g.,tea,

cardamom,tourism,etc.)willdevelop/reviseSectorPlans(SPs)thatoutlinesector-specificbiodiversity-friendlypracticesforintegrationintorespectivesectoraloperations’(para.186),italsoindicates‘SPswillbepreparedbytechnicalexpertsafterextensiveconsultationswithrespectivestakeholders.PreparationofSectorPlanswouldfollowarigorousscientificprocessanchoredstronglyinparticipatoryapproaches.TheHRSDSincloseassociationwiththerespectivesectorsshallspearheadthepreparationoftheSPs.AfterobtainingtheconcurrenceoftheHRSDS,theSPsshallfinallybeplacedbeforetheconcernedSectoralDepartmentforapproval.’(para.190)

41. Theprojectdocumentreflectsanapparentcommitmenttolanduseprescriptionsinprotectedareas

andhighvaluebiodiversityareasandahighlikelihoodthatindividualsinproductionsectorswillfaceincreasedrestrictionsrelatingtolandandresourceuse,butalsouncertaintyrelatingtotheprocessthroughwhichtheseindividualscanparticipateindecisionsrelatingtotheserestrictionsandpossibleadverseimpacts.

Incompletedescriptionofrisks

42. Theprojectdocumentdoesnotincludeafullandaccurateassessmentofriskstolocalcommunities

andtheenvironment.Thisshortcomingrelatespartlytothelackofinformationdescribedabove,i.e.,itisdifficulttoassessrisksfullyifoptions/alternativeshavenotbeendescribedclearly.Itrelates,aswell,however,totwootherfactors:(1)incompleteapplicationofUNDP’sEnvironmentalandSocialScreeningProcedure(ESSP)–atoolthroughwhichUNDPendeavorstomeetitsobligationstoseektoavoidharmtocommunities,individuals,andtheenvironment;(2)incompleteincorporationintotheprojectdocumentofresultsoftheESSP.

10

43. Asrequired,UNDPappliedtheEnvironmentalandSocialScreeningProceduretoprojectactivities.Indeed,itappliedtheESSPtwice–oncefortheProjectInformationForm(PIF),andthesecond(alsoquotedandcitedabove)duringtheProjectPreparationGrantphaseoftheproject.

ScreeningChecklist-Issues

44. ForbothapplicationsoftheESSP,responsestotheScreeningChecklistwerethesame.Relevant

sectionsofthescreeningchecklistwithresponses,includingboththe‘yes’and‘no’responses,areincludedbelow.Severalquestionscorrectlyreceiveda‘yes’response,indicatingpossibleenvironmentalandsocialimpacts.Forsomequestions,however,the‘no’responsedoesnotappeartocorrespondtoprojectdocumentinformationand/orinformationfromothersources.Theseincludequestions4.3,4.6,5.2,and8.2.

11

4.SocialEquityandEquality

4.1Wouldtheproposedprojecthaveenvironmentalandsocialimpactsthatcouldnegativelyaffectindigenouspeopleorothervulnerablegroups?

Yes

4.2Istheprojectlikelytosignificantlyimpactgenderequalityandwomen’sempowerment?

Yes

4.3Istheproposedprojectlikelytodirectlyorindirectlyincreasesocialinequalitiesnoworinthefuture?

No

4.4Willtheproposedprojecthavevariableimpactsonwomenandmen,differentethnicgroups,socialclasses?

Yes

4.5Havetherebeenchallengesinengagingwomenandothercertainkeygroupsofstakeholdersintheprojectdesignprocess?

Yes

4.6Willtheprojecthavespecifichumanrightsimplicationsforvulnerablegroups?

No

5.Demographics

5.1Istheprojectlikelytoresultinasubstantialinfluxofpeopleintotheaffectedcommunity(ies)?

No

5.2Wouldtheproposedprojectresultinsubstantialvoluntaryorinvoluntaryresettlementofpopulations?Forexample,projectswithenvironmentalandsocialbenefits(e.g.protectedareas,climatechangeadaptation)thatimpacthumansettlements,andcertaindisadvantagedgroupswithinthesesettlementsinparticular.

No

5.3Wouldtheproposedprojectleadtosignificantpopulationdensityincreasewhichcouldaffecttheenvironmentalandsocialsustainabilityoftheproject?Forexample,aprojectaimingatfinancingtourisminfrastructureinaspecificarea(e.g.coastalzone,mountain)couldleadtosignificantpopulationdensityincreasewhichcouldhaveseriousenvironmentalandsocialimpacts(e.g.destructionofthearea’secology,noisepollution,wastemanagementproblems,greaterworkburdenonwomen).

Yes

6.Culture

6.1Istheprojectlikelytosignificantlyaffecttheculturaltraditionsofaffectedcommunities,includinggender-basedroles?

Yes

6.2Willtheproposedprojectresultinphysicalinterventions(duringconstructionorimplementation)thatwouldaffectareasthathaveknownphysicalorculturalsignificancetoindigenousgroupsandothercommunitieswithsettledrecognizedculturalclaims?

No

6.3Wouldtheproposedprojectproduceaphysical“splintering”ofacommunity?Forexample,throughtheconstructionofaroad,powerline,ordamthatdividesacommunity.

No

12

8.Socio-Economics

8.1Istheproposedprojectlikelytohaveimpactsthatcouldaffectwomen’sandmen’sabilitytouse,developandprotectnaturalresourcesandothernaturalcapitalassets?Forexample,activitiesthatcouldleadtonaturalresourcesdegradationordepletionincommunitieswhodependontheseresourcesfortheirdevelopment,livelihoods,andwell-being?

Yes

8.2Istheproposedprojectlikelytosignificantlyaffectlandtenurearrangementsand/ortraditionalculturalownershippatterns?

No

8.3Istheproposedprojectlikelytonegativelyaffecttheincomelevelsoremploymentopportunitiesofvulnerablegroups?

No

9.Cumulativeand/orSecondaryImpacts

9.1Istheproposedprojectlocationsubjecttocurrentlyapprovedlanduseplans(e.g.roads,settlements)whichcouldaffecttheenvironmentalandsocialsustainabilityoftheproject?Forexample,futureplansforurbangrowth,industrialdevelopment,transportationinfrastructure,etc.

Yes

9.2Wouldtheproposedprojectresultinsecondaryorconsequentialdevelopmentwhichcouldleadtoenvironmentalandsocialeffects,orwouldithavepotentialtogeneratecumulativeimpactswithotherknownexistingorplannedactivitiesinthearea?Forexample,anewroadthroughforestedlandwillgeneratedirectenvironmentalandsocialimpactsthroughthecuttingofforestandearthworksassociatedwithconstructionandpotentialrelocationofinhabitants.Thesearedirectimpacts.Inaddition,however,thenewroadwouldlikelyalsobringnewcommercialanddomesticdevelopment(houses,shops,businesses).Inturn,thesewillgenerateindirectimpacts.(Sometimesthesearetermed“secondary”or“consequential”impacts).Oriftherearesimilardevelopmentsplannedinthesameforestedareathencumulativeimpactsneedtobeconsidered.

No

45. RegardingQuestion4.3,‘Istheproposedprojectlikelytodirectlyorindirectlyincreasesocial

inequalitiesnoworinthefuture?’itappearsdifficulttoreconcilea‘no’responsewith‘yes’responsestothefollowingquestions:“8.1Istheproposedprojectlikelytohaveimpactsthatcouldaffectwomen’sandmen’sabilitytouse,developandprotectnaturalresourcesandothernaturalcapitalassets?...”and“4.1Wouldtheproposedprojecthaveenvironmentalandsocialimpactsthatcouldnegativelyaffectindigenouspeopleorothervulnerablegroups?”Positiveresponsestothelatterquestionssuggestthatatleastcertaingroupswouldnothavethesameaccesstheycurrentlyenjoyto‘naturalresourcesandothernaturalcapitalassets’and/orwillbeadverselyimpactedbyprojectactivities.Itispossible,perhapsevenlikely,giventhesepossibleimpacts,thatprojectactivitiescouldincreaseinequalitiesintheabsenceofmitigationmeasures.

46. Projectstaffmayhaveinappropriatelybasedtheir‘no’responsestothesequestionsonassumptions

theprojectonceimplementedwouldbeanetpositive.Thatis,projectbenefitssuchasotheremploymentopportunitiesforcardamomgrowers,wouldaddressexistingandfuturerisksexternaltotheproject,suchasreducedorfluctuatingmarketpricesforcardamom.Theprojectdocumentheavilyemphasizestheseexternalriskstocardamomandspicegrowers,andprojectmeasuresthatwouldbenefitthesegroupsinlightoftheserisks.Itnotes,forexample,‘Cardamomindustryishighlypronetopersistentmarketrisksandfailuresalongwithincreasingcostofproduction…Marketsshow

13

vastfluctuationsthatspreadsignalsofdistressanduncertaintyinthesector….’Thereportdescribeshowprojectcapacitybuildingactivitiescouldhelptheindustry.

47. Theproject’sattentiontosuchexternalrisksmaywellbeusefulforthesecommunities.However,

risksposedtocommunitiesintheabsenceofmitigationmeasuresorprojectresultsmustalsobeexaminedandexploredwithcommunitiespotentiallyimpacted.

48. A‘no’responsetoQuestion4.6‘Willtheprojecthavespecifichumanrightsimplicationsfor

vulnerablegroups?’similarlyappearstoconflictwithaffirmativeresponsestootherquestions.A‘yes’responsetothefollowingquestions:4.1Wouldtheproposedprojecthaveenvironmentalandsocialimpactsthatcouldnegativelyaffectindigenouspeopleorothervulnerablegroups?,4.2Istheprojectlikelytosignificantlyimpactgenderequalityandwomen’sempowerment?,6.1Istheprojectlikelytosignificantlyaffecttheculturaltraditionsofaffectedcommunities,includinggender-basedroles?and8.1Istheproposedprojectlikelytohaveimpactsthatcouldaffectwomen’sandmen’sabilitytouse,developandprotectnaturalresourcesandothernaturalcapitalassets?,pointtothepossibilitytheprojectwillhavespecifichumanrightsimplicationsforvulnerablegroups.Humanrightsimplicatedby‘yes’responsestothesequestionsinclude,forexample,therighttoproperty,therighttoculture,therighttolivelihood,therighttobefreefromallformsofdiscrimination,amongotherrights.

49. RegardingQuestion5.2‘Wouldtheproposedprojectresultinsubstantialvoluntaryorinvoluntary

resettlementofpopulations?Forexample,projectswithenvironmentalandsocialbenefits(e.g.protectedareas,climatechangeadaptation)thatimpacthumansettlements,andcertaindisadvantagedgroupswithinthesesettlementsinparticular’theprojectdocumentreflectsanintenttoexpandprotectedareasbynearly11,600hectares,andincreaseprotectionsinhighvaluebiodiversityareasofmorethan84,600hectares.Asindicatedearlier,asignificantshortcomingoftheprojectdocumentisthelackofinformationrelatedtowheretheseincreasedprotectionscouldoccurandwhomightbeimpacted.Thesummarydoesindicate,however,thatlandusepatternsandaccesstoresourceswillbealtered.Ifrestrictionsonusearesignificant,including,forexample,iftheyoccurwherefarmersandgrowersandotherlocalcommunitiesliveoruseresourcesfortheirlivelihood,theserestrictionscouldcompelcommunitiestomove.Alternatively,restrictionsmayleadtoeconomicdisplacement,which,whilenotclearlycoveredinquestion5.2,iscoveredunderquestion4.6(viaconcernsrelatedtorightsnotedaboveandothers).Thesignificantomissionofinformationrelatedtopossiblelocationsofprotectedareasandlanduserestrictionsconstrainsanabilitytoanswerthisquestionaccurately.Screeningresultswillremaininadequatewithoutthisinformation.

50. The‘no’responsetoQuestion8.2‘Istheproposedprojectlikelytosignificantlyaffectlandtenure

arrangementsand/ortraditionalculturalownershippatterns?’appearsinconsistentwithprojectinformation.Asnotedinthepreviousparagraph,thefinalEnvironmentalandSocialScreeningSummaryprovidesacknowledgementthattheprojectwillimpairabilitiesto‘putlandtolandusesoftheirchoice.’Thiscouldsignificantlyaffectlandtenureand/ortraditionalculturalownershippatterns.

51. Whataretheimplicationsof‘no’responsestothesequestionsanddeficienciesintheEnvironmental

andSocialScreeningSummary?Screeningquestionspromptconsiderationofallanglesofpossibleimpact.Whentheseanglesarenotacknowledgedrisksgounexamined.Ifrisksaremissed,thechecklistmayincorrectlypointtoaneedforalowerlevelofassessmentthanactuallyrequired.Inthisinstance,‘yes’responsesto8questions,andnotjust4,moreclearlyindicateaneedforarobustassessmentofpotentialimpacts.

EnvironmentalandScreeningSummary-Issues

14

52. AnEnvironmentalandScreeningSummaryshouldbrieflydescriberisksidentifiedinthechecklist,thepossiblesignificanceoftheserisks(asreflectedintheriskcategorychosen)andnextsteps–includinginparticularanyadditionalreviewnecessaryandhowtoapproachthisreview.AsnotedintheEnvironmentalandSocialScreeningProcedureforUNDPProjectsGuidanceNote(2012),‘Theoutcomeoftheenvironmentalandsocialscreeningprocessistodetermineifandwhatenvironmentalandsocialreviewandmanagementisrequired.”(Guidance,pg.3)

53. ThesummaryfortheIndiaprojectimportantlynotesmostkeyriskschecked‘yes’inthechecklist–

includinglandtenureissues,rightsoftribalgroups,andgenderequalityissues.However,itdoesnotclearlydescribetheserisks,notethepossiblesignificanceoftherisks,ordescribehowtheseriskswillbefurtherreviewedandassessed.

54. Forexample,whileabriefparagraphon‘rightsoftribalgroups’acknowledges‘impactsthatcould

negativelyaffectindigenouspeopleorothervulnerablegroups’andanotherparagraphon‘landtenureissues’reflectsthat‘decisionson…conservationwillalteraccessrights’thesummaryfailstoprovideanyadditionaldetail.Itfailstodescribe,forexample,howmanytribalcommunities/individualsmightbeimpacted,wheretheseimpactscouldoccur,howaccessmightberestrictedandhowlikelythisistooccur,etc.Thepotentialsignificanceoftheimpactsandrisksare,therefore,impossibletoascertain.Theparagraphsdonotclearlyindicatethatanyadditionalrevieworassessmentofthesepotentialimpactstotribalcommunitieswilloccurpriortoapprovaloftheproject.Instead,thesummarysuggeststhatafterprojectapprovaltheprojectwill‘workondevelopingaresourcegovernanceapproachthatwilleffectivelyimplementtribalpeoplesforestrightsundertheForestRightsAct(FRA)….and‘anypotentialriskthatmayarisethatcouldthreatentheirtraditionandcultureasaresultofthemanagementmodelwillbeidentifiedandmitigated.’ThislanguagesuggestsanintentionbyUNDPtomovekeyriskidentificationandmitigationprocessestotheprojectimplementationstage–afterkeydecisionshavealreadybeenmade.

55. Similarly,whilethesummaryacknowledgesgenderconcernsandnotes‘Theprojectteamhas

ascertainedtheviews,concernsandinterestsofwomen,pooranddisadvantagedgroups…’itdoesnotsummarizetheseviews,concerns,andinterests,norindicatewhetherand/orhowtheyshouldbeexploredinadditionalreviews.Mentionismadeofarapidgenderimpactassessment,butthisassessmentisnotobviouslyinorattachedtotheprojectdocument.

56. Thebriefdescriptionoflandtenureissuesacknowledgesmanyissuesacknowledgedinthechecklist,

includingpossibleimpactstoindigenouspeoplesandvulnerablegroups,culturaltraditions,andabilitiestouseandaccessnaturalresources,aswellasseveralnotacknowledged,includingimpactstolandtenureandtraditionalculturalownershippatterns.However,thedescriptiondoesnotindicatewhere,how,andtowhomlandtenureimpactswilloccur,andinformationprovidedappearstobecontradictory.Forexample,whilethesummarynotesinoneinstancethataccessandrightsandlandusepatternwillbealteredbytheproject(notedabove),itindicates,aswell,‘TheprojectwillthroughtheHRSDS,amulti-sectoralcollaborativecoordinationmechanism,ensurethatlanduseplanningandpermittingdecisionstakenareacceptabletoallandimportantlythattheypreservethesecurityofaccess/userightsoflocalcommunities.’Andthen,‘Whereitisnecessarytohaltthoserightsincriticalareas,theprojectwillidentifyalternativeareasoralternativesandpromotethemincloseconsultationwithcommunities.’Thesummarydoesnotdescribeanyadditionalrevieworassessmentpriortoprojectapproval,despitethepotentialgravityofimpactsdescribed.

57. Finally,itisnotclearwhyCategory3awaschoseninsteadof3b.Category3aincludes‘impactsand

risksthatarelimitedinscaleandcanbeidentifiedwithareasonabledegreeofcertaintyandcanoftenbehandledthroughapplicationofstandardbestpracticebutrequiresomeminimalortargetedfurtherreviewandassessmenttoidentifyandevaluatewhetherthereisaneedforafullenvironmentalandsocialassessment(inwhichcasetheprojectwouldmovetoCategory3b).‘

15

58. UNDP’sGuidanceprovidestenstepsfordeterminingwhetherthecategoryshouldbe3aor3b.Notallstepsappeartohavebeentakenforthisproject.Step1.Isto‘IdentifyifPotentialEnvironmentalandSocialImpactsCanbeReadilyAddressedthroughMinorModificationstoProject’andStep2.Isto‘DetermineNeedforAdditionalScopingandAssessment’andfurtherindicatesthefollowing‘Determineifthekeyenvironmentalandsocialissuesrelatingtotheproposedprojecthavebeenadequatelyidentifiedandaddressedandtheprojectrevisedaccordingly.Forprojectswheretherearepotentiallysignificantimpacts,orwherethesemaybecontroversialinnature,orwherethereremainsdebateaboutwhetherenvironmentalandsocialimpactshavebeenadequatelyaddressed,thenfurtherscopingandassessmentwillbeneeded.’

59. ‘Ifpotentialenvironmentalandsocialimpactsareeasilyaddressedthroughtheapplicationofbest

managementpracticesandminoradjustmentstotheProjectDocument,thentheprojectfallswithinCategory3aandnoadditionalreviewisrequired.IffurtherreviewisnecessarythentheprojectfallswithCategory3bandanenvironmentalandsocialassessmentisrequired.’

60. Itisnotdifficulttoimaginethatifalargenumberoflocalcommunitiesfacetheprospectofreduced

accesstonaturalresourcesuponwhichtheydepend,impactsmaybecontroversial,ifnotsignificant,andlikelytoleadtodebateaboutwhetherimpactshavebeenadequatelyaddressed.Itseemsclearthatsuchimpactslikelycannotbeeasilyaddressedthroughapplicationofbestmanagementpracticesandminoradjustmentstotheprojectdocument.AllofthissuggeststhemostappropriateCategorywouldhavebeen3b,whichwouldhaverequiredafullassessmentandidentificationofwaystoprevent,minimize,mitigateorcompensateforadverseconsequencesandenhancingpositiveones.

61. OtherrelevantstepsnotclearlymetincludeStep4.,whichisoneofthemostimportantpartsofa

screeningandassessmentprocess–identifyingpotentialalternatives.TheSummaryprovidesnoindicationthatalternativesweredevelopedandconsidered.Step6.,identifyenvironmentalandsocialimpacts,is,asmentionedearlier,lacking–specificimpactstocommunitiesbeforemitigationmeasureswerenotclearlyconsidered.Step7.–preliminarilyidentifypotentiallyapplicableenvironmentalandsocialmitigation,monitoringandcapacitydevelopmentmeasurestobeincludedintheenvironmentalandsocialmanagementplan,wouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutanassessmentofrisks.Step8.istoidentifythetypesofassessment–includingagenderassessment.Documentsmakereferencetosuchanassessment,butitisnotclearlyintheprojectdocument.Step10istodevelopastakeholderengagementplan.Asdescribedearlier,theProjectDocumentidentifiesaneedtoengagestakeholdersmorecomprehensively,particularlythroughtheHRSDS.However,thestructureandprocessforaccomplishingthisoutreachremainsunclear.Extensiveengagementtounderstandandaddressconcernsduringprojectdevelopmentdidnotobviouslyoccurbasedonareviewoftheprojectdocumentationandourinterviewswithprojectcomplainantsandstakeholders.

62. ApproachingcategorizationthroughthesestepslikelywouldhavepointedtoCategory3band

preparationofafullassessment.However,evenforCategory3a,givenrisksidentified,additionalreviewandassessmentshouldhavebeenperformed.AsnotedintheGuidance,‘Keyobjectives’tobemetbyareviewandmanagementprocessregardlessofwhetherCategory3aor3bischosen,includethefollowing:

(1) Applyingtheprecautionaryprinciple–ensuretheburdenofprooffallstothosewanting

totakeaction,(2) Ensureenvironmentalandsocialimpactsareidentifiedandaddressed(3) Engagestakeholdersintheprocessofidentifying,reviewingandmanagingimpacts

andrisks

16

(4) Withrespecttoindigenouscommunities,consultationshouldbemutuallyacceptabletoprojectproponentsandtothecommunities,andthereshouldbeevidenceofagreementbetweenthepartiesastotheoutcomeoftheconsultations

(5) Anticipateandavoid,minimizeoroffsetanysignificantadverseimpacts(6) Promotedevelopmentthatisenvironmentalandsociallysustainable(7) Ensureenvironmentalandsocialbenefits,impactsandrisksarefactoredintoproject

designandexecution.

ResultsofScreeningandAssessmentProcess-Issues63. AsnotedintheGuidance,‘Determiningthesignificanceofimpactswillrequirevaryingdegreesof

environmentalandsocialreviewwhich,inturn,willleadtotheidentificationofspecificenvironmentalandsocialmanagementmeasuresthatneedtobeincorporatedintotheproject.’

64. Inexplicably,neithertheresultsofthescreeningnorspecificdetailedmeasurestoaddressidentified

riskstocommunitiesappeartobeincorporatedintotheprojectdocumentorareotherwisepubliclyavailable.Thesectionthatwouldmostobviouslyreflectrisksidentifiedduringscreening,the‘RisksandAssumptions’sectionwithinthe‘Strategy’sectionoftheprojectdocument,isabrief(justoveronepage)descriptionofrisksthatarefocusedentirelyonriskstoprojectsuccess.1Sixoutofsevenoftherisksidentifiedinthefinalprojectdocumentareexactlythesamerisksidentifiedintheearlierprojectdocumentdraft.Oneadditionalrisk–insufficientresources–isincludedinthe2014document.Althoughtheprojectdocumentidentifiestheneedforaplatformtodiscussandaddressconcernswithcommunitiesitdoesnot,forexample,indicatehowrestrictedaccessconcernsmightbeaddressed.

65. Clearly,theprojectdocumentprovidesusefulbaselineinformation,includinginformationrelatedto

‘socio-economic’context.Butspecificidentifiedriskstocommunitiesarenotcoveredwell.

MissingContext66. TheprojectdocumentfailstoprovideafullpictureofthebroadercontextwithinwhichUNDPis

supportingeffortstoadvanceconservationintheWesternGhats.Thismissingcontextincludestherelationshipoftheproposedprojecttopreviousconservationinitiativesaswellastoconflictsrelatedtoland,forests,andothernaturalresourcesintheareatargetedforprotection,particularlytheCardamomHillReserve(CHR)area.Thisvoidininformationcausedsuspicionsthattheproject,asapproved,wasanattempttoquietlyadvanceconservation-relatedrecommendationsandpositionspreviouslypromotedanddisputed.

67. Forexample,inAugust2011,notlongbeforetheprojectwasapproved,the‘ReportoftheWestern

GhatsEcologyExpertPanel’(alsoknownastheGadgilCommitteereportafterpanelChairmanMadhavGadgil),wasissued,withrecommendationsthatincludedrestrictionsonactivitiesinCHR

1Risksidentifiedinclude:Limitedsupportfromproductionsectorduetoapprehensionthattheireconomicinterestswouldbejeopardizedduetoparticipationintheplannedconservationinterventions;Policyamendmentsandregulationsforaddressingbiodiversityconservationinsectorpracticesmanotreceivegovernmentandpoliticalsupport;Localcommunitiesmaynotbewillingtoparticipateintheprojectunlesstheprojectaddressedtheirlivelihoodneeds;Thebenefitsgeneratedbytheprojectmaybeoffsetbytheimpactsofclimatechange;Stakeholdersmayperceivetheprojectasrestrictiveratherthanenablingduetoitsfocusonbiodiversity;Thehistoryofthelandscapeisrepletewitheffortstoestablishrightsoverlandandtheideaofalandscapelevelplanmayappeartobepittedagainstexistingtenurialinterests;Resourcesoftheprojectareinsufficientformeetingtheobjectivesoverthelargeareaofthelandscape

17

andelsewhereintheprojectarea.Theseproposedrestrictionswere(andare)ofconcerntomanylivingintheseareas.Theprojectdocument,inexplicably,failstoindicatehowtheUNDPprojectdoesordoesnotrelatetotheproposedrecommendationsforthesameareas.Intheabsenceofaclearunderstandingofthisrelationship,thoseconcernedaboutrestrictionsbelievedtheUNDPprojectwasadvancingGadgilCommitteerecommendations.Additionally,in2012,39sitesintheWesternGhatswereinscriptedasWorldHeritageNaturalSites,andraisedconcernsamongmany.ThecreationandextensionofthePeriyarTigerReservealsocontributedtoanxietiesforsomefarmers/growers,particularlyinCardamomHills.

68. Similarly,althoughtheprojectdocumentalludestodifferentperceptionsofrightstoland,forests,

andothernaturalresourcesinCHR,notinginparagraph98,‘CardamomHillReserve(CHR)isatenurialenigmawithamultitudeoflandholdingpatterns,oftennebulousandhighlyambiguouslandtenuresystemsandoverlappingjurisdictionsthathaveadverselyaffectedeffectivemanagementofbiodiversity’itfailstoreflectthelongstanding,significantlegaldisputesresultingfromthesedifferentperceptions.TheselegaldisputesincludeacasependingbeforetheIndianSupremeCourt.Intheabsenceofaclearunderstandingofhowand/orwhethertheprojectsupports(ornot)agivenlegalposition,thoseconcernedaboutrestrictionsbelievedtheUNDPprojectdocument(particularlythroughparagraph98)wasanattempttosupportthepositionthatmostofCHRisaforestreserveareacontrolledprimarilybytheForestDepartment.Whentold,forexample,thatAnnexure17didnotincludeanynewprotectedareastatusforCHR,complainantsrespondedthatthiswasbecausetheprojectdocumentassumestheareais–asaforestreservearea-alreadysubjecttocomparableprotections.Theprojectdocumentalsofailstodescribeandnoteevidenceofillegallanduse,particularlyinCHR.Concernsaboutsuchuseappeartobeprojectundercurrents.

Inadequateconsultationandparticipationindecisionsadverselyimpactingcommunities:ConcernsExpressed

69. ThecomplaintandrelateddocumentssubmittedtoSECUindicatethatcomplainantsbelievethey

werenotadequatelyconsultedandprovidedopportunitiestoparticipateindecisionsrelatedtoprojectactivities.Throughin-personmeetingswithlistedcomplainantsandotherstakeholderssupportingthecomplaint,SECUidentifiedthefollowingmorespecifickeyconcernsofcomplainantsrelatingtoconsultationsandparticipationindecision-making:

Inadequatenumberofconsultationswithinadequaterepresentation,information,anddiscussion

70. Complainantsbelievetheprojectdocumentwaspreparedlargelyonthebasisofonlyone

stakeholderworkshopatMunnaron12March2013,andassertthatitwasaworkshoptowhichveryfewkeystakeholderswereinvited.SECUdiscussionswithcomplainantsandotherstakeholdersreflectconcernthattherewasnosystematicapproachtoinvitingPanchayatrepresentatives,registeredgrowers/agriculturalorganizations,andotherkeystakeholders.

Lackofsupport/consentforproject

71. Complainantsindicate‘strongreservations’against,and‘hugeapprehensions’about,theproject.

Theyclaim,specifically,thattheproject‘wasfinalizedwithouttheinvolvement,participation,free,prior,informedconsentofthepeopleoftheprojectarea.’Tensionsbetweenfarmers/growersandtheKeralaForestDepartmentappeartohaveexacerbatedthesefeelings.

Inadequateconsultationandparticipationindecisionsadverselyimpactingcommunities:Findings

72. Throughareviewofdocumentationandin-personmeetingswithstakeholders,SECUmadethe

followingfindings:

18

Inadequateconsultations73. Notallrelevantstakeholderswereinvitedtotheprimaryconsultationmeeting,and,together,the

meetingsdeemed‘consultations’wereinadequateinrepresentation,number,andinformationprovided.

74. Inin-personmeetingswithsixindividualsrepresentingPanchayats(PresidentsfromtheMarayoor,

Munnar,Devikulam,Vattavada,andKanthalloorGramaPanchayathsandthePresidentoftheDevikulamBlockPanchayath),SECUheardthatonlytwoofthethirtyfourPanchayatsintheprojectarea-theMunnarPanchayatandtheEdamalakudyPanchayat-receivedinvitations(asreflectedinPanchayatrecords),andonlythosetwoattendedthe2013Munnarmeeting.Inin-personmeetingswithtwelveindividualsrepresentingfivefarmer(primarilyCardamom)organizationsregisteredwiththegovernment,SECUwastoldthatonlytwoindividualsfromonlyoneofthefiveregisteredorganizations–theCardamomGrowersAssociation–wereinvited.OneoftheinviteeswasfromalocalbranchofthelargerCardamomGrowersAssociation,andheindicatedtoSECUthatheattendedbecausetheassociationwasundertheimpressionthemeetingwasnotsignificantenoughtowarrantattentionfromthelargerassociationandtheattendeewasclosestinproximitytothemeetinglocation.Thisinviteeindicatedthathesensedtheconsultationwasprimarilytodiscussfundsavailabletofarmersforpursuingapproaches,suchasorganicfarming,toprotectbiodiversityinthearea.Thisinviteeindicatedthathedidnotreceiveanywrittendocumentsdescribingtheprojectpriortoorduringthemeeting.SECUwastoldthatmaterialsavailableatthemeetingwereinEnglish,andnotinthelocalvernacularlanguage.SECUhasseenmaterialsonlyinEnglish,includingthepowerpointpresentationfromthe2013Munnarmeeting.SECUwastoldthereisnorecordofinvitationtotheSpicesBoard(aboardorganizedandrecognizedbythecentralgovernment).Thesign-insheetforthemeetingappearstoreflectthatanindividualfromtheSpiceGrowersAssociationattendedthe2013meetinginMunnar.

75. UNDPstaffprovidedalistofindividualstowhomtheysaidinvitationsweresent.Thedocumentlists

30PanchayatPresidents,butdoesnotprovidecontactinformationfortheseindividuals.Itlists63additionalindividuals/entities,butwithcontactinformationforonly14ofthese.Thesign-insheetforthemeetingindicatesthat144peopleattended.Complainantsclaimedthat60were‘forestwatchers,driversandKFDofficials.’Theyalsoexpressedconcernthatnumbersonthesign-insheetwerechangedafterpeoplesigned.Theynote,morespecifically,thatthenumber1,positionednexttothePresidentoftheMunnarGramaPanchayath,wascrossedoutandchangedto13,toreflect12peoplesignedinpriortotheMunnarGramaPanchayath.Thiswasperceivedasabreachinprotocol,a‘fabrication’andanoffense;thattheGramaPanchayathshouldhavebeenretainedasthefirstsignatoryandadministerofthemeeting.

76. UNDPstaffalsodescribedeffortstoensurerobustconsultations,notinginwrittendocuments,

‘FortyfieldvisitsweremadetocovervarioussectorssuchastheProtectedAreas,highvaluebiodiversityareas,tribalsettlement(Edamalakkudyinparticular),Human-wildlifeconflictareaslikeChinnakanal(Anayirangal)andMarayur,teaplantations,cardamomplantations,reedbreaks,teaplantationsandothercomponentsofthelandscape.Thefocuswasonassessingthestatusofbiodiversitymanagementpracticesinthelandscapeandunderstandingthelevelofexistingandemergingthreats.FruitfuldiscussionswerealsoheldwithindividualslikeStatePlanningBoardmember(C.P.John),MemberoflegislativeassemblyDevikulam(S.Rajendran),ViceChancellorMahatmaGandhiUniversity(Dr.RajanGurukkal,prominentSocialScientist),ChairmanKeralaStateElectricityBoard(T.M.Manoharan),P.Balan(DirectorKeralaInstituteofLocalAdministration),DirectorRubberResearchInstitute(Dr.JamesJacob),Dr.M.Murugan(Cardamomscientist),Dr.KTRammohan(SocialScientist),M.Balan(TourismExpert),Dr.EugenePandala(Architect),P.Venugopal(prominentjournalistfromtheregion),forestofficers,districtcollector,otherdepartmentofficials,panchayatfunctionaries,teamanagers,cardamomfarmers,scientists,tribal,eco-restorationexperts,politicalworkers,NGOs,resortowners,touroperators,taxidrivers,NGIs,

19

professors,academicsetc.Consultationswerealsoconductedwithvariousstakeholdersexplainingthebasicobjectivesoftheprojecttothem.Thedetailsoftheconsultationsarebrieflymentionedbelow.’

77. Theyalsoprovidedlistsofadditionalmeetingsheldpriortothe2013meetinginMunnar,including

twomeetingswithcardamomfarmers,twomeetingswithtea-estatemanagers,atwo-daymeetingwithtribalcommunitiesinthetribalpanchayatofEdamalakudy,ameetingwithscientists,twomeetingswithforestofficers,andonewiththetourismindustry.

78. Nonetheless,documentationofthemeetingswiththeprimarycomplainants-cardamomfarmers-

inMunnaron21and22July2012andatVandanmeduon14February2013,including‘Annexure-7:DetailsoftheconsultationswithCardamomsectorrepresentatives’donotclearlyreflectadiscussionoftheproject.Instead,thefocusappearedtobeon‘thecurrentecologicalsituationincardamomareas’andresponsestothissituation.Nineteenpeople,includingconsultants,attendedthethreemeetings.Onlyonepersonappearedtorepresentagrowersassociation,theSpicesGrowersAssociation.Minutesfromthemeetingpreparedbyoneattendeewerelabeled‘CardamomForestsforFarmers’Security’andtheworkshopwasdescribedas‘acollectiveeffortbytheForestDepartmentandvariousstakeholders…forpromotingmoresustainablemethodsofcardamomcultivationbyenhancingmoistureretentioncapacity,soilregeneration,integratedpestmanagement,biodiversityconservationandincreasedproductivitythroughnewfarmingtechniques.’

79. TheIndiangovernmentclearlyhasarightandanobligationtoprotectpublicinterestconcerns,

includingprotectingbiodiversityinthepublicinterest.Whensuchactionsmightimpingeupontherightsofindividuals-includingtheirrightstopropertyandaccesstonaturalresourcesuponwhichtheydepend-theseactionsmustoccurthroughatransparentparticipatoryprocessthatfairlybalancesconcernsandensuresduecompensationforimpacts.Complainantsbelievedecisionsimpactingtheirrightshavealreadybeenmadeoutsideofsuchaprocess.Althoughitisnotclearifdecisionsimpactingrightshaveactuallyalreadybeenmade,itseemsclearthepreviousconsultationprocesswasinadequate,andtheproposedprocessforfuturedecisionsisnotadequatelyexplainedorwillobviouslyprotectrights.

VI. AdvancingCompliancewithPolicies:Advice

Advice1:TheProjectDocument

1. Performasubstantiverevisiontotheprojectdocumenttomorespecificallydescribepossible

locationsofprotectedareasandhighvaluebiodiversityareas.

2. Clarifytherelationshipoftheproposedprojecttopreviousconservationinitiativesaswellastoconflictsrelatedtoland,forests,andothernaturalresourcesintheareatargetedforprotection,particularlytheCardamomHillReserve(CHR)area.

3. Maketheprojectdocumentavailableinatleasttheprimarylocallanguage,Malayalam,inaddition

toEnglish,andwritteninmoreeasilyunderstandableterms.Thetechnicalnatureofthedocument,anditsavailabilityonlyinEnglish,haveimpededtheunderstandingofhowindividualsandlocalcommunitiesmightbeinvolvedinthedecision-makingprocesses.

4. Toavoidormitigatedisagreementrelatedtoprojectdocumentinformation,adequatelydocument

statements,withnotedevidencetosupportassertionsofimpacts,e.g.,impactsrelatedtousebycardamomfarmersofnewvarietiesofplantsthatrequirereducedshade.

20

Advice2:ScreeningandAssessment5. Rescreenthedocument,withattentiontoriskstocommunitiesandtheenvironment.Importantly,

riskstobeidentifiedmustbethoseposedpriortoplannedmitigationmeasures;theideaisthatmitigationmeasuresmayormaynoteffectivelyaddressidentifiedrisks,andasaresult,relyingonassumptionsthatmeasureswillbeeffectiveisnotaprudentcourseofaction.Thisscreeningshouldinvolvelocalcommunitieslikelytobeimpactedand/orbenefitfromtheproject.

6. Iftheprojectremainsfocusedoncreatinganewprotectedareasystemandstrengtheningbiodiversityprotectioninhighvaluebiodiversityareasoccupiedbyindividuals,performamorerobustassessment.Asnotedearlier,theprojectdocumentappearstosupportamorerobustassessmentofimpactsafterprojectapproval–likelybecausefundswerenotavailableforextensiveconsultationsandassessmentpriortoprojectapproval.

Advice3:Consultationswithand/orengagementofstakeholders

7. Basedonthemorespecificandbetterdescribedprotectedareasandhighvaluebiodiversityareas,

identify,notify,andinitiateconsultationswithindividualsandcommunitiespotentiallyimpactedbypossiblerestrictions,particularlythroughlocalself-governmentorganizations–astrongrecommendationbymoststakeholdersinterviewed.

8. Thesestakeholders,includingfarmers,conservationistsandothers,suggestedthataprocessthat

beginswiththeKudumbasreeandlocalself-governments–particularlythevariouslevelsofPanchayats–wouldbeamoreeffectiveandsustainableapproachtoidentifyingandimplementingconservation-friendlydevelopmentpracticesthananapproachthatbeginsfromahigh-levelplatformthathasnotyetbeencreatedanddoesnotyethaveamandateformakingdecisions.OneintervieweesuggestedthatmeetingswiththeKudumbasreeandvariouslevelsofthePanchayatswouldnumberinthetwenties.

9. OnerepeatedsuggestionwastoallowtheStateBiodiversityBoardtotakealeadroleintheprocess

–generally,itappearsthattheseboardshaveabettersenseofon-the-groundconservationanddevelopmentneeds,abettersenseoflocalpolitics,and,toatleastsomeextent,betterrelationswithlocalindividualsandcommunitiesthantheKeralaForestDepartment.

10. Inthefuture,toensuremeaningfulstakeholderengagementattheearlydesignphase,UNDP

could/shouldtakeastagedapproachtostakeholderengagement–onethatsecuresadequatefundsfortheidentificationofstakeholdersandmeaningfulengagementwiththembeforetheprojectisapproved(inthisinstance,thiswouldhavebeenduringtheProjectPreparationGrantstage).Additionalengagementswillbenecessarypostapproval,butalmostallcommunityengagementscannotoccurafterkeydecisionsthatmayimpactcommunitieshavebeenmade

21

ListofInterviewees

- UNDPIndiaProjectStaffandSeniorManagemento YuriAfanasiev,ResidentRepresentativeandResidentCoordinatoro JacoCilliers,CountryDirectoro MarinaWalter,DeputyCountryDirectoro RuchiPant,ProgrammeAnalysto GPadmanabhan,EmergencyAnalyst

- MinistryofEnvironment,Forests&ClimateChange,GovernmentofIndiao Dr.S.K.Khanduri,InspectorGeneralofForests

- Adv.JoiceGeorge,MemberofParliament- Mr.Easa,FormerDirector,KeralaForestResearchInstitute- ForestHeadquarters,StateofKerala

o G.Harikumar,PrincipalChiefConservateurofForestso Dr.Mallick,ChiefConservateurofForestso OtherForestHeadquartersindividuals

- FormerUNDPProjectConsultantso PramodKrishnano Dr.G.Christophero JamesZacharias

- ShriS.M.Vijayanand,ChiefSecretary,StateofKerala- Shri.P.MaraPandiyan,AdditionalChiefSecretary,DepartmentofForestandWildlife,Stateof

Kerala- KenanDevanHillsPlantationsCompany

o JojoThakurta,GeneralManagero MohanVarghese,GeneralManager

- MunnarEnvironmentandWildlifeSociety(MEWS)o Mr.Mohano Mr.SanjinGeorge

- ComplainantsandOtherStakeholderso Adv.JoiceGeorge,MemberofParliamento Adv.JaganMohanm,GeneralSecretary,SpiceGrowersAssociationo 10individualsrepresentingcardamomandspicegrowers

§ G.SureshKumar,KeralaCardamomGrowersAssociation§ PrasanthKoshy,CardamomGrowersAssociation§ P.G.Basu,CardamomGrowersAssociation§ SajiVaskey,CardamomGrowersAssociation§ T.K.S.MuttayaKumar,KeralaCardamomGrowersAssociation§ Rtn.A.Ayyappan,KeralaCardamomGrowersAssociation§ N.J.Joseph,HighRangeSpicePlantersAssociation§ P.L.Matthew,CardamomGrowersAssociation§ SreekumarChillapan,SpiceGrowersAssociation§ S.Teevarnandar,ASFAnalkkara

o 6Panchayats§ ASurandaramrepresentingDeviKulamBlockPanchayat§ JohanThomas,MarayoorGramaPanchayat§ A.Korappowang,MunnarGramaPanchayat§ M.Crovindasamy,DevikulamGramaPanchayat§ Kemthallacy,RanniGramaPanchayat§ R.Rameraj,VattavadaGramaPanchayat

o 6individualsrepresentingteaandotherfarmers§ Rev.Dr.SebastianKochupurackel§ SanjayUpman

22

§ MickyFrancis§ JainseN.Y.§ K.R.Vinod§ G.K.Mohanan

- Adv.HarishVasdudevan,EnvironmentalistandLawyer